United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Pacific Northwest 

Region

March 2014

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Eden Ridge Timber Sales

Powers Ranger District

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

Coos County, Oregon

Information Contact:

Wesley H. Crum, Forester

42861 Highway 242

Powers, OR 97466

Phone (541) 439-6200
VICINITY MAPS

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, 

age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases 

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to 

USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

OREGON

CALIFORNIA

Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest

18

07

06

31

28

30

11

18

19

27

04

12

01

13

05

19

34

16

27

17

31

08

22

28

15

24

32

23

25

13

09

29

22

16

34

24

14

26

03

21

29

35

36

02

33 35

23

24 20

26

26

14

23

21

36

25

20

30

10

33 35

36

11

25

36 32

13

25

17

12

02

14

01

23

11 12

26

35

01

31

02

30

19

18

07

06

07

06

15

10

22

27

34

Ashland

§ ̈¦5

T.39S.

T.40S.

R.1W. R.1E.

Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest

Klamath

National

Forest

Mt. Ashland Ski Area

The U.S. Depart ment of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discimination

in all its programs and activities on the base of race, color, national

orgin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation,

or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication

of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence 

Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964

(voice and TDD). USDA is an equal oppotunity provider and employer.

Printed on recycled paper
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

EDEN RIDGE TIMBER SALES

Powers Ranger District

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

Coos County, Oregon

March 2014

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

Responsible Official: Rob MacWhorter

Forest Supervisor

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

For Further Information Jessie Berner, District Ranger or Wes Crum, Project Lead

Contact: Powers Ranger District

42861 Highway 242

Powers, OR 97466-9700

Phone: (541) 439-6200

Abstract:

The Powers Ranger District of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest is proposing variable density thinning and other silvicultural treatments 

designed to control stocking and maintain or improve overall forest health and resiliency within the Eden Ridge Planning Area. Stand inventory 

records and walk-thru examinations have identified thousands of acres of regenerated conifer stands within the Eden Ridge Planning Area that 

were initiated by natural or artificial regeneration following clear-cut timber harvest in the late 1930s through 1940s. The Eden Ridge Planning Area 

includes approximately 6,516 acres and is located approximately 4 air miles southeast of the city of Powers, Oregon at the closest point, with a 

legal description of: Township 31 South, Range 10 West, Sections 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 29 and 30; and Township 31 South, Range 11 

West, Sections 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27; Willamette Meridian; Coos County, Oregon. Elevations range from 2,080 to 3,540 feet. 

The Eden Ridge Planning Area has a unique history within Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest lands. Originally included in the C.A. Smith 

Lumber and Manufacturing Company holdings, the Eden Ridge area played a role in the extensive logging history and economic development of 

Coos Bay and the surrounding county. This isolated piece was a part of the extensive logging history of the Coos Bay and southwest Oregon 

region which shipped lumber to San Francisco and beyond in the 1920s and 1930s. By the late 19th century, numerous small rail road lines, many 

with wooden rails, had been constructed to assist in transporting the timber and coal to the sea port at Coos Bay. Camps moved with the 

operations of logging and by 1936, a second camp at Doe Swamp (within the Planning Area) was in operation with a capacity of 400 men. This 

camp was run until 1941. As the logging operations drew to a close, much of the rail lines were removed and salvaged, but this Planning Area still 

shows the remains of the rail lines, camps and skid trails from this period of logging and aerial photographs taken in 1943 clearly show the effects of 

this logging activity. 

During the Depression, many northwest timber owners would abandon cutover lands to reduce their tax burden. Instead of abandoning their lands 

to the county, in 1933 the Coos Bay Lumber Company proposed to convey their lands to the Forest Service. In return the Forest would extend their 

boundaries, and provide fire protection, to the lumber company lands. This agreement was made into Public Law 131 passed by Congress 

withdrawing the entirety of T31S R10 and 11W into the Siskiyou National Forest on June 10, 1935. The lands within the current Eden Ridge 

Planning Area were relinquished to the Siskiyou National Forest between 1938 and 1941.

The Powers Ranger District proposes timber harvest (variable density thinning) and other connected activities and actions on approximately 3,314 

acres of the highest priority second growth candidate sands within the Planning Area regenerated from timber harvest associated with historical 

railroad clear-cut logging. Currently, dense tree stocking conditions have developed in many stands as a result of stand growth leading to 

increased inter-tree competition for site resources essential for tree health, vigor, growth and development. Limited availability of site resources 

within these dense stands is resulting in environmentally stressed trees and vegetation. Additionally, there are two forest pathogens; Port-OrfordCedar root disease (Phytophthora lateralis) and laminated root rot (Phellinus weirii) affecting forest health in small portions of the Planning Area. 

Management records (that were found) show assessments of stocking/planting needs during WWII, or from 1939 to 1942. The stands that have 

been examined as well as the sampling of tree ages indicate that the trees are currently around 60 to 75 years old.

The overall Purpose of this project is to implement direction from the 1989 Land and Resource Management Plan for the Siskiyou National Forest, 

as amended. The Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project would occur within two Land Allocations; Matrix and Riparian Reserve.

The majority of the Eden Ridge Timber Sales proposal is on lands allocated to Matrix which emphasizes obtaining a full yield of timber within the 

capability of the land. Most scheduled timber harvest and other silvicultural activities would be conducted in that portion of the Matrix with suitable 

forest lands (NW Forest Plan, page C-39). Specifically for the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project, Needs within Matrix include: 
Improvement of Overall Forest Vigor and Resiliency – There is a need for tree stocking level control that would reduce stand densities through 

intermediate harvest thinning treatments to sustain or increase tree growth and improve forest vigor and resiliency. Density management would 

release remaining trees from inter-tree competition for sunlight, water and soil nutrients when compared to untreated areas. Minor portions of the 

Planning Area infected with root diseases would be managed to harvest trees predisposed to pathogen infection and retain or plant resistant tree 

species to improve forest health.

Older legacy (remnant) trees, minor conifer tree species (in portions of stands uninfected with root disease), hardwoods, existing snags and coarse 

woody material would be retained where feasible to maintain or improve forest diversity. The desired condition is a sustainable forest resilient to 

drought, wind, insects, disease, fire and other natural disturbances. 

Contribution of Commercial Timber to the Probable Sale Quantity – Proposed candidate stands are primarily allocated to Matrix and contribute 

to the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ). PSQ is the estimated output of commercial timber and other 

commodities assigned to the Forest under the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan.

For the Eden Ridge Planning Area within Riparian Reserve, here is an initial need to restore (improve) riparian conditions for late-successional 

forest habitat, lost by historical clear-cut logging. Specifically for the Eden Ridge Timber Sales project, Needs within Riparian Reserve include: 

Maintain and Restore Riparian Reserves - Meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives – There is a need to accelerate the development 

of late-successional stand conditions, such as older forest stand characteristics, increase conifer growth rates and provide for larger remnant 

conifers and hardwoods. There is a need to treat vegetation within the Riparian Reserves to meet the intent of Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

Objectives and lead to improved conditions. Treatments would move the riparian structure to trend toward the natural range of variability in the long 

term.

Many riparian areas are currently dominated by smaller diameter Douglas-fir and some hardwoods. Most are lacking adequate amounts of large 

wood material, downed logs, and large tree structure. Like treatment in the uplands, thinning treatments of these areas would reduce competition 

on the retained (residual) trees for light, nutrients, water and growing space. These residual trees would develop larger canopies, display better 

vigor and put on diameter growth faster than if left untreated.

The Purpose of this action is to respond to the stated Needs. In enacting treatments to meet the above stated needs, the overall project and/or its 

activities was designed to minimize soil impacts (erosion, compaction and/or displacement); minimize damage to residual trees during treatment; 

reduce the risk of effects from insect and disease infestations; minimize or reduce the potential for high severity, stand replacement wildfires; 

maintain and restore (improve) aquatic conditions in terms of attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives; minimize adverse effects, 

including cumulative effects, on all other resources; provide wood products for local and regional markets (including firewood); and be an 

operational and economically sustainable project for this and future entries.

The Significant Issues studied in the Final EIS include: Hydrologic Conditions; Water Quality; Cumulative Watershed Effects; Soils, Geology and 

Site Productivity; and Economics. These Significant Issues serve as the basis for analyzing and comparing alternatives. While the Final EIS 

focuses on the Significant Issues, all issues identified through scoping, including comments received on the Draft EIS during a 45-day Comment 

Period, are considered and documented in the various resource analyses. 

There are four alternatives considered in detail in the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Final EIS. These include Alternative 1 (No-Action), Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action), Alternative 3, and Alternative 4. Alternative 1 is the No-Action alternative. It represents the current condition and is the basis for 

comparison of effects from implementation of the three Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3 and 4). Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, is 

designed to address and maximize attainment of the Purpose and Need. Alternative 2 also represents the maximum extent of proposed treatments 

and connected actions (e.g., harvest systems and roads). Connected actions include approximately 10.8 miles of new system road construction, 

approximately 12 miles of reconstruction and/or maintenance of existing system roads, and use of approximately 31 miles of existing system roads. 

Under the Proposed Action, harvest logging systems associated with commercial timber harvest are anticipated to use a combination of groundbased or skyline operations depending on soil, slope and hydrological concerns. It is estimated the Proposed Action could produce up to 53 million 

board feet of timber from the 3,314 acres being considered, from multiple timber sales over approximately five years. 

Alternative 3 is similar to and is based on the Proposed Action, but differs from with modifications that include only “high-moderate benefit/low risk” 

new roads. In relation to Alternative 2, this modification would reduce the treated area on some units resulting in a change in configuration, or in 

some cases, units would be combined or dropped. This alternative proposes helicopter logging systems, based on the change in access for 

conventional systems. Alternative 4 is based on the Proposed Action, but differs with modifications that include only the use (with some 

reconstruction and maintenance) of existing roads for treatment access (no new roads). This alternative also excludes some of the higher risk 

treatments within Riparian Reserves (primarily those associated with perennial streams). This alternative also proposes helicopter logging systems, 

based on the change in access for conventional systems.

NEPA requires that the EIS identify the agency’s preferred alternative or alternatives, if more than one exists. Under the Final EIS, the Forest 

Supervisor of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest has identified the Preferred Alternative to be some form of action, likely Alternative 2, with 

retention of all silvicultural treatment elements and most of the connected actions. Modifications are likely, based on public and other agencies 

comments, as well as the Interdisciplinary Team’s recommendations regarding roads located in sensitive areas, primarily associated with the Coal 

Creek sub-watershed. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales S - 1

Final EIS SUMMARY

SUMMARY

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

EDEN RIDGE TIMBER SALES

Powers Ranger District

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

Coos County, Oregon

March 2014

This Summary is intended as a brief overview of the site-specific analysis documented in a Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS). The purpose of the FEIS is to analyze and disclose the environmental effects associated with a Proposed Action and 

alternatives that would enact variable density thinning and other silvicultural treatments designed to control stocking and maintain or 

improve overall forest health and resiliency within the Eden Ridge Planning Area. This Summary does not present the depth of 

analysis contained within the complete text of the FEIS; please consult the complete text for further detailed information1.

INTRODUCTION

The Powers Ranger District of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest is proposing variable density thinning and other silvicultural 

treatments designed to control stocking and maintain or improve overall forest health and resiliency within the Eden Ridge Planning 

Area. Stand inventory records and walk-thru examinations have identified thousands of acres of regenerated conifer stands within 

the Eden Ridge Planning Area that were initiated by natural or artificial regeneration following clear-cut timber harvest in the late 

1930s through 1940s. The Eden Ridge Planning Area includes approximately 6,516 acres and is located approximately 4 air miles 

southeast of the city of Powers, Oregon at the closest point, with a legal description of: Township 31 South, Range 10 West, 

Sections 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 29 and 30; and Township 31 South, Range 11 West, Sections 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27; 

Willamette Meridian; Coos County, Oregon. Elevations range from 2,080 to 3,540 feet. 

The Eden Ridge area has a unique history within the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest lands. This isolated piece was a part of 

the extensive logging history of the Coos Bay and southwest Oregon region which shipped lumber to San Francisco and beyond in

the 1920s and 1930s. The tie to San Francisco drove the economic development of Coos Bay and the surrounding country by 

providing a market for the coal and timber of the area, as well as money to invest in developing the infrastructure to extract those 

resources. Isolated by the steep rugged coastal range, by the late 19th century, numerous small rail road lines, many with wooden 

rails, had been constructed to assist in transporting the timber and coal to the sea port at Coos Bay. The camps moved with the 

operations of logging and by 1936, a second camp at Doe Swamp (within the Planning Area) was in operation with a capacity of 400 

men. This camp was run until 1941. As the logging operations drew to a close, much of the rail lines were removed and salvaged, 

but this Planning Area still shows the remains of the rail lines, camps and skid trails from this period of logging and aerial 

photographs taken in 1943 clearly show the effects of this logging activity. 

During the Depression, many northwest timber owners would abandon cutover lands to reduce their tax burden. Instead of 

abandoning their lands to the county, in 1933 the Coos Bay Lumber Company proposed to convey their lands to the Forest Service. 

In return the Forest would extend their boundaries, and provide fire protection, to the lumber company lands. This agreement was 

made into Public Law 131 passed by Congress withdrawing the entirety of T31S R10 and 11W into the Siskiyou National Forest on

June 10, 1935. The lands within the current Eden Ridge Planning Area were relinquished to the Siskiyou National Forest between 

1938 and 1941.

 

1

 The format for this Summary is adapted from “Eight NEPA Questions” (8 questions any EA or EIS should readily answer), developed by Owen L. 

Schmidt, Attorney, formerly with USDA, OGC Portland OR.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales S - 2

Final EIS SUMMARY

WHY IS THE ACTION BEING PROPOSED?

The overall Purpose of this project is to implement direction from the 1989 Land and Resource Management Plan for the Siskiyou 

National Forest, as amended. The Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project would occur within two Land Allocations; Matrix and Riparian 

Reserve. The majority of the Eden Ridge Timber Sales proposal is on lands allocated to Matrix which emphasizes obtaining a full 

yield of timber within the capability of the land. Most scheduled timber harvest and other silvicultural activities would be conducted in 

that portion of the Matrix with suitable forest lands (NW Forest Plan, page C-39). Specifically for the Eden Ridge Timber Sales 

Project, Needs within Matrix include: 

Improvement of Overall Forest Vigor and Resiliency – There is a need for tree stocking level control that would reduce current 

stand densities through intermediate harvest thinning treatments to sustain or increase tree growth and improve forest vigor and 

resiliency. Density management would release remaining trees from inter-tree competition for sunlight, water and soil nutrients when 

compared to untreated areas. Minor portions of the Planning Area infected with root diseases would be managed to harvest trees 

predisposed to pathogen infection and retain or plant resistant tree species to improve forest health.

Older legacy (remnant) trees, minor conifer tree species (in portions of stands uninfected with root disease), hardwoods, existing 

snags and coarse woody material would be retained where feasible to maintain or improve forest diversity. The desired condition is 

a sustainable forest resilient to drought, wind, insects, disease, fire and other natural disturbances. 

Contribution of Commercial Timber to the Probable Sale Quantity – Proposed candidate stands are primarily allocated to Matrix 

and contribute to the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ). PSQ is the estimated output of 

commercial timber and other commodities assigned to the Forest under the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan.

For the Eden Ridge Planning Area within Riparian Reserve, there is an initial need to restore (improve) riparian conditions for latesuccessional forest habitat, lost by historical clear-cut logging. Specifically for the Eden Ridge Timber Sales project, Needs within 

Riparian Reserve include: 

Maintain and Restore Riparian Reserves - Meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives – There is a need to accelerate the 

development of late-successional stand conditions, such as older forest stand characteristics, increase conifer growth rates and 

provide for larger remnant conifers and hardwoods. There is a need to treat vegetation within the Riparian Reserves to meet the 

intent of Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives and lead to improved conditions. Treatments would move the riparian structure to 

trend toward the natural range of variability in the long term.

Many riparian areas are currently dominated by smaller diameter Douglas-fir and some hardwoods. Most are lacking adequate 

amounts of large wood material, downed logs, and large tree structure. Like treatment in the uplands, thinning treatments of these 

areas would reduce competition on the retained (residual) trees for light, nutrients, water and growing space. These residual trees 

would develop larger canopies, display better vigor and put on diameter growth faster than if left untreated. 

The Purpose of this action is to respond to the stated Needs. In enacting treatments to meet the above stated needs, the overall 

project and/or its activities are designed to minimize soil impacts (erosion, compaction and/or displacement); minimize damage to 

residual trees during treatment; reduce the risk of effects from insect and disease infestations; minimize or reduce the potential for 

high severity, stand replacement wildfires; maintain and restore (improve) aquatic conditions in terms of attainment of Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy Objectives; minimize adverse effects, including cumulative effects, on all other resources; provide wood 

products for local and regional markets (including firewood); and be an operational and economically sustainable project for this and 

future entries.

WHAT WOULD IT MEAN TO NOT MEET THE NEED?

To not meet the need is defined by the No Action Alternative. Under this alternative the agency would take no affirmative action (no 

change from current management or direction). The No-Action Alternative is required by Council of Environmental Quality 

regulations (4O CFR 1502.14(d)). The No-Action Alternative forms the basis for a comparison between meeting the project needs 

and not meeting the project needs. This alternative provides benchmark information for understanding changes associated with the 

Proposed Action and expected environmental responses as a result of past management actions. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales S - 3

Final EIS SUMMARY

Within the Matrix, if no action is taken, tree growth rates would continue to decline and natural processes that affect tree vigor and 

changes in stand structure would continue. Tree mortality occurring within known root rot pockets would continue. Many stands are 

currently overstocked; site resources are being fully utilized and tree competition is apparent. Without thinning, dense stands would 

remain at current stocking levels. Overly dense stands result in lower growth rates, smaller individual tree size, or both. High tree 

densities also increase competition which results in stressed conditions decreasing the overall health and vigor of a stand. Stressed 

and overstocked conditions increase the occurrence and impacts of most tree pathogens. No-Action would not promote sustainable, 

cost-efficient timber production within Matrix, (within LRMP Standards and Guidelines) to support current and future economies while 

managing tree stocking levels and species composition to improve forest health and resiliency. Specifically;

 Dense stands would rely on natural succession to control stocking and develop mature forests;

 This alternative would not contribute to a predictable and sustainable level of timber commodities. This alternative would not 

minimize or reduce the potential for high severity, stand replacement wildfires;

 Candidate stands would not be thinned to sustain or improve tree growth and contribute commercial timber commodities to 

the Forest’s assigned Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ);

 Areas infected with forest pathogens would continue to infect susceptible host trees and expand in size decreasing forest 

health (vigor and resiliency) from current conditions; and 

 Existing access and transportation systems would be retained with minimal changes to current conditions (e.g., from road 

maintenance on Forest system roads only).

Stand acres infected with laminated root disease pockets (Phellinus weirii) would expand larger with increasing tree mortality of 

Douglas-fir host trees. This pathogen can live saprophytically in infected dead roots for fifty years or more. Windthrow is also more 

common with laminated root rot than other root pathogens. The exotic pathogen Phythophthora lateralis (PL) is present on Eden 

Ridge and surrounding areas. Dead and dying POC seedlings and saplings, likely attributed to PL infection, are present in roadside 

drainages on surrounding private land. Healthy POC distribution is declining at the landscape-scale since private timber company 

land is being managed for Douglas-fir. Restoration planting of disease resistant POC seedlings in areas less susceptible to PL 

infection (i.e., low risk) would not occur under the No-Action Alternative. 

The No-Action Alternative would not allow conditions to maintain and trend toward restoration of Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

Objectives. Specifically in Riparian Reserves, riparian area functions would not be improved, restoration of riparian conditions for 

aquatic habitat, associated with Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives 1, 8, and 9, lost by historical clear-cut logging, would not 

occur through active management. Vegetative, structural and species diversity, maintenance or improvement of shading capability 

of streams; improvement of large wood retention and large wood recruitment, and suitable amounts of snags and/or replacement 

habitat for dependent species would not be maintained or improved over current conditions.

Dense stand conditions, present in the upland portions of Riparian Reserves, would not receive density management treatments. As 

with Matrix, tree growth rates would continue to decrease along with natural processes that reduce tree vigor. Tree mortality from 

self-thinning typically occurs in the intermediate and suppressed crown classes that would create small diameter snags that are not 

as desirable as larger trees that could be developed through thinning treatments and serve as future large snags, natural or created, 

and down wood for meeting ACS objectives. The No-Action Alternatives would not implement planting resistant POC seedlings, 

Wide Thin Gap and roadside sanitation treatments designed to meet ACS objectives of maintaining and restoring species 

composition, structural diversity and well-distributed populations of native plants.

WHAT ACTION IS PROPOSED?

The Forest Service has a Proposed Action when the agency agrees to move forward with the proposal to authorize, recommend, or 

implement an action (CFR 1508.23). The following is a summary of the Proposed Action. 

The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) is discussed in detail in FEIS Chapter II. The Proposed Action would allow variable density 

thinning treatments designed to control stocking and maintain or improve overall forest vigor and resiliency via timber harvest and 

other connected activities on approximately 3,314 acres in stands that were initiated by natural or artificial regeneration following 

clear-cut timber harvest in the 1920s through 1940s via historical railroad logging. Candidate stands located on suitable forest land 

within the Planning Area are proposed for treatment that are designated as Matrix, with some amount of Riparian Reserve under the 

Land and Resource Management Plan as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan. Approximately seventy-five (75) treatment units 

would be designed for timber harvest with associated harvest systems that would use a combination of ground-based and skyline 

operations depending on soil, slope and hydrological concerns. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales S - 4

Final EIS SUMMARY

Connected actions include approximately 10.8 miles of new system road construction, approximately 12 miles of reconstruction 

and/or maintenance of existing system roads, and use of approximately 31 miles of existing system roads. It is estimated the project 

could produce up to 53 million board feet from the 3,314 acres being considered, from multiple timber sales over an approximate 5-

year period. 

Other functions of the Proposed Action are to establish a framework that the Forest used to initiate the NEPA process, facilitate 

meaningful public comment, and serve as a basis for identification of the issues.

ARE THERE OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT WOULD MEET THE NEED?

There are four alternatives considered in detail in the Eden Ridge Timber Sales FEIS. These include Alternative 1 (No-Action), 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action), Alternative 3 and Alternative 4. Alternative 1 is the No-Action alternative. It represents the current 

condition and is the basis for comparison of effects from implementation of the three Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3 and 4). 

Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, is designed to address and maximize attainment of the Purpose and Need. Alternative 2 also 

represents the maximum extent of proposed treatments and connected actions (e.g., acres, harvest systems and roads). 

The underlying objective of the Proposed Action and the other Actions Alternatives is to maximize attainment of Purpose and Need. 

This is done through density management and other forest health treatments. The primary reason for the differences in the design 

and function of the Action Alternatives (see FEIS Chapter II for details) is in regard to the consequences associated with the 

Significant Issues (primarily hydrology and soils; see FEIS Chapter I). Therefore, the Action Alternatives attempt by design to treat 

as many acres as possible to attain the Purpose and Need, being reduced where the concerns for connected actions of harvest 

systems and access (roads) changes or limits the amount of acres that could be treated.

The following table provides a comparison and summary of the actions associated with the alternatives considered in detail:

Table S-1. Alternative Comparison

Alternative 1

(No-Action)

Alternative 2

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Commercial Treatments

Number of Units 0 75 65 53

Total Acres 0 3,314 3,240 3,058

Matrix Acres 0 2,217 2,187 2,093

Riparian Reserve Acres 0 1,097 1,053 965

Total Est. Volume MMBF 0 53 52 49

Activity Fuels Treatment Acres 0 1,600 1,145 1,300

Predicted Harvest Method

Ground based Acres 0 2,119 1,786 1,441

Skyline Acres 0 1,195 941 457

Helicopter Acres 0 0 513 1,160

Roads

New Classified (system) Road 

Construction Miles 0 10.81 4.45 0.25*

Temporary Road Construction & 

Decommissioning Miles 0 0.29 0.03 0

Classified Road Use Miles 0 31.03 31.03 31.03

Classified Road Use & 

Maintenance Miles 0 5.50 5.50 5.50

Classified Road Use w/ 

Reconstruction Miles 0 6.07 4.09 1.74

Similar and/or Related Actions

Non-Commercial Treatments None 363 Acres 363 Acres 363 Acres

None All Action Alternatives include: snag creation, meadow 

enhancement, stream enhancement, native grass/forb seeding, 

invasive plant treatments and wildlife nest boxes

* Reconstruction along 3 old rail grades includes new road construction where stream crossings replace rail trestle 

bridges
Eden Ridge Timber Sales S - 5

Final EIS SUMMARY

WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES?

This section summarizes environmental effects and consequences linked with implementing the Action Alternatives, considered and 

analyzed in detail. The following discussion and tables portray outcomes for each alternative in regard to the attainment of Purpose 

and Need, Significant Issues, and Other Issues (see FEIS Chapter I). 

Attainment of Purpose and Need

The Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3 and 4), all would have similar attainment of the Purpose and Need; the difference between 

these alternatives is the amount of area treated. Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action) would treat the most acres (3,314). Alternative 

3 would treat slightly less acres (3,240), and Alternative 4 would treat the least acres (3,058).

Accelerating the growth and sustainability of candidate stands through density management and forest health treatments to meet 

LRMP goals for lands allocated to Matrix is the primary objective for Eden Ridge Timber Sales. The primary silvicultural treatment 

objective for Eden Ridge is to control existing dense tree stocking conditions within commercial stands to develop more sustainable, 

full yield timber production on suitable lands while harvesting projected density and disease-related tree mortality in support of the 

Forest’s Probable Sale Quantity. A secondary objective is to treat subordinate amounts of root disease infection to improve forest 

health and sustain or increase tree growth and vigor by retaining or planting non-host tree species. 

The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Standards and Guidelines for Timber Management within Riparian Reserves provide direction 

to: “Apply silvicultural practices for Riparian Reserves to control stocking, reestablish and manage stands, and acquire desired 

vegetation characteristics needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.” (1994 USDI Bureau of Land Management & 

USDA Forest Service, page C-31; TM-1, c.)

Under the Action Alternatives, NWFP direction would be implemented through Eden Ridge Timber Sales treatments, where the 

primary objective in Riparian Reserves is to benefit riparian area functions, including future recruitment of large woody debris into 

streams. This objective ties closely with Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objective (ACSO) 1; Maintain and restore complexity of 

watershed and landscape features, ACSO 8; Maintain and restore riparian plant communities and distribution of coarse woody 

debris, and ACSO 9; Maintain and restore habitat for riparian dependent species. 

Expected Results of Treatments

The majority (over approximately 70%) of the Eden Ridge Timber Sales proposal is on lands allocated to Matrix which emphasizes 

obtaining a full yield of timber within the capability of the land. Most scheduled timber harvest and other silvicultural activities are 

conducted in that portion of the Matrix with suitable forest lands (NW Forest Plan, page C-39). 

 Thinning prescriptions would emphasize variable density thinning to achieve stand growth and stocking objectives. Clumping 

trees, leaving untreated areas (skips), wide spacing around desirable trees (wide thin gaps), and creating openings to treat 

root disease (gaps) would be designed in combination with site-specific silvicultural prescriptions. Retention of minor conifer 

species, hardwood species, unique trees having desirable characteristics (e.g., large branches, etc.) existing snags and down 

wood would also be incorporated. 

 Portions of almost every candidate stand would not be thinned and harvested. Areas within the stands that would not be 

thinned and harvested would be identified on the ground during the implementation process. The majority of the areas not 

treated would be stream buffers in accordance with Riparian Reserve Project Design Criteria, areas of geologic instability, 

inaccessible stands, and those portions of stands where the current health, vigor, and variable spacing of the conifer and 

hardwood vegetation is on a suitable trajectory toward attaining overall forest vigor and resiliency without the need for 

treatment (i. e., not overly dense).

 Post-harvest stand variability may be enhanced through the creation of snags and large woody material, and Port-Orford-cedar 

tree planting. Tree planting in created openings and underneath tree canopies of candidate stands would restore healthy, 

disease-resistant Port-Orford-cedar into the landscape and enhance structural and species diversity over the long term.

Riparian Reserve Outcomes

Field work and subsequent stand exams noted Riparian Reserve buffers overlapping into upland forest types. Modeling of untreated 

upland stands on Eden Ridge projected higher tree mortality, smaller tree diameters and slower basal area growth compared to 

thinning treatments. Thinning is most beneficial in dense young stands less than 80 years old and has the greatest potential 

ecological benefits to accelerate development of older forest structure (Spies et al., 2013). Larger green trees would be available to 

other natural processes (debris torrents, wind storms, etc.) for potential live delivery to the riparian system or as candidate trees for 

snag creation for future achievement of ACS objectives. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales S - 6

Final EIS SUMMARY

Outside the Primary Shade Zone, as specified in Riparian Reserve Project Design Criteria, is where riparian thinning would occur to 

expedite large tree development while maintaining 50% canopy cover as a Riparian Reserve thinning objective (generally a Light to 

Medium intensity thin, 90-225 trees per acre, depending on site-specific conditions). Action Alternatives would better address 

restoring structural diversity goals stated in the ACS objectives and expedite development of late seral conditions that were

historically present in this area and served as recruitment sources for large wood (USDA 1995). 

Riparian Reserve thinning would increase tree growth and lessen the time needed to establish future large wood delivery. Thinning 

would result in a long-term beneficial effect to fish habitat, by promoting the growth of large trees that would provide stream shade 

and large wood that creates complex instream habitats, thereby promoting vigorous fish populations. In the short-term, these 

treatments would remove smaller trees within Riparian Reserves; though, mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the 

risk of effect to the existing stream temperature regime and near-term large woody material recruitment. 

Significant Issues as used in this environmental analysis are those that are used to formulate alternatives or drive alternative 

themes, affect the design of component proposals, prescribe important Mitigation Measures or Project Design Criteria, or describe 

important and variable environmental effects. They are significant because of the extent of their geographic distribution, the duration 

of the effects, or the intensity of interest or resource conflict.

Other Issues, as used in this analysis, differ from Significant Issues in that they are relevant, are used to disclose consequences, 

may affect design of component actions, may prescribe Mitigation Measures or Project Design Criteria, or whose disclosure of 

environmental effects are required by law or policy. Other Issues differ from Significant Issues in that they often describe minor 

and/or non-variable consequences.

The following tables briefly describe the consequences for each of the alternatives, in terms of Significant and Other Issues.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales S - 7

Final EIS SUMMARY

Table S-2. Comparison of Alternatives - Significant Issues

Significant Issue Indicator Alternative 1

(No-Action)

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

1 Hydrologic 

Conditions

Thinning Acres by Subwatershed and 

Percent of Subwatershed Affected

Coal Creek (9,952 acres) 0 / 0 1,760 (18%) 1,615 (16%) 1,428 (14%)

Headwaters SF Coquille (40,233 acres) 0 / 0 585 (1.5%) 637 (1.6%) 642 (1.6%)

Mill Creek (13,935) 0 / 0 33 (<1%) 33 (<1%) 33 (<1%)

Myrtle Creek (20,028 acres) 0 / 0 172 (1%) 172 (1%) 172 (1%)

Lower Rock Creek (25,544 acres) 0 / 0 765 (3%) 783 (3%) 783 (3%)

Road Construction Miles by Subwatershed: 

Permanent System/Temporary

Coal Creek 0 / 0 6.61 0.29 1.87 0.03 0.25 0.0

Headwaters SF Coquille 0 / 0 2.27 0.0 1.31 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mill Creek 0 / 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Myrtle Creek 0 / 0 0.78 0.0 0.54 0.0 0.0 0.0

Lower Rock Creek 0 / 0 1.15 0.0 0.68 0.0 0.0 0.0

Road Density Increase by Subwatershed:

(mi/sq mi)

Existing Road 

Density

Coal Creek 4.19 0.43 0.12 0.00

Headwaters SF Coquille 4.25 0.04 0.02 0.00

Mill Creek 3.94 0.00 0.00 0.00

Myrtle Creek 4.12 0.02 0.02 0.00

Lower Rock Creek 4.68 0.03 0.02 0.00

Permanent System Roads Crossing Riparian 

Reserve (Miles) 0.00 1.58 1.5 0.25

Temporary Roads Crossing Riparian Reserve 

(Miles) 0.00 0.17 0.03 0.00

Percent of Subwatershed Affected by Ground 

Based Yarding

Coal Creek N/A 12 % 9.5 % 6.5 %

Headwaters SF Coquille N/A 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.4 %

Mill Creek N/A <0.1 % <0.1 % <0.1 %

Myrtle Creek N/A 0.3 % 0.2 % 0.2 %

Lower Rock Creek N/A 2.5 % 2.3 % 2.3 %
Eden Ridge Timber Sales S - 8

Final EIS SUMMARY

Significant Issue Indicator Alternative 1

(No-Action)

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

1 Hydrologic 

Conditions 

(continued)

Units (and roads) of Concern for Sediment 

Delivery and Peak Flow N/A

214 acres within Coal 

Creek; Units 301, 302, 

303, 304, 306, 307, 308, 

309, 312, 315, 321, 338; 

Road Q1, Q2, Q3 & Q4

149 acres within Coal 

Creek; Units 301, 302, 

303, 306, 309, 312, 315, 

321, 329; Road Q1, Q2 

& Q3

0 acres; Units 312 & 315 

are Helicopter

Riparian Reserve Harvest by Logging System (Actual anticipated riparian harvest; does not include Primary Shade Zone or skips)

Ground Based (Acres) N/A 407 315 245

Skyline (Acres) N/A 317 258 137

Helicopter (Acres) N/A 0 122 255

Total Riparian Reserve Harvest Acres N/A 724 695 637

Riparian Reserve Harvest Acres –

Coal Creek Only N/A 379 347 290

2 Water Quality

Water Temperature Increase No Change

 All road crossings are located on first and second order streams. These channels are 

only a few feet wide and have small discharges.

 Sun exposure would be 100% blocked as water flows through the culvert. Exposure 

upstream and downstream of the culvert would occur over a few linear feet and would 

be reduced by adjacent forest canopy; this limited exposure is not enough to cause a 

measureable change in water temperature. 

 The largest watershed area above these crossings totals approximately 60 acres. 

Others are 30 acres or less. This presents very little drainage area to collect surface 

water to these crossings. Stream discharge from such small drainage basins is low, 

especially during the summer when ground water levels are lowest.

 Skyline corridors would remove minor amounts of canopy in the Primary Shade Zone 

where the corridor crosses perennial streams. Skyline corridors that cross Riparian 

Reserves are required to be 12 feet or less in width, and no less than 150’ apart, and 

be utilized with full log suspension. Surrounding trees and understory would make 

shade loss resulting from these gaps in the canopy negligible. 

Sediment Production/Increase in Turbidity No Change

 Thinning would leave sufficient forest canopy to prevent large increases in storm 

runoff or snowmelt.

 Minimally disturbed soils and understory vegetation would recover and anchor surface 

soils.

 Thinning activities would occur in areas where streams and runoff amounts are both 

small. Units located along Coal Creek that are exceptions to these conditions have 

site specific mitigating measures designed to prevent or capture activity generated 

sediment.

 No cut buffers in the stream bank protection zone and Primary Shade Zone (50-85 ft.) 

would act as capture and retention areas between stream courses and activitygenerated, localized sediment sources.

 Wet weather conditions would preclude hauling as per design criteria; road-generated 

sediment during wet conditions is the primary source of logging activity-generated 

sediment. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales S - 9

Final EIS SUMMARY

Significant Issues Indicator Alternative 1

(No-Action)

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

3 Cumulative

Watershed Effects

Overall Risk of Adverse Cumulative Effects Current Risk 

Rating (2009)

Headwaters SF Coquille Moderate The Action Alternatives would present no measureable increase in risk for adverse 

cumulative watershed effects in the Headwaters SF Coquille, Mill Creek, Myrtle Creek or 

Lower Rock Creek subwatersheds. This is due to: 

 The minor involvement of these subwatersheds in the Action Alternatives.

 The location of units/roads at or near ridges and watershed divides where 

effects would be minimal.

Mill Creek High

Myrtle Creek High

Lower Rock Creek High

Coal Creek

Risk of adverse 

cumulative 

watershed effects in 

the Coal Creek 

subwatershed is 

currently High since 

the main channel is 

already in a 

degraded condition. 

The addition of the proposed harvest acreage and road construction under the Action 

Alternatives within this degraded subwatershed may contribute to additional risk of adverse 

effects; however, limited stand management could be conducted without increasing risk 

because the impacts would be limited to the site scale. The following conditions would 

allow containment of impacts to the local or unit level (site scale): 

 NFS lands contain hydrologically mature stands with large in-stream and upland 

wood present; this provides vegetative buffers that would counter increased runoff or 

sediment transport.

 NFS lands are located mainly in the uplands where streams are small and 

discharges are low; risk of hydrologic impact from this portion of watershed is low.

 The majority of the proposed units are located thousands of feet away from the main 

channel.

 Proposed thinning is designed to enhance the growth and vigor of the stand by 

removing intermediate and suppressed trees.

 Stream buffers and equipment limitations are designed to eliminate off-site impacts.

Some proposed units are located in areas that have a greater potential for hydrologic 

impacts (see above). Their combined acreage is relatively small; however these units 

would present more risk of measurable impact than the rest of the project. 

4 Soils, Geology & 

Site Productivity

Risk of Slope Failure

Miles of New Classified and Temporary Road 

that Crosses Concern Areas N/A 4.74 0.32 0.0

Soil Productivity

Acres Taken Out of Productivity (Range 

Based on Est. Road Widths) N/A 78 - 104 63 - 84 56 - 74

Long-Term Opportunity For Erosion: Miles of 

System Road (New Construct/Reconstruct) N/A 53.4 45.1 38.3

Detrimental Disturbance (Acres)

Ground-based harvest system (est. 15%) N/A 318 268 216

Skyline harvest system (est. 5%) N/A 60 47 23

Aerial harvest system (est. 2%) N/A 0 10 23

Helicopter Landings N/A 0 18 22

Pile & Burn (est. 2%) N/A 39 30 33

Totals N/A 417 373 317
Eden Ridge Timber Sales S - 10

Final EIS SUMMARY

Significant Issues Indicator Alternative 1

(No-Action)

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

5 Economics

Volume by Logging System (MBF)

Ground Based 0 33,933 28,718 23,170

Skyline 0 19,197 15,102 7,350

Helicopter 0 0 8,208 18,655

Total Yarding Costs (Dollars) 0 $11,925,200 $13,622,788 $15,377,775

Total Roading Costs (Dollars) $62,000 $4,268,291 $3,508,096 $1,616,479

Present Net Value (Dollars) $-62,000 $322,501 $-957,615 $-1,707,714

Benefit Cost Ratio N/A 1.02 0.94 0.90

Table S-3. Comparison of Alternatives - Other Issues

Other Issues Indicator Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

1 Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy

Response to NWFP S&Gs for 

Riparian Reserves (TM-1) N/A

Purpose and Need is based 

on employment of silvicultural 

practices designed to control 

stocking, and acquire desired 

vegetation characteristics. 

This would expedite large tree 

development while 

maintaining 50% canopy 

cover to restore and maintain 

ACS Objectives and expedite 

development of late seral 

conditions that were 

historically present, and serve 

as recruitment sources for 

large wood.

Alternative 3 would treat 

Riparian Reserves in a similar 

manner as Alternative 2, on 

slightly less acres.

Alternative 4 would treat the 

fewest acres of Riparian 

Reserves. Stocking control 

would occur and desired 

vegetation characteristics 

would improve but not within 

untreated areas.

Response to NWFP S&Gs for 

Riparian Reserves (RF 2-7) N/A

Alternative 2 includes some 

new proposed roads within 

Riparian Reserve. Existing 

roads, skid roads and 

landings within Riparian 

Reserves may also be 

utilized if they would not 

deliver sediment to streams. 

Extensive Project Design 

Criteria would minimize 

disruption of hydrologic flow 

paths. This alternative has 

the most new road 

construction and has the 

greatest risk, based on 

location of certain roads.

Alternative 3 includes some 

new proposed roads within 

Riparian Reserve. Existing 

roads, skid roads and 

landings within Riparian 

Reserves may also be utilized 

if they would not deliver 

sediment to streams. 

Extensive Project Design 

Criteria would minimize 

disruption of hydrologic flow 

paths. This alternative has 

less new road construction 

and has reduced risk, based 

on location of proposed 

roads.

Alternative 4 does not include 

new proposed roads within 

Riparian Reserve. Existing 

roads, skid roads and 

landings within Riparian 

Reserves may be utilized if 

they would not deliver 

sediment to streams. 

Extensive Project Design 

Criteria would minimize 

disruption of hydrologic flow 

paths. This alternative has 

the least risk, based on its 

design.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales S - 11

Final EIS SUMMARY

Other Issues Indicator Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Consistency with Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy Objectives N/A

All Action Alternatives would be consistent with the 9 Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

Objectives and would not prevent attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy at the site, 

watershed or landscape scales.

Response to Key Watershed S&G 

(NWFP B-19) South Fork Coquille 5th

Field

No Change

Alternative 2 would result no 

net increase in miles of 

roads within Key Watershed 

in compliance with this S&G 

due to the “road bank” of 

decommissioned road miles.

Alternative 3 has fewer new 

roads and would result in no 

net increase in the miles of 

roads within Key Watershed 

due to the “road bank” of 

decommissioned road miles.

Alternative 4 has no new 

roads and would result no 

change in the miles of roads 

within Key Watershed.

2 Fire/Fuels Change in Fuel Loading and Fire 

Hazard No Change

All Action Alternatives would generate a short-term increase in fuels loading and the 

associated fire hazard within the units as created from activity-generated slash for 

approximately 5 years from date of harvest. Fuels treatment methods would include hand 

piling fuels concentrations, yarding of tops, and piling and burning landing slash. The longterm effect would be a return to natural conditions and improvement of defensible space 

along system roads.

3 Air Quality

Smoke Production N/A

The Action Alternatives could generate as much as 7.3 tons of PM, 5.4 tons of PM10, and 

4.6 tons of PM2.5 per year, well below the thresholds defined in the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. 

Impact on Coos Bay Area or 

Kalmiopsis Wilderness (Class 1 

Airshed)

N/A

Burning would not take place within 38 miles of the Coos Bay area or within 30 miles of the 

Kalmiopsis Wilderness (Class I Area). Burning would not take place during the visibility 

protection period of July 1 to September 15. There are no expected adverse effects to air 

quality in either the Coos Bay area or Class I Area.

4 Botanical Resources

Effects to Threatened or Endangered 

Species N/A There are no populations, nor is there any habitat for any federally listed Threatened or 

Endangered plant or fungi species within the Project Area. (No Effect) 

Effects on FS Sensitive Species: 

Oregon Bensonia No Change

For all Action Alternatives, avoidance of the bensonia populations is proposed so that direct 

and indirect effects are minimized to insignificant. (May impact individuals or habitat, but 

will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing, or cause a loss of viability to the 

population or species)

Effects on FS Sensitive Fungi No Change

Based on existing data and the regional Interagency Special Status and Sensitive Species 

Program (ISSSSP), Sensitive fungi may be present within the Project Areas but according 

to protocol, surveys were deemed impractical. (May impact individuals or habitat of 

Sensitive fungi, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing, or cause a 

loss of viability to any population or species within its range)

5 Invasive Plants Potential for Spread No Change

Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures are developed to avoid or mitigate the 

introduction and/or spread of invasive species; effects would be minimized to insignificant 

for all Action Alternatives.

6 Port-Orford-cedar 

Root Disease

Potential for Spread of 

Phytophthora lateralis No Change

In areas proposed for timber harvest and road building, management practices and 

mitigation measures would be required for all Action Alternatives as described in the POC 

Risk Key assessment (FEIS Appendix B2, Port-Orford-cedar Report), consistent with the 

2004 SEIS analysis and Forest Plan Amendment.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales S - 12

Final EIS SUMMARY

Other Issues Indicator Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

7 Threatened 

Terrestrial Wildlife 

Species and Critical 

Habitat

Effects to Late-successional or OldGrowth Forest or Spotted Owl 

Nesting, Roosting, Foraging Habitat 

(NRF)

No change

There is an estimated 3,300 acres of proposed treatment acres that are best represented 

by the mature (21-32” dbh) forest habitat type, however these “mature” stands do not 

contain large diameter trees, high amounts of canopy cover, and decadence components 

such as broken-topped live trees, mistletoe, cavities, large snags, and fallen trees, and are 

not considered late-successional forest. Further, based on historical records and stand 

examination, these stands are currently less than 80 years old. Any stand with a potential 

suitable habitat (remnant late-successional tree) component would be further assessed and 

if a late successional component is confirmed, that portion of the stand (or the entire stand) 

would be excluded from treatments.

All Action Alternatives would not affect (or reduce) the current condition regarding latesuccessional or old-growth forest, in conformance with Standard and Guideline at 

Northwest Forest Plan C-44.

A primary spotted owl recovery goal of the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011) is to 

conserve older stands that are either occupied or contain high-value spotted owl habitat. 

Stands meeting the definition for Recovery Action 32, as well as suitable Nesting, Roosting, 

Foraging (NRF) habitat within the Planning Area have been excluded from treatments. 

Effects to Spotted Owl or Marbled 

Murrelet Critical Habitat Unit N/A

The Revised 2012 Critical Habitat for the NSO designation is the current statutory 

designation and countermands all other previous designations. There is no Northern 

Spotted Owl Critical Habitat designated within the Eden Ridge Planning/Analysis Area. 

The Planning Area is located outside any murrelet Critical Habitat Unit (CHU). The 

proposed haul route travels through marbled murrelet CHU (within the Analysis Area); 

however, hauling is not expected to have any disturbance impacts beyond those already

occurring from public use of the roads. There would be no effects to murrelet critical 

habitat from Action Alternatives because there is no critical habitat designated within the 

Project Areas; there would be no effects to primary constituent elements of murrelet habitat.

Effects to Spotted Owl Dispersal 

Habitat No Change

The Action Alternatives would commercially treat (variable density thinning) and maintain 

up to 3,314 acres of spotted owl dispersal habitat and non-commercially treat up to 363 

acres. The resultant canopy closure (40-50%) and residual tree structure (the larger tree 

component) would maintain the dispersal function of the treated stands. The reduced 

structural complexity, e.g., loss of some snags and vertical canopy diversity, is a 

degradation of habitat quality for late-successional associated species, but effect on wildlife 

from this degree of change is likely minimal and dispersal habitat is likely to be maintained. 

Over the long term, thinning under the Action Alternative should allow the remaining trees 

to reach a larger diameter and potentially develop larger branches. No snags or down 

woody material are proposed for removal during silvicultural treatments. There is potential 

for some existing snags to be felled (but not removed) as human safety hazards. 

Because of potential for disturbance to spotted owls, the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project 

is considered “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” for northern spotted owl (NLAA).
Eden Ridge Timber Sales S - 13

Final EIS SUMMARY

Effects to Marbled Murrelet No Change

Marbled murrelet habitat would not be removed or degraded by the proposed activities 

under all Action Alternatives. Project Design Criteria would assure that no habitat would be 

removed. Because of the potential for disturbance to nesting marbled murrelets from 

implementation activities to unknown sites, a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” 

determination is made for the marbled murrelet (NLAA).

8 Northwest Forest Plan 

Terrestrial Wildlife 

Species

Survey and Manage No Change

The Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project meets 2006 Pechman Exemption a. because it 

entails no regeneration harvest and entails thinning only in stands less than 80 years old 

(USDI and USDA 2011) and do not require Survey and Manage surveys. The Eden Ridge 

Timber Sales Project applies the Survey and Manage species list in the 2001 ROD.

There are 46 known Del Norte Salamander locations within the proposed units and one 

within a proposed non-commercial unit. All historical locations would be identified and 

given a protection buffer. All Action Alternatives are considered M –may affect some 

individuals or some habitat but effect is minimal.

All Action Alternatives are considered M –may affect some individuals or some habitat but 

effect is minimal for Oregon red tree vole due to effects to potential red tree vole habitat. 

This project will have NI – No Impact to great gray owl because suitable nesting/foraging 

habitat does not occur within or near the Project or Planning Areas.

Other Northwest Forest Plan Species No Change

The 2001 ROD which amended the Northwest Forest Plan contains management 

recommendations for certain cavity nesting birds, Canada lynx, and some bat roost sites. 

The ROD requires additional protection for caves, mines, and abandoned wooden bridges 

and buildings that are used as roost sites by bats (which includes Townsend’s big-eared 

bat, a regionally Sensitive species). The project does not affect caves, mines, wooden 

bridges, or buildings, however a few large snags may be felled with this project (i.e., hazard 

trees). The remaining species were not considered because the Analysis Area is outside of 

their known ranges. Those species are: Canada lynx, white-headed woodpecker, blackbacked woodpecker, flammulated owl, and pygmy nuthatch.

9 Forest Service 

Sensitive Terrestrial 

Wildlife Species & 

Habitats

Effects to Sensitive Species within 

Range of Analysis Area No Change

All Action Alternatives would have “No Impact” for bald eagle, harlequin duck, Lewis’ 

woodpecker, Townsend’s big-eared bat, northwestern pond turtle, foothill yellow-legged 

frog, mardon skipper, and coronis fritillary because although within the species range, 

suitable habitat does not exist or species would not be affected by proposed actions.

Effects to Sensitive Species from 

Project Actions No Change

All Action Alternatives “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of 

viability on the planning area (Siskiyou NF), nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of 

species viability range wide” for the American peregrine falcon due to the potential for 

disturbance to individuals and potential limited adverse effects to prey species from 

treatments; for Pacific fisher because it could result in a reduction of denning, resting and 

foraging habitat; for fringed myotis because there may be some impacts to existing snags 

or trees with cavities; and for Johnson’s hairstreak due to the potential removal of trees with 

mistletoe.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales S - 14

Final EIS SUMMARY

Other Issues Indicator Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

10 Management 

Indicator Species

Effect to MIS Species & Habitats: 1989 

Forest Plan (pages IV-10 and 11) No Change

MIS and habitats include bald eagle (habitat along major rivers), osprey (habitat along large 

rivers), spotted owl (late-successional forest), pileated woodpecker and American marten 

(mature/interior forest), black-tailed deer and Roosevelt elk (early successional forest 

stages, and woodpeckers/cavity nesters (wildlife trees [snags]). Bald eagle is analyzed as 

Sensitive species and spotted owl is analyzed as Threatened species. 

Projects consistent with the NWFP are expected to maintain viability of mature forest and 

other habitats associated with species such as those identified as MIS. The Forest has 

developed the Siskiyou National Forest MIS Forest-Wide Environmental Baseline and 

Species Account (USDA Forest Service, 2012). Please refer to this document for a more 

exhaustive review of habitat use and ecology, distribution of the species, Forest-level 

habitat evaluations, and viability assessments.

For the Action Alternatives, it is unlikely that potential nest trees would be removed or 

impacted. Therefore, no impact to osprey is anticipated.

This project is expected to have minimal impacts to pileated woodpecker and the 

woodpecker group (acorn, black-backed, downy, hairy, Lewis’, and white-headed 

woodpeckers, as well as northern flickers and red-breasted sapsucker). There is the 

potential that an occasional existing snag or tree with cavities may be impacted. 

Remnant trees, snags and down wood suitable for denning & resting would be retained, 

however some may be felled and retained. The project may affect some individuals or

some habitat but effect is minimal for American marten. 

The Action Alternatives may affect some individuals or some habitat but effect is minimal 

for blacktail deer and Roosevelt elk because of loss of thermal cover and adverse effects 

due to potential increased harassment from new and temporary roads. The increase in 

available forage would provide a beneficial effect.

11 Neo-tropical 

Migratory birds

Effects to neo-tropical migratory 

birds/land bird focal species identified 

by Partners in Flight (PIF): 

Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in 

Coniferous Forest of Western Oregon 

and Washington

No Change

Effects to these species from the Action Alternatives are variable depending on the habitat 

associations of the individual species. Impacts to habitat for some species may occur from 

commercial thinning of mature and younger forests, hazard tree felling, landing 

clearing/temporary road construction. However, due to the limited amount of area affected 

by these actiions, relative to the availability of habitats within the watersheds and forest, 

effects to neo-tropical migratory birds is expected to be minimal. 

12 Aquatic Species & 

Habitats

Effects to OC Coho and/or Critical 

Habitat (Essential Fish Habitat) No Change

The indirect and cumulative effects from the Action Alternatives would result in an overall 

non-measureable adverse sediment effect to Oregon Coast (OC) coho salmon and its 

Critical Habitat and OC steelhead on the Powers Ranger District. Thus, a “May Affect, Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect” determination is rendered for OC coho salmon, “No Effect” 

determination to OC coho salmon critical habitat, “Will Not Adversely Affect Essential Fish 

Habitat” for coho salmon or Chinook salmon and “May Impact Individuals or Habitat, But 

Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to 

the Population or Species” for OC steelhead trout due to the non-measureable sediment 

delivery of the hauling and road maintenance activities.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales S - 15

Final EIS SUMMARY

Other Issues Indicator Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Effects to Other Sensitive Aquatic 

Species No Change

The Action Alternative would have a No Impact to Southern DPS green sturgeon, Southern 

DPS Pacific eulachon (or their Critical Habitat), SONCC Chinook salmon, PC chum salmon, 

western ridged mussel, highcap lanx, scale lanx, robust walker, Pacific walker, Haddock’s 

Rhyacophilan caddisfly, or A caddisfly (Namamyia plutonis) because these species are not 

known to occur or have suitable habitat within proximity to any of the proposed activities.

Effects on Recruitment of Large 

Woody Material

(FEIS Chapter III, Section D, 1)

No Change

Under all Action Alternatives, Riparian Reserve thinning would increase tree growth and 

lessen the time needed to establish future large wood delivery. Thinning would result in a 

long-term beneficial effect to aquatic habitats, by promoting the growth of large trees that 

would provide stream shade and large wood that would create complex in-stream habitats. 

In the short-term, these treatments would remove smaller trees within Riparian Reserves; 

however, mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the potential effect on 

short-term LWM recruitment, and eliminate the risk of adverse effect to the existing stream 

temperature regime.

13 Thinning Shock & 

Windthrow

Thinning Shock & Windthrow 

Potential N/A

Under all Action Alternatives, treatments include an overriding objective of leaving the 

larger residual stems within the entire stand; these trees would most likely be the healthiest 

and most wind-firm. Thinning shock and windthrow are not expected to be a substantial 

concern due to consideration for feathering and special treatments along the edges of 

stands, leaving all hardwoods where possible, and thinning to a higher relative density as 

necessary to allow residual trees to become more wind firm.

14 Potential Wilderness 

and Other Undeveloped 

Areas

Effects to Potential Wilderness or 

Other Undeveloped Areas N/A

There are no lands designated as Wilderness or lands designated or inventoried as 

Roadless within or adjacent to the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Planning Area. Analysis 

determined that there would be no areas of 5,000 acres or greater without roads within the 

6,515 acres, and could not be effectively managed as a unit of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. Areas that contained less than 5,000 acres were determined to not 

meet one or more of the criteria stated above (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 71). 

Analysis for other undeveloped areas determined there were no areas located of any 

reasonable size for any one individual area, non-contiguous to any other area. Existing 

roads, grades or skid trails were found to bisect even the larger areas. Many of the old 

railroad grades have evolved or have been turned into vehicle access roads. Within the 

entire Planning Area, only a few areas (200 contiguous acres or less) were found to have 

not been affected by historical clear-cut railroad logging; only 25 acres were determined to 

currently be at or near to late seral or late-successional habitat conditions. Almost all of the 

Planning Area was clear-cut during the 1920s through 1940s for it large old-growth timber, 

and railroad logging activities are still readily apparent today Since there are no Potential 

Wilderness Areas or undeveloped areas (of any substantial size), there is no cause/effect 

relationship that can occur regarding this issue. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales S - 16

Final EIS SUMMARY

Other Issues Indicator Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

15 Heritage Effects to Historic Properties No Change

The Action Alternatives all propose to convert some of the railroad grades to classified 

roads, an adverse effect to an eligible historic property. Alternative 2 would have the 

greatest effect, converting 4.4 miles of railroad grade; Alternative 3 has the next 

greatest effect converting 3 miles, and Alternative 4 converts one mile of railroad 

grade. Mitigation measures specific to conversion of the contributing railroad grades 

roads include:

 Limiting road-building impacts to a single-lane road with designated turnouts;

 Avoiding railroad construction features such as fill, cut and borrows;

 Archaeological monitoring of road-construction activities and documentation of 

any additional findings; and

 Development of products interpreting the history of the Smith-Powers Logging 

Railroad at Eden Ridge including a Passport in Time (PIT) volunteer 

opportunity, a popular article, and a traveling exhibit.

In addition, Mitigation Measures specific to sites include:

 Avoiding contributing features such as skid trails, day-use activity areas and 

camps; and

 Limiting crossings of linear features such as skid trails.

All mitigation measures for project impacts to contributing features have been 

developed in consultation with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. A 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) has been developed between the Forest and 

SHPO describing the mitigation provisions. 

The Forest has consulted with SHPO under the R6 PA Stipulation III (B)6: Historic 

Properties Adversely Affected which requires case-by-case review of the project under 

the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.5). The Forest has developed 

measures with SHPO to mitigate the adverse effects of the project on the Smith-Powers 

Logging Railroad at Eden Ridge. These measures have been incorporated into a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with SHPO that documents these measures. 

A Notification of Adverse Effect has been submitted to the Advisory Council of Historic 

Preservation (ACHP) with no response received. The Forest consulted with the Coquille 

Indian Tribe to solicit their concerns regarding the Planning Area with no response 

received.

16 Recreation/Human 

Safety

Effects to Human Safety No Change

All Action Alternatives may affect recreationists during the short-term implementation phase 

from temporary road closures (for safety reasons), noise (chain saws, heavy equipment, 

and/or helicopters), smoke, and increased vehicle traffic. These effects would be mitigated 

and managed, and would not result in any long-term adverse effects.

Effects From Increased OHV Use No Change

OHV use has traditionally been limited to specific areas due to the nature of favorable 

conditions. New roads would not have the potential to develop a “loop system” as the 

roads would be constructed to access landing locations. These roads would be closed and 

rehabilitated after use (Maintenance Level 1 status); this status would not allow for OHV 

access or use. Mitigation measures would include: construction of water bars, scarification, 

scattering of slash and debris within disturbed areas, seeding and barricading/closing the 

road entrance with native materials.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales S - 17

Final EIS SUMMARY

Other Issues Indicator Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Attainment of Visual Quality 

Objectives No Change

The primary effect to recreationists in the long-term after project activities would be a slight 

change in the visual character along many roads. Currently, many of these areas are 

bordered by dense tree stands and downed woody material that tend to enclose or envelop 

the road. Under the Action Alternatives, these stands would be opened up through cutting 

and removal of generally small diameter trees resulting in a more open forest. It is 

anticipated that many would welcome a more open forest with greater vistas and the 

opportunity to see more of what they are surrounded by. Others may prefer the more 

closed feeling of dense stands associated with the current condition. 

All vegetative treatments and connected actions would be in compliance with Forest 

Plan Visual Quality Objectives 1989 SNF LRMP) for the allocation affected (Modification 

and Maximum Modification). Density management would not reduce canopy cover to 

less than 50%. Any new roads would be minimal width and managed as Maintenance 

Level 1 (closed to motorized use). Activities of vegetative and landform alternation would 

be designed to borrow from naturally established form, line, color, and texture, and at such 

a scale that its visual characteristics are those of natural occurrence within the surrounding 

character type. Resulting management activities may visually dominate the immediate 

characteristic landscape, yet would borrow from existing and adjacent densely stocked 

forest, occasional openings and existing land patterns.

17 Climate Change

Effect on Climate Change from 

Project N/A

All Action alternatives were identified to have minor cause-effect relationships to 

greenhouse gas emissions or the carbon cycle, and were determined to be of such a minor 

scale at the global or even regional scale, that the effects would be meaningless to a 

reasoned choice among alternatives. 

Effect on Project from Climate 

Change N/A

No specific forest management recommendations have been published regarding global 

climate change and the impacts climate change may have on the desired outcomes of, and 

the potential impacts from, this project. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales S - 18

Final EIS SUMMARY

CAN ADVERSE EFFECTS BE MITIGATED?

Specific Mitigation Measures and Project Design Criteria have been developed for the Action Alternatives analyzed in detail. 

These include appropriate measures a defined by NEPA Regulations at 40 CFR 1502.14(f) and 1508.20. Additional measures 

incorporated into the Action Alternatives emphasize applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Forest-wide Standards 

and Guidelines. These mitigation measures would reduce, rectify, avoid, eliminate, and/or compensate the potential resource 

impacts as required by 40 CFR 1508.20. Mitigation measures common to all of the Action Alternatives are described in FEIS

Chapter II. For the Eden Ridge timber Sales Project, elements that would be required of an Action Alternative to manage 

consequences during actual operations; these are termed “Mitigation Measures.” Other elements associated with the design of 

treatments and actions (i.e., Project Design Criteria), are applicable to Action Alternatives and are to be employed during on-the 

ground project designation or implementation.

WHAT FACTORS WILL BE USED IN MAKING THE DECISION BETWEEEN 

ALTERNATIVES?

In addition to and concurrent with attainment of Purpose and Need, the response of the alternatives in relation to the identified 

Significant and Other Issues will be used as important decision factors (see above). No one element of Purpose and Need or 

Issues will be used to make the decision; rather, they will be reviewed together with an assessment of tradeoffs.

When the DEIS was released, the associated documentation indicated that the upcoming decision would be subject to an 

administrative appeal process according to the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 215); this process allows people who 

submitted comments during the comment period on the draft EIS an opportunity to appeal the final decision after it is signed. 

However, on March 27, 2013, new regulations were released that will apply to the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project. The 

new regulations, found at 36 CFR 218 Subparts A and B2, provide an opportunity for individuals, organizations and tribal entities 

to a predecisional administrative review and to file an objection to a project before the final decision is signed. 

WHAT MONITORING IS NECESSARY?

Monitoring is a required element of all Action Alternatives and would be carried out according to a Monitoring Plan for authorized 

use and/or development activities. This Monitoring Plan would be developed specifically to the activities contained in the final 

decisions, and be specific to the action(s) and area(s) where authorized actions would occur. 

Project activities should be monitored during and after implementation of management actions to ensure that Project Design 

Criteria and Mitigation Measures are implemented as specified. Monitoring is also proposed to evaluate the effectiveness of 

planned activities, including standard practices and mitigation measures, in achieving desired outcomes. 

WHICH ALTERNATIVE IS THE PREFERRED?

NEPA requires that the EIS identify the agency’s Preferred Alternative or alternatives, if more than one exists. The "agency's 

preferred alternative" is the alternative (or alternatives) which the agency believes would fulfill its statutory mission and

responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, environmental, technical and other factors. The concept of the "agency's 

preferred alternative" is different from the "environmentally preferable alternative," (an element documented in a Record of 

Decision); although in some cases they may be both. A Preferred Alternative is identified so that agencies and the public can 

understand the agency's orientation. 

Under the Final EIS, the Forest Supervisor of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest has identified the Preferred Alternative to 

be some form of action, likely Alternative 2, with retention of all silvicultural elements and most of the connected actions. 

Modifications are likely, based on public and other agencies comments, as well as the Interdisciplinary Team’s recommendations 

regarding roads located in sensitive areas, primarily associated with the Coal Creek subwatershed. 

 

2 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2013-title36-vol2/pdf/CFR-2013-title36-vol2-part218.pdf
i

EDEN RIDGE TIMBER SALES

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table of Contents

I. PURPOSE AND NEED ............................................................................. I-1

A. INTRODUCTION AND DOCUMENT STRUCTURE..........................................................I-1

B. CHANGES BETWEEN DRAFT AND FINAL ......................................................................I-2

C. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................I-2

1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND .......................................................................................I-4

2. CURRENT CONDITIONS .................................................................................................I-6

a. Current Stand Conditions ............................................................................................I-6

b. Current Stand Conditions for Riparian Reserve .......................................................I-9

c. Forest Health .................................................................................................................I-10

d. Large Woody Material and Snags ...............................................................................I-13

3. DESIRED CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................I-14

a. Matrix ............................................................................................................................I-14

b. Riparian Reserve ..........................................................................................................I-15

D. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ..................................................................................I-16

1. MATRIX ..............................................................................................................................I-16

2. RIPARIAN RESERVE .......................................................................................................I-16

3. PROJECT DESIGN OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................I-17

E. PROPOSED ACTION ..............................................................................................................I-17

F. DECISION FRAMEWORK .....................................................................................................I-18

G. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ..............................................................................................I-19

1. MATRIX ..............................................................................................................................I-20

2. RIPARIAN RESERVE .......................................................................................................I-21

3. SPECIAL WILDLIFE SITE (MA 9) .................................................................................I-23

4. OTHER LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................I-23

5. WATERSHED ANALYSES ...............................................................................................I-23

H. SCOPING AND ISSUES ..........................................................................................................I-24

1. SCOPING PROCESS .........................................................................................................I-24

2. SIGNIFICANT ISSUES ......................................................................................................I-25

3. OTHER ISSUES ..................................................................................................................I-27

4. OUT OF SCOPE ISSUES ...................................................................................................I-28

I. RELATED PERMITS, PLANS AND ACTIONS ....................................................................I-30

II. ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................... II-1

A. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................II-1

B. CHANGES BETWEEN DRAFT AND FINAL ......................................................................II-1

C. DEVELOPMENT OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .............................II-2

D. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL ....................................................................II-2

1. ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO-ACTION) ....................................................................................II-3

2. TREATMENT ELEMENTS APPLICABLE TO ACTION ALTERNATIVES ............II-4

a. Silvicultural Treatments ...........................................................................................II-4

b. Snags and Down Woody Material ...........................................................................II-7

c. Silvicultural Disease Treatments..............................................................................II-10

d. Activity Fuels Treatments.........................................................................................II-13
ii

e. Harvest (Logging) Systems .......................................................................................II-14

f. Existing Road (Access) Systems................................................................................II-17

g. Proposed Road (Access) Systems .............................................................................II-19

h. Similar and/or Related Actions................................................................................II-23

3. PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA FOR RIPARIAN RESERVES ...................................II-25

a. Overall Project Design Criteria for Riparian Reserve Treatments .....................II-26

b. Design Criteria for Perennial Streams ...................................................................II-27

c. Design Criteria for Non Fish-bearing Intermittent and Ephemeral Streams .....II-29

d. Project Design Criteria for Roads and Landings Within Riparian Reserves .....II-30

e. Stream Enhancement Project Design Criteria .......................................................II-32

4. WILDLIFE PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA ..................................................................II-32

5. BOTANICAL RESOURCES PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA .....................................II-34

6. CULTURAL (Heritage) RESOURCES PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA ....................II-34

7. ALTERNATIVE 2 (Proposed Action) ...............................................................................II-34

a. Function .....................................................................................................................II-34

b. Description ................................................................................................................II-34

c. Summary of Alternative 2 ........................................................................................II-42

8. ALTERNATIVE 3 ...............................................................................................................II-44

a. Function .....................................................................................................................II-44

b. Description ................................................................................................................II-44

c. Summary of Alternative 3 ........................................................................................II-49

9. ALTERNATIVE 4................................................................................................................II-51

a. Function .....................................................................................................................II-51

b. Description ................................................................................................................II-51

c. Summary of Alternative 4 ........................................................................................II-56

10. MITIGATION MEASURES ASSOCIATED WITH ACTION ALTERNATIVES ....II-58

a. Geology .......................................................................................................................II-59

b. Soils ...........................................................................................................................II-59

c. Hydrology ..................................................................................................................II-61

d. Recreation .................................................................................................................II-62

e. Botanical and Invasive Plant Species ......................................................................II-63

f. Port-Orford-cedar Management Practices .............................................................II-64

g. Terrestrial Wildlife Species and Habitat ................................................................II-64

h. Aquatic Species and Habitat ...................................................................................II-67

i. Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................II-68

j. Fuels and Air Quality ................................................................................................II-68

11. MONITORING .................................................................................................................II-69

a. Monitoring Framework ............................................................................................II-69

b. Implementation Monitoring ....................................................................................II-70

c. Effectiveness Monitoring ..........................................................................................II-71

E ALTERNATIVES AND ELEMENTS CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM

DETAILED STUDY .................................................................................................................II-72

1. OPTIONAL SILVICULTURAL HARVEST SYSTEMS ................................................II-73

2. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN AREAS ...............................................................................II-75

3. OTHER CONNECTED OR ASSOCIATED ACTIONS .................................................II-75

F. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................II-77

1. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL ..................II-77

2. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL IN TERMS OF 

SIGNIFICANT AND OTHER ISSUES .............................................................................II-78
iii

III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................... III-1

A. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................III-1

1. CONSIDERATION OF PAST, ONGOING, & REASONABLY FORESEEABLE 

ACTIONS IN EFFECTS ANALYSIS ..............................................................................III-2

B. CHANGES BETWEEN DRAFT AND FINAL ......................................................................III-3

C. ATTAINMENT OF PURPOSE AND NEED .........................................................................III-4

1. ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO-ACTION ..................................................................................III-4

a. Forest Vigor and Resiliency and Contribution of Commercial Timber to PSQ .III-4

b. Meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives ...................................................III-6

2. ACTION ALTERNATIVES - MATRIX ...........................................................................III-6

a. Improvement of Overall Forest Vigor and Resiliency ..........................................III-7

b. Contribution of Commercial Timber to PSQ ........................................................III-9

3. ACTION ALTERNATIVES - RIPARIAN RESERVE ...................................................III-9

a. Improve Riparian Reserves- Meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives ..III-10

4. ACTION ALTERNATIVES - PROJECT DESIGN OBJECTIVES ..............................III-11

D. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES: SIGNIFICANT ISSUES ...................................III-13

1. HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS ........................................................................................III-13

a. Introduction ..............................................................................................................III-13

b. Background ...............................................................................................................III-14

c. Current Channel Conditions & Morphology .........................................................III-15

d. Channel Morphology & Large Wood .....................................................................III-20

e. Hydrologic Effects Mechanisms & Analysis Framework .....................................III-21

f. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives .............................................................III-24

g. Cumulative Effects ....................................................................................................III-24

2. WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................................III-32

a. Background ...............................................................................................................III-33

b. Effects Mechanisms and Analysis Framework ......................................................III-36

c. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives .............................................................III-38

d. Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................III-40

3. CUMULATIVE WATERSHED EFFECTS .....................................................................III-40

a. Background and Analysis Framework ...................................................................III-41

b. Hydrologic Maturity Assessment for Planning Area ............................................III-43

c. Road Density Assessment for Planning Area .........................................................III-43

d. Large Woody Material Assessment for Planning Area ........................................III-44

e. Overall Risk of Adverse Cumulative Watershed Effects ......................................III-45

f. Risk Of Adverse Cumulative Watershed Effects - Action Alternatives ...............III-46

4. SOILS, GEOLOGY AND SITE PRODUCTIVITY .........................................................III-47

a. Background and Analysis Framework ...................................................................III-47

b. Effects Mechanisms ..................................................................................................III-53

c. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives .............................................................III-60

d. Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................III-63

5. ECONOMICS ......................................................................................................................III-64

a. Background and Analysis Framework ...................................................................III-64

b. Economic Assumptions and Effects Mechanisms ..................................................III-66

c. Direct Effects of Alternatives ...................................................................................III-68

d. Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives ...................................................III-69

E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES: OTHER ISSUES ...............................................III-70

1. AQUATIC CONSERVATION STRATEGY ....................................................................III-70

a. Background and Analysis Framework ...................................................................III-71

b. Applicability of Riparian Reserve Standards and Guidelines ..............................III-71

c. Response to Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines ............................III-72
iv

d. Compliance with Key Watershed Standards and Guidelines ..............................III-74

e. Consistency with Aquatic Conservation Strategy for Action Alternatives ..........III-78

f. LRMP Management Prescription MA-11 - Riparian ............................................III-82

2. FIRE / FUELS .....................................................................................................................III-83

a. Background and Analysis Framework ...................................................................III-83

b. Effects Mechanisms ..................................................................................................III-85

c. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives .............................................................III-86

d. Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................III-90

3. AIR QUALITY ....................................................................................................................III-91

a. Background and Analysis Framework ...................................................................III-91

b. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives ............................................................III-92

c. Cumulative Effects ....................................................................................................III-93

4. BOTANICAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................III-93

a. Background and Analysis Framework ...................................................................III-94

b. Pre-Field Analysis .....................................................................................................III-95

c. Field Inventory Results ............................................................................................III-98

d. Effects Mechanisms ..................................................................................................III-99

e. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives .............................................................III-100

f. Cumulative Effects ....................................................................................................III-101

5. INVASIVE PLANTS ...........................................................................................................III-101

a. Background and Analysis Framework ...................................................................III-102

b. Effects Mechanisms ..................................................................................................III-103

c. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives .............................................................III-103

d. Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................III-103

6. PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR ROOT DISEASE ...................................................................III-104

a. Background and Analysis Framework ...................................................................III-104

b. Effects Mechanisms ..................................................................................................III-105

c. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives .............................................................III-106

d. Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................III-108

7. THREATENED TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES AND 

CRITICAL HABITAT ........................................................................................................III-109

a. Background and Analysis Framework ...................................................................III-109

b. Late-Successional Forest ..........................................................................................III-110

c. Description of Species and Critical Habitat Listed Under ESA ...........................III-112

d. Effects Mechanisms ..................................................................................................III-115

e. Direct and Indirect Effects – Northern Spotted Owl .............................................III-117

f. Direct and Indirect Effects – Marbled Murrelet ....................................................III-119

g. Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................III-121

8. NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES ...................III-122

a. Background and Analysis Framework ...................................................................III-122

b. Description of Species, Habitat and Management Requirements ........................III-123

c. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives .............................................................III-125

d. Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................III-126

9. FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES 

& HABITATS ....................................................................................................................III-126

a. Background and Analysis Framework ...................................................................III-127

b. Description of Species Habitat and Management Requirements .........................III-128

c. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives .............................................................III-134

d. Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................III-136

10. TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES ..................III-137

a. Background and Analysis Framework ...................................................................III-137

b. Description of Species Habitat and Management Requirements .........................III-138

c. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives .............................................................III-142

d. Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................III-144
v

11. NEO-TROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRDS ......................................................................III-145

a. Background and Analysis Framework ...................................................................III-145

b. Description of Species, Habitat and Management Requirements ........................III-146

c. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives .............................................................III-147

d. Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................III-148

12. AQUATIC SPECIES AND HABITATS .........................................................................III-149

a. Background and Analysis Framework ...................................................................III-149

b. Status of Listed Species, Essential Fish Habitat, and Critical Habitat ................III-150

c. Effects Mechanisms ..................................................................................................III-152

d. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives ............................................................III-155

d. Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................III-161

e. Conclusions And Determinations ............................................................................III-162

13. THINNING SHOCK AND WINDTHROW POTENTIAL ...........................................III-163

a. Background................................................................................................................III-163

b. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects ...............................................................III-164

14. POTENTIAL WILDERNESS AND OTHER UNDEVELOPED AREAS....................III-165

a. Background ...............................................................................................................III-165

b. Effects Mechanisms and Analysis Framework ......................................................III-167

c. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives ......................................III-171

15. HERITAGE RESOURCES ..............................................................................................III-172

a. Background and Analysis Framework ...................................................................III-172

b. Effects Mechanisms ..................................................................................................III-175

c. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives .............................................................III-176

d. Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................III-177

16. RECREATION/HUMAN SAFETY .................................................................................III-177

a. Background and Analysis Framework ...................................................................III-178

b. Effects Mechanisms ..................................................................................................III-178

c. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives .............................................................III-179

d. Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................III-181

17. CLIMATE CHANGE .......................................................................................................III-181

a. Background ...............................................................................................................III-181

b. Analysis Framework ................................................................................................III-182

c. Effects Mechanisms ..................................................................................................III-183

d. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives ............................................................III-185

e. Cumulative Effects ....................................................................................................III-186

F. OTHER EFFECTS, LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ..................III-187

IV. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...................................... IV-1

V. REFERENCES ......................................................................................... V-1

INDEX
vi

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE MARCH 2012 DEIS

APPENDIX B – PRELIMINARY SILVICULTURAL DIAGNOSIS

APPENDIX B2 – PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR REPORT

APPENDIX C – HYDROLOGY REPORT

APPENDIX D – GEOLOGY& SOILS REPORT

APPENDIX E – FIRE/FUELS AND AIR QUALITY REPORT

APPENDIX F – BOTANICAL RESOURCES REPORT

APPENDIX G – WILDLIFE REPORT AND BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

APPENDIX H – AQUATIC BIOTA BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

AND SPECIALIST REPORT

APPENDIX I – TRANSPORTATION AND LOGGING SYTEMS REPORT

APPENDIX I2 – SOUTH FORK COQUILLE ROAD DECOMMISSIONING 

MONITORING REPORT

APPENDIX J – HERITAGE RESOURCES

TABLES

Chapter I

Table I-1. Eden Ridge Stand Examination Summary ......................................................................................I-7

Chapter II

Table II-1. 2009 Stand Exams Standing Dead (Snags) from Plot Data (FSVEG Report 19) ..........................II-8

Table II-2. Snag Data for Western Hemlock Plant Series ...............................................................................II-8

Table II-3. Eden Ridge 2009 Stand Exams - Down Woody Data (FSVEG Report 19) ...................................II-9

Table II-4. Down Wood Data for Western Hemlock Plant Series ...................................................................II-9

Table II-5. Road Maintenance Level Definitions ............................................................................................II-18

Table II-6. Eden Ridge Non-Commercial Treatment Units .............................................................................II-23

Table II-7. Primary Shade Zone Width, Based on Adjacent Hill Slope within Perennial Streams .................II-28

Table II-8. Overall Design Criteria for Timber Yarding and Felling within Riparian Reserves .....................II-30

Table II-9. Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) – Silvicultural Treatments...........................................................II-37

Table II-10. Proposed New Classified (System) Road Construction – Alternative 2 ......................................II-39

Table II-11. Proposed New Temporary Road Construction – Alternative 2 ...................................................II-40

Table II-12. Proposed Classified Road Use, Maintenance, and Reconstruction - Alternative 2 ......................II-40

Table II-13. Alternative 3 - Silvicultural Treatments .......................................................................................II-46

Table II-14. Proposed New Classified (System) Road Construction – Alternative 3 ......................................II-48

Table II-15. Proposed New Temporary Road Construction – Alternative 3 ...................................................II-48

Table II-16. Proposed Classified Road Use, Maintenance, and Reconstruction - Alternative 3 ......................II-49

Table II-17. Alternative 4 - Silvicultural Treatments .......................................................................................II-53

Table II-18. Proposed Classified Road Use, Maintenance, and Reconstruction - Alternative 4 ......................II-55

Table II-19. Effectiveness and Feasibility Rating System ...............................................................................II-59

Table II-20. Northern Spotted Owl Restrictions- Harassment Distances ........................................................II-65

Table II-21. Murrelet Restrictions- Harassment Distances ..............................................................................II-66

Table II-22. Alternative Comparison ...............................................................................................................II-77

Table II-23. Comparison of Alternatives - Significant Issues ..........................................................................II-78

Table II-24. Comparison of Alternatives - Other Issues ..................................................................................II-81
vii

Chapter III

Table III-1. Proposed Road Construction by Subwatersheds ..........................................................................III-26

Table III-2. Road Density Increase by Subwatershed ......................................................................................III-26

Table III-3. Project Acreages by Logging System for Action Alternatives .....................................................III-26

Table III-4. Percent of Subwatershed Affected by Ground Based Equipment ................................................III-27

Table III-5. Harvest Thinning by Subwatershed ..............................................................................................III-28

Table III-6. Project-wide Riparian Logging System Comparison by Action Alternative ................................III-28

Table III-7. Units Located in Sensitive Watershed Areas – Proposed Action .................................................III-29

Table III-8. Units Located in Sensitive Watershed Areas – Alternative 3 .......................................................III-29

Table III-9. Status of TMDL Impaired Stream Listings ..................................................................................III-34

Table III-10. Average Seven-day-Maximum Temperature Measurements .....................................................III-35

Table III-11. Average Existing and Potential Shade by Subwatershed ...........................................................III-35

Table III-12. Factors that Influence Stream Surface Shade .............................................................................III-36

Table III-13. Regeneration Harvest as Percent of Subwatershed ....................................................................III-43

Table III-14. Summary of Current Risk of Adverse Watershed Effects ..........................................................III-45

Table III-15. Private Ownership by Subwatershed ..........................................................................................III-45

Table III-16. Soil Characteristics of Soil Map Units within the Eden Ridge Planning Area ...........................III-51

Table III-17. Sensitivities of Soils in the Planning Area to Selected Disturbances .........................................III-52

Table III-18. Miles of New Road with Conditions that Could Increase Risk of Failure .................................III-61

Table III-19. Estimated Acres of Total Commitment of Soil Resource/Loss of Soil Productivity ..................III-62

Table III-20. Estimated Acres of Detrimental Disturbance per Action Alternative ........................................III-62

Table III-21 Projected Treatment Acres and Volume by Alternative ..............................................................III-66

Table III-22. Estimated Yarding Costs by Alternative ....................................................................................III-66

Table III-23. Transportation Cost Estimates ....................................................................................................III-67

Table III-24. Present Net Value and Benefit/Cost Ratio Comparison between Alternatives ...........................III-68

Table III-25. PNV and B/C Comparison between Alternatives with an 11.5% increase in $/MBF ................III-69

Table III-26. Evaluation of Applicable NWFP Riparian Reserve Standards and Guidelines ..........................III-73

Table III-27. Road Bank Summary of Miles “Decommissioned” since April 1994 ........................................III-76

Table III-28. Summary of Roads Monitored and found to be Properly Decommissioned .............................III-78

Table III-29. Forest Veg Simulator-Fire Fuels Extension: Example Modeling Results ..................................III-86

Table III-30. Potential Sensitive Vascular Plant, Lichen, Moss and Liverwort Species with Habitat 

in Eden Ridge Planning Area ....................................................................................................III-96

Table III-31. Potential Sensitive Fungi that may Occur in Planning Area ......................................................III-97

Table III-32. Potential Habitat Impacts to Sensitive Fungi Species ................................................................III-99

Table III-33. Posthabitat Conditions Within 5th field Watersheds Affected by the Proposed Action ..............III-111

Table III-34. ESA Species & Critical Habitat Unit (CHU) Presence and Effects Determination ...................III-99

Table III-35. R-6 Sensitive Species Known or Suspected to Occur on the RRSNF ........................................III-121

Table III-36. Management Indicator Species and Determination of Effect .....................................................III-138

Table III-37. Focal Migrant Bird Species and Associated Habitat ..................................................................III-146

Table III-38. Potentially Affected Species, Status, and Habitats Assessed .....................................................III-149

Table III-39. OC Coho Critical Habitat Essential Habitat Features and Habitat Indicators .............................III-150

Table III-40. Summary of Perennial Stream Crossings That Would Occur during Haul ................................III-155

Table III-41. Summary of All Road Activity in Riparian Reserves ................................................................III-156

Table III-42. Proximity of Project Elements to EFH within Coal Creek 6th Field Watershed .........................III-158

Table III-43. Comparison of Effects to Fish Species by Alternative and Activity Type .................................III-162

FIGURES

Chapter I

Figure I-1. Examples of Laminated Root Rot in Northern Portion of Planning Area .....................................I-10

Figure I-2. Examples of Down Wood Conditions from Historical Railroad Logging .....................................I-13

Chapter II

Figure II-1. Examples of Stand Treatments; Eden Ridge Timber Sales ..........................................................II-6

Figure II-2. Roadside Sanitation Recommended Treatments ...........................................................................I-11

Figure II-3. Example of Dense Stands Proposed for Non-Commercial Treatment .........................................II-23

Figure II-4. Riparian Reserve Design Elements – Perennial Fish & Non-Fish Bearing Streams ...................II-28

Figure II-5. Riparian Reserve Design Elements – Ephemeral and Intermittent Stream Channels ..................II-29
viii

Chapter III

Figure III-1. Potential Considerations for Peak Flow Increases ......................................................................III-24

Figure III-2. Effects of Thinning on Stream Shade and Temperature .............................................................III-37

Figure III-3. PL Pocket in Unit 326 Adjacent to Railroad Grade Proposed for Road Reconstruction ............III-106

Figure III-4. Buffer Widths and Angular Canopy Density ..............................................................................III-154

Figure III-5. Potential Unroaded Area Identified During Scoping ..................................................................III-167

MAPS

Chapter I

MAP I-1. Eden Ridge Planning Area ..............................................................................................................I-3

MAP I-2. Planning Area; Watersheds, and Subwatersheds .............................................................................I-4

MAP I-3. Existing Vegetation Polygons Exceeding 50% RD within Candidate Stands .................................I-8

MAP I-4. Existing Vegetation Polygons >= 70% Canopy Cover within Candidate Stands ............................I-8

MAP I-5. 2008 POC Inventory - Canopy Cover Attributes ............................................................................I-12

MAP I-6. Eden Ridge Planning Area Land Allocations/Prescriptions ............................................................I-20

Chapter II

MAP II-1. Port-Orford-Cedar Root Disease Treatments .................................................................................II-12

MAP II-2. Non-Commercial Treatments within Eden Ridge Planning Area ..................................................II-24

MAP II-3. Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ....................................................................................................II-43

MAP II-4. Alternative 3 ...................................................................................................................................II-50

MAP II-5. Alternative 4 ...................................................................................................................................II-57

Chapter III

MAP III-1. Subwatershed Road Density .........................................................................................................III-44

MAP III-2. Geology of the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Planning Area .............................................................III-49

MAP III-3. Soils of the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Planning Area ...................................................................III-50

MAP III-4. South Fork Coquille Watershed - Decommissioned Roads since 1994 ........................................III-77

MAP III-5. Wildlife Analysis Area .................................................................................................................III-110

MAP III-6. Fish Distribution and Project Activities –Alternative 2 ................................................................III-153

MAP III-7. Eden Ridge Planning Area Roads, Late Seral Stands &Oregon Wild Proposed Wilderness ........III-169

MAP III-8. Composite of 1943 Aerial Photos and Eden Ridge Planning Area ...............................................III-171
ix

LIST OF FREQUENTLY USED ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AC Acre

ACS Aquatic Conservation Strategy

APE Area of Potential Effect

ATV All Terrain Vehicle

BA Basal Area

BA Biological Assessment

BA Basal Area

BE Biological Evaluation

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practices

BO Biological Opinion

CAA Clean Air Act

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CFPA Coos Forest Protection Association

CHFT Coastal Healthy Forest Treatments

CHU Critical Habitat Unit

CWE Cumulative Watershed Effects

dbh diameter at breast height

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

DF Douglas-fir

DPS Distinct Population Segment

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ER Eden Ridge

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FEMAT Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team

FR Federal Register

FS Forest Service

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FSEIS Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

FSH Forest Service Handbook

FSM Forest Service Manual

FVS Forest Vegetation Simulator

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GIS Geographic Information Systems

IDT Interdisciplinary Team

IMAP Interagency Mapping and Assessment Project

IRA Inventoried Roadless Area

ISSSSP Interagency Special Status and Sensitive Species Program

KV Knutson-Vandenberg Act

LOC Letter of Concurrence

LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan

LW Large Wood

LWM Large Woody Material

MA Management Area

mbf Thousand Board Feet

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MIS Management Indicator Species

ML Maintenance Level

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

N Nitrogen

NF National Forest

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
x

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFMA National Forest Management Act

NFSL National Forest System Lands

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOI Notice of Intent

NRF Nesting/Roosting/Foraging Habitat

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NRIS Natural Resource Information System

NTMB Neo-tropical Migratory Birds

NWFP Northwest Forest Plan

OAR Oregon Administrative Rule

ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

OR-OSHA Oregon Occupational Safety and Health

OHV Off-highway Vehicle

PAG Plant Association Group

PCE Primary Constituent Element

PDC Project Design Criteria

PDCRR Project Design Criteria-Riparian Reserves

PETS Proposed, Endangered, Threatened & Sensitive

PIF Partners in Flight

PL Phytophthora lateralis

PM Particulate Matter

POC Port-Orford-cedar

PSQ Probable Sale Quantity

PVT Private

QMD Quadratic Mean Diameter

R6 Region 6 (Pacific Northwest Region)

RARE II Roadless Area Review and Evaluation II

RD Relative Density

RM River Mile

RMO Road Management Objectives

RO Regional Office

ROD Record of Decision

RRSNF Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

S&G Standards and Guidelines

SAI Sale Area Improvement Plan

SCS Soil Conservation Service

SDI Stand Density Index

SF South Fork

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SNF Siskiyou National Forest

SO Southern Oregon

SRI Soil Resource Inventory

SSRA Smoke Sensitive Receptor Area

SVS Stand Visualization System

TES Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive species

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

tpa trees per acre

TSZ Transient Snow Zone

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDI United Stated Department of Interior

USFS United States Forest Service

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

VDT Variable Density Thinning

WA Watershed Analysis

WQMP Water Quality Management Plan

WTG Wide-thin Gaps

YTA Yard Tops Attached
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-1

Final Environmental Impact Statement

EDEN RIDGE TIMBER SALES

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Powers Ranger District

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

I. PURPOSE AND NEED

A. INTRODUCTION AND DOCUMENT STRUCTURE

The Forest Service has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Eden Ridge 

Timber Sales Project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the 

regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508; 36 CFR 220) 

as well as those requirements established by allied Federal environmental laws and regulations This FEIS

discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from 

implementation of the Proposed Action and other alternatives considered in detail. The document is 

organized into five parts (Chapters) and Appendices:

 Purpose and Need: Chapter I includes information on the background of the Planning Area, the 

current and desired conditions, the Purpose of and Need for the project, and a summary of the 

agency’s proposal for achieving that Purpose and Need. This Chapter also discusses applicable land 

management direction and the framework for the responsible official’s decision. This Chapter 

identifies how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. 

Issues are introduced and an explanation as to how they are used in this environmental analysis is 

provided.

 Alternatives: Chapter II provides a more detailed description of the agency’s Proposed Action as well 

as alternatives for achieving the stated Purpose and Need (including a No-Action Alternative). These 

alternatives were developed based on Issues raised by the public and other agencies. Treatment 

elements common to alternatives that propose action are presented in detail. This discussion also 

includes Project Design Criteria, Mitigation Measures, and Monitoring applicable to the alternatives

that propose action. Finally, this Chapter provides a summary and comparison table for each 

alternative considered in detail.

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: Chapter III describes the environmental 

effects of implementing the Proposed Action and alternatives. This analysis is organized by the 

Significant and Other Issues, as identified in Chapter I. Within each Section, the affected 

environment background, current conditions, and effects mechanisms are described first, followed by

the consequences of the alternatives analyzed in detail. The No-Action Alternative provides a 

baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives. Also included is a discussion of the 

attainment of Purpose and Need, and discussions on Other Effects, Laws, Regulations and Executive 

Orders.

 Consultation and Coordination: Chapter IV provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted 

during the development of the EIS. It provides a summary of the responsibilities for project 

leadership, and resource specialists with input into the preparation of this document and other agency 

personnel who provided data, review, and/or information. The names of the agencies, organizations, 

and individuals who were provided copies of the FEIS is also identified.

 References: Chapter V of this document provides a list of sources of information, literature and data 

used to prepare this FEIS. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-2

Final Environmental Impact Statement

 Index: Alphabetical listing and reference to important sections, topics and wording used in the FEIS.

 Appendices: Information in support of design elements and analyses presented in the FEIS, as well as 

detailed specialist reports and Interdisciplinary Team input. The Appendices include a Response to 

Comments document for comments received on the March 2012 Draft EIS), Preliminary 

Silvicultural Diagnosis and Port-Orford-cedar Reports, a Hydrology Report, a Geology and 

Soils Report, a Fire/Fuels and Air Quality Report, a Botanical Resources Report, a Wildlife 

Report and Biological Evaluation, an Aquatic Biota Report and Fisheries Biological Evaluation, 

a Transportation and Logging Systems Report, and a Heritage (Cultural Resource) Report. 

These reports are incorporated by reference to the body of this FEIS document.

B. CHANGES BETWEEN DRAFT AND FINAL

Changes were made to the entire FEIS to clarify issues, expand on analysis, and provide additions, 

changes, updates and corrections that are responsive to issues and comments brought forth from the Draft 

EIS (DEIS) Comment Period. In addition, issues, updates and corrections identified internally requiring 

modifications are also included. This FEIS prevails regarding any differences or conflicts with the 

DEIS.

In this Chapter, based on public comments, edits for clarification were made to the background section 

regarding current and desired conditions. Edits were made to the Purpose and Need section, regarding 

need for treatments within Riparian Reserves. 

The Management Direction section was expanded. The history of public involvement and events 

regarding the release of the DEIS, the Comment Period, and the development of a Response to Comments 

document (now FEIS Appendix A), is added to the section on Scoping Process.

Clarification was added to the identified Significant Issues to highlight specific concerns identified during 

the DEIS Comment Period. Some Other Issue statements were edited for clarification.

C BACKGROUND

The Eden Ridge Planning Area (MAP I-1) includes approximately 6,516 acres and is located 

approximately 4 air miles southeast of the city of Powers, Oregon at the closest point, with a legal 

description of: Township 31 South, Range 10 West, Sections 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 29 and 30; and 

Township 31 South, Range 11 West, Sections 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27; Willamette Meridian; Coos 

County, Oregon. Elevations range from 2,080 to 3,540 feet. The term Planning Area is used to describe 

the overall area of consideration that was reviewed for the development of treatment opportunities. 

The Powers Ranger District of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest is proposing variable density 

thinning and other silvicultural treatments designed to control stocking and maintain or improve overall 

forest health and resiliency within this Planning Area. Stand inventory records and walk-thru 

examinations have identified thousands of acres of regenerated conifer stands within the Eden Ridge 

Planning Area that were initiated by natural or artificial regeneration following clear-cut timber harvest in 

the late 1930s through 1940s1. 

 

1

 The original Notice of Intent (April 26, 2010) stated that regeneration occurred between the 1920s and 1930s. Further 

research and review of stand examinations and field inventories have identified that all stands being considered for treatment 

with this project are currently less than 80 years old, having been regenerated during the late 1930s through 1940s, after 

historical clear-cut railroad logging.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-3

Final Environmental Impact Statement

MAP I-1. Eden Ridge Planning Area
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-4

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Eden Ridge Planning Area falls within the South Fork Coquille River and the Middle Fork Coquille 

River 5th-field watersheds, and the (Lower) Rock Creek, Myrtle Creek, Headwaters South Fork Coquille 

River (aka Wooden Rock Creek), Coal Creek, and Mill Creek 6th field watersheds (see MAP I-2). 

Watershed Analyses have been conducted within these drainages and contain a synthesis of scientific 

knowledge about watershed trends and conditions at 5th field watershed scales as well as by smaller 6th

field subwatersheds (see Section G, 5, this Chapter). 

MAP I-2. Planning Area; Watersheds, and Subwatersheds

1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The Eden Ridge Planning Area has a unique history within Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest lands. 

Originally included in the C.A. Smith Lumber and Manufacturing Company holdings, the Eden Ridge 

area played a role in the extensive logging history and economic development of Coos Bay and the 

surrounding county. From the early days of Coos County, the area has been relatively isolated from the 

rest of Oregon by the steep range of coastal mountains. Coos Bay, a natual harbor, provided access to the 

rapidly expanding markets in California through the ports of the San Francisco Bay. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-5

Final Environmental Impact Statement

By the late 19th century, numerous small rail road lines, many with wooden rails, had been constructed to 

assist in transporting the timber and coal to the sea port at Coos Bay. The longest and best known of 

these short rail lines was the Coos Bay, Roseburg and Eastern Railroad and Navigation Company line 

which ran from Marshfield to Myrtle Point by 1893. This 28 mile long stretch of railroad accessed the 

Beaver Hill coal mines, as well as the virgin stands of Douglas-fir and Port-Orford-cedar. While most of 

the smaller lines were eventually abandoned, the Coos Bay, Roseburg and Eastern Railroad and 

Navigation Company line was purchased by Southern Pacific in 1906. Early plans to connect the line to 

the Willamette Valley were finally realized 10 years later when the Willamette Pacific Railroad was 

completed from Eugene to Coos Bay, introducing Coos Bay to the world. While coal was no longer so 

important, the rails still provided a means to move the timber to sawmills and markets outside the area.

While there were numerous small sawmills around Coos Bay from the mid 19th Century, a new era of 

logging came about when Charles Axel Smith, a Minnesotan logging entrepreneur, began to move his 

operations to Coos Bay. Drawing many experienced lumber men from Minnesota with him to Oregon, 

Smith partnered with Albert Powers, an experienced lumberman and railroad logger he had worked with 

in Minnesota. 

Powers generally operated the woods side of the business, while Smith ran the seafaring and marketing 

operations. By 1908, Smith had built the largest electric mill in the world and began to acquire the logs to 

process there and ship out to San Francisco and beyond. By 1912, they needed to move farther afield from 

Coos Bay to gain access to new timberlands requiring the extension of the Coos Bay, Roseburg and 

Eastern Railroad and Navigation Company south past Myrtle Point to the Waggoner Ranch, which would 

eventually become the company town of Powers, named after Albert Powers. Powers would be the site of 

extensive logging for several years once the railroad had been completed in 1915. By 1916, the rail lines 

were extended beyond Powers into Salmon Creek, the South Fork of the Coquille River, and the Eden 

Ridge area. These areas would provide timber for one of the largest railroad logging operations of its time.

Constructed between 1916–1924, much of this rail line was characterized by log trestles which could 

provide a relatively straight and level rail way without the expense of excavating the railroad grades. The 

line to Eden Ridge included a long incline up the steep slopes to access the ridge above and by 1919, 

Camp 2 was in operation just within the current Eden Ridge Planning Area. 

Earlier, during the Great War, the loggers were aided by military units in order to access the timber 

needed for building the airplanes and ships used in the war. After the war, the prices and demand for 

timber fell causing the failure of Smith’s overextended businesses and in 1922 the company was 

reorganized. Logging operations continued although in 1928 the Coos Bay Lumber Company sold the 

Salmon Creek railroad along with timber lands in the Sixes River to the Port Orford Cedar Products 

Company of Coos Bay. 

The camps moved with the operations of logging and by 1936, a second camp at Doe Swamp (within the 

Planning Area) was in operation with a capacity of 400 men. This camp was run until 1941 and the Coal 

Creek Camp took over near the switchbacks and operated until the mid 1950s when it was relinquished to 

the Forest Service by Georgia Pacific. As the logging operations drew to a close, much of the rail lines 

were removed and salvaged, but this Planning Area still shows the remains of the rail lines, camps and 

skid trails from this period of logging. Aerial photographs taken in 1943 clearly show the effects of this 

logging activity. 

The Siskiyou National Forest was established on October 5th in 1906 by proclamation and acquired all of 

the Coquille National Forest (established by Public Proclamation in 1907) in 1908. At that time it did not 

include the lands known as the Eden Ridge Tract that comprise this Planning Area. During the 

Depression, many northwest timber owners would abandon cutover lands to reduce their tax burden. 

Instead of abandoning their lands to the county, in 1933 the Coos Bay Lumber Company proposed to 

convey their lands to the Forest Service. In return the Forest would extend their boundaries, and thereby 

provide fire protection to the adjacent lumber company lands. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-6

Final Environmental Impact Statement

This agreement was made into Public Law 131 passed by Congress withdrawing the entirety of T31S R10 

and 11W into the Siskiyou National Forest on June 10, 1935. The lands within the current Eden Ridge 

Planning Area were relinquished to the Siskiyou National Forest between 1938 and 1941, but no other 

lands were conveyed to the Forest under this agreement. In 1958, Public Land Order 1610 revoked the 

earlier law and the northern Siskiyou National Forest boundary was returned to its earlier location, with 

the exception of the Eden Ridge area. (compiled by K. Hauge, 2011)

At the time the Eden Ridge area was extensively clear-cut railroad logged; future forest management may 

not have been a concern, so stands were left to regenerate naturally. Evidence shows that the area,

probably covered in slash, burned as the fire hazard was likely very high. Brush could have been a major 

component for 15 to 20 years after logging. Eventually, conifer and hardwoods overtopped the brush and 

the shrubs died back. 

2. CURRENT CONDITIONS

Past land use activities have had the largest influences on shaping the existing vegetation in the Eden 

Ridge Planning Area. Today the stands are still in transition to fewer hardwoods and the dominant 

conifers are out-competing other conifers. Management records (that were found) show assessments of 

stocking/planting needs during WWII, or from 1939 to 1942. The stands that have been examined 

including the sampling of tree ages indicate that the stands are currently around 60 to 75 years old (Crum, 

pers. com.)

a. Current Stand Conditions

Within stand stands proposed for treatment (candidate stands), overstory is dominantly composed of 

Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) with subordinate amounts of western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)

and minor amounts of Port-Orford-cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana). Hardwoods occur in the midstory and understory and consist of chinquapin (Chrysolepis chrysophylla), tanoak (Notholithocarpus

densiflorus) and some red alder (Alnus rubra) occurring in riparian areas adjacent to streams. Conifer 

regeneration is mostly western hemlock with more localized profuse Port-Orford-cedar seedlings/saplings 

associated with drainages and areas with high water tables. 

Understory vegetation dominantly consists of salal (Gaultheria shallon), Pacific rhododendron 

(Rhododendron macrophyllum), tall in places (> 10 feet), and lower covers of dwarf Oregongrape 

(Mahonia nervosa), prince’s pine (Chimaphila pursh), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), western 

twinflower (Linnaea borealis), woods rose (Rosa gymnocarpa), evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium

ovatum) and some grasses.

Currently, dense tree stocking conditions have developed in many candidate stands (within Matrix and 

Riparian Reserves (see Management Direction below) as a result of stand growth leading to increased 

inter-tree competition for site resources essential for tree health, vigor, growth and development. Limited 

availability of site resources within these dense stands is resulting in environmentally stressed trees and 

vegetation. 

Candidate stands are mostly single-storied in stem exclusion (Oliver 1996). Live crowns are receding 

from dense stand conditions with crown ratio ranging 15-20% on suppressed and intermediate crown 

class trees, to 30-40% for dominant and co-dominant trees. Hardwood thickets of chinquapin are present 

and interspersed within stands and are associated with rocky, shallow soils (Atzet, Wheeler, 1989) and 

rock outcrops. There are scattered openings from root disease infection in the northern portion of the 

Planning Area with more multi-layered structure from natural regeneration of conifers and hardwoods. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-7

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Relative Density

One term used throughout this document to describe the degree of crowdedness of individual trees within 

a stand is Relative Density (RD). It is a scale that ranges from 0 (no trees) to 100 (maximum biological 

potential) (Ellen 1984) (Curtis 1982). Relative Density is a measure of a stand’s occupied density 

compared to a theoretical maximum density. RD measures the number of trees per acre independent of 

site qualities such as light, water, and nutrients and serves as a measure of competition for growing space. 

A Relative Density index was used for determining thinning treatment thresholds for candidate stands. 

RD is calculated using quadratic mean diameter and stand basal area (Curtis 1982), or by dividing a 

stand’s existing Stand Density Index (SDI) (Reineke 1933) by a maximum SDI characteristic of the 

stand’s species composition (based on Woodall 2009). The SDI maximum for Douglas-fir in Oregon 

(Larsen 2001, Daniel et al. 1979) was used for the Eden Ridge Project. When a stand reaches or exceeds 

a RD of 50, stand density sufficient to cause competition-related mortality is expected (Ellen 1984). Both 

tree and stand characteristics (tree growth rates, crown structure and mortality, as well as understory 

development and natural regeneration) are all closely related to relative density. 

Previous environmental analysis of similar stands on Powers and Gold Beach Ranger Districts identified 

a RD of 50% as a threshold of stand density sufficient to cause competition-related mortality (USDA 

2007). This RD threshold is used for proposing treatments for the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project.

Previous Timber Stand Exams

Timber stand examinations were conducted in portions of candidate stands (and proposed units) in 1986, 

1999 and 2009. Table I-1 displays abbreviated stand summary information indicating dense stocking 

conditions exceeding treatment thresholds at the time of stand exam data collection. More stand exam 

information is contained in FEIS Appendix B, Preliminary Silvicultural Diagnosis (incorporated by 

reference).

Table I-1. Eden Ridge Stand Examination Summary

Proposed Unit Reference #

1986 Stand Exams - Eden Ridge Stand Age 2011 Stand Age BA/ Ac SDI RD

3 40 65 207 472 0.79

332, 333 43 68 253 463 0.78

333 38 63 171 309 0.52

340, 341 40 65 176 389 0.65

1999 Stand Exams - Eden Ridge

5, 6, 7 53 65 283 505 0.85

5, 6, 7 54 66 203 377 0.63

210, 332 51 63 240 469 0.79

332, 333 54 66 253 463 0.78

332, 333 51 63 280 498 0.84

340, 341, 342 57 69 250 428 0.72

340, 341, 342 58 70 262 504 0.85

216, 343, 344 53 65 222 412 0.69

Not in proposed unit 49 61 242 425 0.71

401, 402 50 62 230 476 0.80

2009 Stand Exams - Eden Ridge

2, 201 51 53 333 510 0.86

320, 324 57 59 253 340 0.57

307 71 73 376 602 1.01

905, 906 (non-commercial) 63 65 165 264 0.44

RD = Relative Density (expressed as decimal); SDI = Stand Density Index; BA/Ac = Basal Area per acre
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-8

Final Environmental Impact Statement

A data query of the Forest’s existing vegetation GIS layer displays 1,996 acres exceeding 50% RD in 

candidate stands for Eden Ridge Timber Sales (MAP I-3). Queried polygons are concentrated in the 

eastern portion of the Planning Area and are associated with the more productive Preacher-Bohannon 

soils. 

MAP I-3. Existing Vegetation Polygons Exceeding 50% RD within Candidate Stands

RD >= 50% in blue shaded areas

Canopy Cover

A data query of the Forest’s existing vegetation GIS layer displays most candidate stands exceeding 70% 

canopy cover for Eden Ridge Timber Sales (MAP I-4). Stands with dense canopy cover allow for little 

light to reaches the ground or lower tree branches. Thus, there are few shrubs, forbs or grasses on the 

forest floor. 

MAP I-4. Existing Vegetation Polygons >= 70% Canopy Cover within Candidate Stands
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-9

Final Environmental Impact Statement

b. Current Stand Conditions for Riparian Reserve

The LRMP as amended by the 1994 NWFP establishes Riparian Reserves as part of the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy (ACS) to maintain and restore riparian functions, provide benefits to riparian 

dependent and associated species, and provide for greater connectivity within watersheds. The current 

trend of overly dense small diameter riparian stands within the Eden Ridge Planning Area is away from 

this desired condition.

Many riparian areas are currently dominated by smaller diameter Douglas-fir and some hardwoods. Most 

are lacking desired amounts of large woody debris, downed logs, and large live tree structure. Like 

treatment in the uplands, treatment of these areas would reduce competition on the retained trees for light, 

nutrients, water and growing space. These trees would develop larger canopies, display better vigor and 

put on diameter growth faster than if left untreated. 

Since the Eden Ridge Timber Sales DEIS was released, further field reconnaissance including stand 

examination and validation of Riparian Reserve areas has occurred for the project. Additional stand exam 

plots taken within Riparian Reserves during summer 2012 showed 165 out of 199 plots (83%) with RD 

greater than 50%. Species composition is 91% Douglas-fir, 3% western hemlock, 3% Port-Orford-cedar, 

2% tanoak and <1% chinquapin. Stand exams demonstrate that the majority of Riparian Reserves are 

densely stocked with a high RD, and that there is a lack of species diversity.

Diversity

Diversity is the distribution and abundance of different native plant and animal communities and species. 

Diversity in forests can be categorized by variations in genetics, structure and species composition. 

Biodiversity is a term sometimes used to describe the abundance of native plant and animal species. At 

the landscape scale, a mix of forest types and ages can provide habitat for a wide range of plants and 

animals. At the stand scale other elements become more relevant such as species composition, snag 

abundance or the number of canopy layers.

Second growth stands sometimes lack certain elements of diversity and complexity. They often do not 

contain the mix of tree species that were present in the original stand and they are relatively uniform in 

terms of tree species, size and spacing. When the historical railroad clear-cut harvesting occurred, all of 

the large trees and snags were felled or removed. Riparian Reserves within the Eden Ridge Planning 

Area currently have minimal variability of vertical and horizontal stand structure and little sunlight 

reaches the forest floor resulting in low levels of diversity of ground vegetation.

Stand exams (2012) showed tree heights ranged 67 to 145 feet with an average height of 95 feet. Tree 

diameters ranged 12 to 27 inches with an average diameter of 17 inches. Adoption and implementation of 

the 2011 Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategies with this FEIS would 

increase the Primary Shade Zone2 width based on slope and tree height. Tree heights measured in 

Riparian Reserves during the 2012 stand exams indicate the Primary Shade Zones for Eden Ridge Timber 

Sales would range 50 to 85 feet on both side of a stream course. These areas would allow for natural 

suppression processes to occur and produce snags (Lutz 2005; Pabst 2003) that would be available for 

future recruitment of down woody material into the stream channel to allow conditions to maintain and 

trend toward restoration of Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives.

 

2 See Chapter II for details on Riparian Reserve Project Design Criteria
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-10

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Outside of the Primary Shade Zone is where riparian thinning would occur. These areas would be thinned 

to expedite large tree development while maintaining 50% canopy cover as silvicultural objectives to 

restore structural diversity goals stated in the ACS Objectives and expedite development of late seral 

conditions that were historically present in this area and serve as recruitment sources for large wood 

(USDA 1995). Field work in potential treatment units during the 2010 field season noted Riparian 

Reserves of 175 to 350 feet (one site potential tree = 175 feet) overlapping into upland forest types. 

c. Forest Health

There are two forest pathogens; Port-Orford-Cedar root disease (Phytophthora lateralis) and laminated 

root rot (Phellinus weirii) affecting forest health in small portions of the Eden Ridge Planning Area 

(within Matrix and Riparian Reserves). 

Laminated Root Rot

Laminated root rot is affecting forest health on portions of Eden Ridge Planning Area, particularly in the 

northern half in forest stands adjacent to FS Roads 5000440, 5000440003, and 5000448.

Figure I-1. Examples of Laminated Root Rot in Northern Portion of Planning Area

Unit 2 Unit 201

This disease infection extensively decays roots of susceptible host trees and either causes windthrow or 

mortality by destroying the tree’s ability to take up water and nutrients (Hadfield et al., 1986). 

Windthrow is more common with laminated root rot than other root pathogens. Laminated root rot 

spreads by root contact between uninfected trees when living roots penetrate infected roots. In pole-sized 

and larger trees, the root disease can spread outwards an average rate of one (1) foot per year. 

This pathogen can live saprophytically in infected dead roots for fifty (50) years or more. The order of 

susceptibility by tree species present in candidate stands (most to least) includes Douglas-fir and white 

fir> western hemlock > Port-Orford-cedar. All hardwoods are immune. 

Overstory tree species composition is dominantly composed of Douglas-fir in candidate stands. Standlevel susceptibility to infection is expected to increase as root rot pockets continue to expand in size. 

Root rot pockets are currently estimated to be 1/8 to 1/4 acre for areas field visited, though larger 

infection centers are anticipated based on numerous potential root rot pockets visible on aerial photos that 

are within proximity to each other. 

Port-Orford-cedar Root Disease

On most of the Siskiyou NF portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Port-Orford-cedar 

(POC) is concentrated in Riparian Reserves except on the Powers Ranger District where POC is well 

distributed across the landscape. The Powers Ranger District has the greatest concentration of PortOrford-cedar (POC) occurring in the world, from the South Fork of the Coquille River to Iron Mountain. 

This district is also unique in having stands with POC stand components of up to 70 to 80 percent. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-11

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Phytophthora lateralis (PL)

PL is a virulent, non-native pathogen that was introduced into the native range of POC in the early 1950s; 

its place of origin is unknown. PL readily kills POC of all ages that are growing on sites favorable for 

infection. Once an area becomes infested, it is difficult to eradicate PL.

PL can cause mortality within weeks of infection in the case of small trees and in one to four years when 

large trees are infected (Roth et al., 1987). Trees usually lose all foliage two to three years after death. In 

areas where the disease has been active for several years, dead and dying trees with all degrees of foliage 

symptoms are visible (Hadfield et al., 1986). A 2008 inventory showed 47,902 acres of POC present on 

the district, of which 2,349 acres (4.9%) are infested with PL. 

PL is spread in the following ways (Hansen et al., 2000; Zobel et al., 1985):

-Human vectors over long distances via resting spore transported in infested plant material or soil;

-Locally via waterborne spores moving in ditches, streams, or overland flow; or

-Via mycelia growing across root contacts and grafts between infected and uninfected POC.

PL is favored in areas of slow-moving or standing water and on poorly drained microsites, especially 

when such sites occur below roads. Susceptible areas are segregated by canopy cover categories (USDA 

Forest Service, 2004: Record of Decision and Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment for 

Management of Port-Orford-cedar in Southwest Oregon, Siskiyou National Forest). 

An updated POC inventory based on field verification was finalized in 2008 on the Powers Ranger 

District of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. POC presence and PL root disease is mapped in 

the Eden Ridge Planning Area (Map I-5).

Field observations noted variable amounts of standing small to medium diameter snags in PL pockets 

associated with profuse natural regeneration of POC seedlings and saplings in the Eden Ridge Planning 

Area. Infected and healthy (uninfected) POC seedlings usually occur intermingled. See FEIS Appendix 

B for photo-examples of PL Pockets within Eden Ridge Planning Area.

Most of Eden Ridge Timber Sales Planning Area is mapped as Canopy Cover 1 in the updated inventory, 

except polygons west and south of Doe Swamp private inholding (MAP I-5). Canopy Cover 1 is defined 

as 2-5% canopy cover of POC foliage present in mapped polygons (see FEIS Appendix B, Preliminary 

Silvicultural Diagnosis; Polygon Attribute Table-Data Dictionary). Canopy cover is estimated during 

aerial photo interpretation and field verification. 

Canopy Cover 1 can be considered to represent a level of POC that will not measurably contribute to land 

management objectives3. Where POC is a small percentage of the stand or does not provide unique stand 

attributes, its loss is probably not meaningful when measured against management objectives (USDA 

2004, p. 34). In these circumstances, the decision to manage for POC is determined by an 

interdisciplinary team. The decision to manage and treat POC with Canopy Cover 1 in all Action 

Alternatives was made during an Eden Ridge Timber Sales IDT meeting in April 2011. 

 

3 Pers. conv. Frank Betlejewski, Interregional Port-Orford-cedar Program Manager (now retired), Southwest Forest Insect and 

Disease Service Center.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-12

Final Environmental Impact Statement

MAP I-5. 2008 POC Inventory - Canopy Cover Attributes 

Yellow Shade= Uninfected POC Red Shade= Infected POC Yellow Numbers Refer to Canopy Cover Classification

Landscape-scale POC distribution should be considered while planning treatments for Eden Ridge Timber 

Sales since surrounding private timber company land appears to be managing for planted Douglas-fir on a 

40-50-year rotation. Dead and dying POC seedlings and saplings, likely infected with PL, are present in 

road ditches and drainages in the surrounding land ownership. PL has been diagnosed in dying POC 

regeneration alongside the 5000 Road west of the eight mile gate before entering into FS ownership (June 

14, 2011, field trip with Frank Betlejewski, Interregional POC Manager). South Fork Coquille Watershed 

Analysis (1995) identified this watershed as containing the most important Port-Orford-cedar 

concentrations within its natural range (page T20).

Measurably contributing POC and PL infection are present west of the private inholding around Doe 

Swamp. This area is mapped as Canopy Cover 2, defined as 6-20% POC present in mapped polygons. 

Measurably contributing POC and PL are present south of Doe Swamp in (proposed Units 334 and 333 

and the south end of Unit 336). A portion of FS Roads 5000 and 5000440 are within or adjacent to these 

mapped polygons (see Figures B2-8, B2-9, POC Report, FEIS Appendix B2). 

A project-specific POC Risk Key assessment is required in areas with measurably contributing POC to 

help determine where risk reduction management practices would be applied and to comply with the 

LRMP amendment (USDA 2004). 

Sudden Oak Death (SOD)

Currently, the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Planning Area is outside the designated quarantine area for SOD. 

If new SOD infestations result in an expansion of the quarantine area boundary to include the Planning 

Area, compliance with state and federal quarantine regulations will be required. 

Doe Swamp
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-13

Final Environmental Impact Statement

d. Large Woody Material and Snags

Observations based on an informal walk through candidate stands prior to 2009 by the previous district 

silviculturists noted large woody material (LWM), 20 inch plus diameter at breast height (dbh), limited on 

the forest floor. Where observed, LWM was in the decomposition class 4 and 5 range (soft), having been 

left during the historical clear-cut railroad logging activity. Standing snags over 16 inch diameter are also 

limited with most snags being within the 8 to 11 inch diameter range. A qualitative assessment associated 

with the 2012 Riparian Reserve Stand Exams of large woody material noted 28%, 43%, 25% (of 114 

plots) were in the “Heavy, Moderate and Light” categories respectively for existing conditions of down 

wood within Riparian Reserves.

Down Wood

Down woody material (large and small) fulfills a number of important ecological functions such as 

stabilizing surface soils, increasing organic content in soils over the long-term, providing habitat for the 

many organisms that depend on snags and down logs in various stages of decay, and ensuring adequate 

woody material recruitment to meet the ecological needs of aquatic systems over time. 

Stand self-thinning is evident in many stands proposed for treatment. High RDs exceeding stated density 

thresholds has caused tree mortality to occur in the suppressed and intermediate crown class trees. 

Correlations between living tree biomass and deadwood biomass emerge when stands exceed 75% RD 

(Woodall 2009). Down wood boles from self-thinning are smaller in diameter than historical logging 

slash, present around old railroad grades and in riparian areas. 

Figure I-2. Examples of Down Wood Conditions from Historical Railroad Logging

ER Unit 326 ER Unit 1

Root rot infection caused by laminated root (Phellinus weirii) contributes more localized pockets of down 

wood, particularly in the northern half of the ER Planning Area. Infected areas are estimated at 59 to 111 

tons per acre of forest residue based on the Pacific Northwest photo series (Maxwell 1980). Laminated 

root rot centers are more susceptible to windthrow (Hadfield et al., 1986) and may supply important 

concentrations of down woody material as infected dead trees do not remain standing for very long.

In addition to laminated root rot centers, windthrown trees are evident along the perimeter of the Planning 

Area adjacent to large openings created by timber harvest on private timber company lands. Down wood 

from windthrow is also present on landforms with shallow soils (e.g., Umpcoos/Rock outcrop).

In riparian areas of the South Fork of the Coquille Watershed, large wood is delivered to stream channels 

by debris flows, streamside landslides, recruitment from adjacent riparian forests, and transport from 

upstream sites. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-14

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Federal and private activities removed massive amounts of wood for salvage following the 1964 flood

(not however within the Planning Area). For major watershed streams, standing large wood has been lost 

from riparian areas primarily by harvest, scouring debris flows and salvage following a windthrow event 

(USDA Forest Service, 1995). 

The 2010 Stream Survey for Coal Creek found little or no medium or large size class woody material and 

little potential for future recruitment (refer to more detailed information under Hydrologic Conditions 

issue, Chapter III, and FEIS Appendix C). The entire reach of Coal Creek would be rated “Poor” for 

large woody material, as an indicator of habitat and channel condition (USDA 1993) based on the 

condition of the main channel. According to watershed analyses and stream surveys, quantities of large 

woody material in stream channels, and quantities available for recruitment to stream channels, are not at 

desired levels throughout the affected watersheds. 

Snags

Currently there are only scattered snags in the Planning Area due to stand density, past fires and forest 

disease conditions causing tree mortality. Table B-9 (FEIS Appendix B, Preliminary Silvicultural 

Diagnosis) lists standing dead (snags) present on the 2009 stand exam plots.

Snags are deficient in two of the vegetation polygons inventoried in the eastern portion of the Planning 

Area, small 7 to16 inch snags are present in an older stand in the western portion near Coal Creek and 

scattered larger 20+inch snags are present in the non-commercial units west of the 5000 Road.

Field reconnaissance in combination with GPS location waypoints during summer 2011 noted clumps of 

five (5) to twelve (12), four (4) inch to thirty (30) inch diameter standing snags occurring in Port-Orfordcedar root disease pockets (Phytophthora lateralis) in the southern portion of the Planning Area adjacent 

to the 5000 Road (see Figure B-12, FEIS Appendix B). POC is not considered a desirable tree species for 

wildlife use as snag habitat4.

3. DESIRED CONDITIONS

The Interdisciplinary Team consulted the Siskiyou NF LRMP (as amended); using that direction and 

current forest and ecosystem conditions, they developed more specific desired conditions for this 

Planning Area and this project. The desired conditions vary according to the Land Allocations associated 

with proposed treatments for candidate stands; Matrix and Riparian Reserve (see Management Direction 

below).

a. Matrix

The desired conditions for candidate stands in Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project within Matrix is 

sustainable, cost-efficient timber production, within LRMP standards and guidelines, to support current 

and future economies while managing tree stocking levels and species composition to improve forest 

health and resiliency. This typically means individual tree and overall stand diameter growth, crown 

development, improving root strength on residual trees, vigor and overall stand health.

The primary silvicultural objective for Eden Ridge is to control existing dense tree stocking conditions 

within commercial stands to result in more sustainable, full yield timber production on suitable Matrix 

lands. Under desired conditions resulting from treatments, a sustainable forest resilient to drought, wind, 

insects, disease, fire and other natural disturbances would prevail. Mortality of remaining conifers would 

decrease. Over time, crowns of remaining trees would become fuller and overall stand vigor and growth 

would improve. 

 

4 Pers conv. David Clayton, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Wildlife Biologist, January 18, 2012
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-15

Final Environmental Impact Statement

For these young managed stands, the specifically desired condition, over time, is one in which the treated 

stands have an increased overall mean diameter, increased rate of tree diameter growth and crown 

development including large limbs and broken tops, stimulated understory shrub and herb development, 

diverse species composition, increased variation in height of the overstory canopy, increased snag and 

down wood levels, greater wind firmness, and larger trees that could become future sources of highquality snags and/or down wood.

Thinning is a silvicultural practice generally applied to control stand density, maintain stand vigor, and 

place or maintain stands on developmental paths so that desired stand characteristics result in the future. 

This treatment would promote improved stand health, as well as increased vigor and crown development 

on retained trees. 

Growth and yield are important considerations in applying commercial thinning treatments. Production 

of some wood volume at the present time and an increase/maintenance of growth rates for wood volume 

production in the future are primary goals for Matrix. Projected density and disease-related tree mortality 

would be harvested in support of the Forest’s Probable Sale Quantity. 

b. Riparian Reserve

The desired conditions for Riparian Reserves within candidate stands is for these riparian areas to once 

again serve their existing aquatic ecosystem protection functions (effective stream shade, bank 

stabilization, provision of wood and leaf litter to the stream channel, etc.) at lower tree densities that are 

on a trajectory to develop high quality, sustainable riparian and late-successional habitat. 

Under desired conditions resulting from treatments, habitat conditions for wildlife and fish would be 

improved. This means increased vegetative and structural diversity and species (over current conditions); 

maintenance or improvement of shading capability of streams; improvement of large wood retention and 

large wood recruitment, and providing suitable amounts of snags and/or replacement habitat for 

dependent species.

Riparian Reserves would contain riparian structures and functions of perennial and intermittent streams, 

provide benefits to riparian-dependent and associated species, enhance habitat conservation for organisms 

that are dependent on the transition zone between upslope and riparian areas, improve travel and dispersal 

corridors for many terrestrial animals and plants, and provide for greater connectivity of watersheds.

One of the long-term goals is the development and maintenance of late-successional forest habitat. Latesuccessional stand characteristics include some large trees (over 40” dbh) with large limbs and broken 

tops, multiple canopy layers of shade tolerant species, forbs and shrubs scattered in pockets throughout 

the stand, numerous large snags (over 20” dbh) and down logs in all decay classes.

For the Eden Ridge Planning Area, the specifically desired conditions within Riparian Reserves is to 

benefit riparian area and wetland functions, tying closely with Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objective 

(ACSO) 1: Maintain and restore complexity of watershed and landscape features, ACSO 8: Maintain and 

restore riparian plant communities and distribution of coarse woody debris, and ACSO 9: Maintain and 

restore habitat for riparian dependent species (NWFP page B-11). For the Eden Ridge Planning Area 

within Riparian Reserve, there is an initial need to restore (improve) riparian conditions for aquatic 

habitat, associated with these ACS Objectives, lost by historical clear-cut logging.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-16

Final Environmental Impact Statement

One conclusion in a recent ‘The Science of Thinning to Meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives in 

Northwest Forest Plan Riparian Reserves’ held October 30, 2012 at La Sells Stewart Center on the OSU 

campus workshop (Spies, Pollock, Reeves, Beechie) in Corvallis, Oregon noted thinning is most 

beneficial in dense young stands < 80 years old and has the greatest potential for ecological benefits to 

accelerate development of older forest structure. These larger green trees would be available to other 

processes (debris torrents, wind storms, etc.) for potential live delivery to the riparian system for future 

achievement of ACS Objectives.

D. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

The overall Purpose of this project is to implement direction from the 1989 Land and Resource 

Management Plan for the Siskiyou National Forest, as amended. The Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project 

would occur within two Land Allocations; Matrix and Riparian Reserve (see Management Direction, 

below).

1. MATRIX

The majority of the Eden Ridge Timber Sales proposal is on lands allocated to Matrix which emphasizes 

obtaining a full yield of timber within the capability of the land. Most scheduled timber harvest and other 

silvicultural activities would be conducted in that portion of the Matrix with suitable forest lands (NW 

Forest Plan, page C-39). Specifically for the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project, Needs within Matrix

include: 

Improvement of Overall Forest Vigor and Resiliency – There is a need for tree stocking level control 

that would reduce stand densities through intermediate harvest thinning treatments to sustain or increase 

tree growth and improve forest vigor and resiliency. Density management would release remaining trees 

from inter-tree competition for sunlight, water and soil nutrients when compared to untreated areas. 

Minor portions of the Planning Area infected with root diseases would be managed to harvest trees 

predisposed to pathogen infection and retain or plant resistant tree species to improve forest health.

Older legacy (remnant) trees, minor conifer tree species (in portions of stands uninfected with root 

disease), hardwoods, existing snags and coarse woody material would be retained where feasible to 

maintain or improve forest diversity. The desired condition is a sustainable forest resilient to drought, 

wind, insects, disease, fire and other natural disturbances. 

Contribution of Commercial Timber to the Probable Sale Quantity – Proposed candidate stands are 

primarily allocated to Matrix and contribute to the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Probable Sale 

Quantity (PSQ). PSQ is the estimated output of commercial timber and other commodities assigned to 

the Forest under the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan.

2. RIPARIAN RESERVE

For the Eden Ridge Planning Area, there is an initial need to restore (improve) riparian conditions for 

late-successional forest habitat, lost by historical clear-cut logging. Specifically for the Eden Ridge 

Timber Sales project, Needs within Riparian Reserve include:

Maintain and Restore Riparian Reserves - Meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives – There is a 

need to accelerate the development of late-successional stand conditions, such as older forest stand 

characteristics, increase conifer growth rates and provide for larger remnant conifers and hardwoods. 

There is a need to treat vegetation within the Riparian Reserves to meet the intent of Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy Objectives and lead to improved conditions (see Desired Condition for Riparian 

Reserve, above). Treatments would move the riparian structure to trend toward the natural range of 

variability in the long term.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-17

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Most riparian areas are currently dominated by Douglas-fir (12 to 27 inches diameter, average 17 inches)

and some hardwoods. Many are lacking adequate amounts of large wood material, downed logs, and 

large tree structure. Like treatment in the uplands, thinning treatments of these areas would reduce 

competition on the retained (residual) trees for light, nutrients, water and growing space. These residual 

trees would develop larger canopies, display better vigor and put on diameter growth faster than if left

untreated. 

3. PROJECT DESIGN OBJECTIVES

In enacting treatments to meet the above stated needs, the overall project and/or its activities should be 

designed to:

 Minimize soil impacts (erosion, compaction and/or displacement);

 Minimize damage to residual trees during treatment;

 Reduce the risk of effects from insect and disease infestations;

 Minimize or reduce the potential for high severity, stand replacement wildfires; 

 Maintain and restore (improve) aquatic conditions in terms of attainment of Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy Objectives;

 Minimize adverse effects, including cumulative effects, on all other resources;

 Provide wood products for local and regional markets (including firewood); and

 Be an operational and economically sustainable project for this and future entries.

E. PROPOSED ACTION

The action proposed by the Forest Service to meet the Purpose and Need within Matrix is variable density 

thinning and other silvicultural treatments designed to control stocking and maintain or improve overall 

forest vigor and resiliency, and contribute commercial timber volume to the Probable Sale Quantity from 

within portions of the 6,516-acre Eden Ridge Planning Area. 

The action proposed by the Forest Service to meet the Purpose and Need within Riparian Reserves 

associated with candidate stands is variable density thinning and other silvicultural treatments designed to 

control stocking and maintain or improve overall forest health and accelerate the development of latesuccessional stand conditions, to meet the intent of Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives in the long 

term.

Candidate stands located on suitable forest land within the Planning Area are proposed for treatment that 

are designated as Matrix and Riparian Reserve under the Land and Resource Management Plan as 

amended by the Northwest Forest Plan. Additionally, treatments would include management of two 

forest pathogens; Port Orford cedar root disease (Phytophthora lateralis) and laminated root rot 

(Phellinus weirii) affecting forest health in small portions of the Planning Area. Within candidate stands, 

the more abundant species are Douglas-fir and western hemlock. 

The Powers Ranger District specifically proposes timber harvest and other connected activities and 

actions on approximately 3,314 acres of second growth candidate stands within the Planning Area from 

timber harvested in the 1920s through 1930s, and regenerated in the late 1930s through 1940s. 

The original Notice of Intent (April 26, 2010) stated that approximately 3,650 acres would be treated 

under the Proposed Action. This estimate (as disclosed in the corrected Notice of Intent [January 18,

2012]) was refined downward and now includes 3,314 acres of commercial treatments. Likewise, the 

number of commercial units was refined to now include 75 units. An additional 363 acres are proposed 

for non-commercial density management. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-18

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The original Notice of Intent stated that approximately 8 miles of new system road construction, and/or 

construction of new temporary roads to facilitate treatments would be considered. Based on further field 

reconnaissance, this estimate was refined and the Proposed Action now includes (corrected Notice of

Intent) approximately 10.5 miles of new system road construction, approximately 12 miles of 

reconstruction and/or maintenance of existing system roads, and use of approximately 31 miles of 

existing system roads. 

Under the Proposed Action, harvest logging systems associated with commercial timber harvest 

anticipated to use a combination of ground-based or skyline operations depending on soil, slope and 

hydrological concerns. 

It is estimated the Proposed Action could produce up to 53 million board feet from the 3,314 acres being

considered, from multiple timber sales over approximately five years. This project (and its analysis under 

the National Environmental Policy Act) is not being authorized as a project under the Healthy Forest 

Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003. 

Chapter II of this EIS contains more detail on the proposed treatments, connected actions including 

roads, anticipated logging systems, and other actions that are associated with the Proposed Action, 

which is labeled as Alternative 2.

F. DECISION FRAMEWORK

This EIS is not a decision document. This project EIS will not analyze or make a decision on financing or 

packaging of implementation contracts, e.g., which units would associated or packaged into which sales. 

This would be accomplished later, based on the selected course of action and the types of treatments 

(including yarding systems), and locations that are included. Its main purpose is to disclose and allow 

public review and comment on the consequences that could result from implementation of the Proposed 

Action, or alternatives to that action. Should an action alternative be selected, certain decisions will be 

documented in a forthcoming Record of Decision. Accordingly, the EIS focuses on providing analysis 

sufficient to make the following Federal decisions:

 Which, if any, of the proposed vegetation management proposals and connected actions will

the Forest Service implement and under what conditions?

 What design elements (Project Design Criteria), mitigation and monitoring measures will be 

required if an action alternative is selected?

The Responsible Official (the Decision Maker) for this analysis and forthcoming decision is the Forest 

Supervisor, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest5. The District Ranger(s) for Powers have led the 

analysis, guided the Interdisciplinary Team, and coordinated the public involvement process.

In addition to consideration of attainment of Purpose and Need, the response of the alternatives in relation 

to the identified Significant and Other Issues will be used as important decision factors. No one element 

of Purpose and Need or Issues will be used to make a decision; rather, they will be reviewed together with 

an assessment of tradeoffs to make the final decision.

 

5 This was changed in the January 18, 2012 corrected Notice of Intent, to the Forest Supervisor from the District Ranger, as

published in the original (April 26, 2010) Notice of Intent.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-19

Final Environmental Impact Statement

36 CFR 218 Process

When the DEIS was released, the associated documentation indicated that the upcoming decision would 

be subject to an administrative appeal process according to the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 

215); this process allows people who submitted comments during the comment period on the draft EIS an 

opportunity to appeal the final decision after it is signed. However, on March 27, 2013, new regulations 

were released that will apply to the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project.

The new regulations, found at 36 CFR 218, provide an opportunity for individuals, organizations and 

tribal entities to file an objection to a project before the final decision is signed. This allows interested 

individuals, organizations and tribal entities to advise the responsible official (deciding officer) about 

concerns regarding the final decision before the decision is made.

G. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

For this portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (RRSNF), land management direction is 

contained in the Siskiyou National Forest (SNF) Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest 

Service 1989) as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of 

Land Management, 1994), and other Forest Plan amendments (see below). 

The Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning 

Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, is now commonly known as the Northwest 

Forest Plan (NWFP). This ROD, jointly signed by the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior, amended 

the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP or Forest Plan) and other 

existing plans within the range of the northern spotted owl. This amendment, which became effective on 

May 20, 1994, provided additional goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for resource management. 

It added several new land allocations, each with its own set of Standards and Guidelines. These land 

allocations overlay and merge with the allocations from the 1989 SNF LRMP. 

Pursuant to CEQ 1502.20, this EIS is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of 

Decision (ROD) for the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as amended by 

the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning 

Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. The direction in the Northwest Forest Plan 

supersedes the SNF LRMP allocations where it is more restrictive or provides greater benefits to latesuccessional ecosystems. Direction from the SNF Forest Plan is retained where it is more restrictive or is 

unaffected by the Northwest Forest Plan.

This document is tiered to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision 

and Land Resource Management Plan for Management of Port-Orford-cedar in Southwest Oregon, 

Siskiyou National Forest (USDA, USDI 2004) which is a programmatic decision amending Standards and 

Guidelines of the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

This document is also tiered to the FEIS and Record of Decision (2005) for the Invasive Plant Program -

Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants. Under this decision, invasive plant management direction is 

added to all National Forest Plans in the Region and becomes part of the individual Forest Plans.

This document is also tiered to the Environmental Assessment and Decision Notice and Finding of No 

Significant Impact and Finding of Non-significant Forest Plan Amendments (2010): Fire Use 

Amendment. This amendment is an administrative action involving the modification and changing of the 

wording for management direction and Standards and Guidelines for the rogue River-Siskiyou National 

Forest regarding appropriate management response to meet current federal and Forest Service fire 

terminology and policy.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-20

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Eden Ridge Planning Area contains four Management Allocations/Prescriptions (see MAP I-6). A 

brief description of applicable Management Allocations/Prescriptions is provided below. More detailed 

descriptions can be found in the Northwest Forest Plan, and the Siskiyou National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan.

1. MATRIX

This allocation emphasizes obtaining a full yield of timber within the capability of the land. Most 

scheduled timber harvest and other silvicultural activities would be conducted in that portion of the 

Matrix with suitable forest lands (NWFP, page C-39). Matrix lands allocated under the NWFP include all 

areas not otherwise designated to a more protective status under the LRMP. 

Standards and Guidelines for unmapped Late-Successional and Managed Late-Successional Areas 

prohibit or limit activities that otherwise appear to be within the Matrix (NWFP C-39). The Eden Ridge 

Planning Area does not contain habitats with these designations. Standards and Guidelines for Green 

Tree Retention are not applicable to candidate stands under consideration as the proposed treatments are 

not regeneration and include the thinning of stands less than 80 years old. Standards and Guidelines for 

coarse woody material, snags and Survey and Manage species are employed and are discussed in more 

detail in FEIS Chapters II and III.

The Eden Ridge Planning area primarily includes lands allocated to Matrix, as carried forward 

from the 1989 LRMP as General Forest Prescription (Management Area 14). This Management 

Area was assigned a visual quality objective of Modification and Maximum Modification, under the 

(1989) SNF LRMP. 

MAP I-6. Eden Ridge Planning Area Land Allocations/Prescriptions
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-21

Final Environmental Impact Statement

2. RIPARIAN RESERVE

There are an estimated 2,600 acres of Riparian Reserves interspersed within the Matrix allocations for the 

entire Eden Ridge Timber Sales Planning Area. As allocated under the NWFP, Riparian Reserve includes 

lands along all streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, unstable areas, and potentially unstable areas that are 

subject to special Standards and Guidelines designed to conserve aquatic and riparian-dependent species. 

The NWFP establishes a minimum protection buffer equal to the height of one site-potential tree, along 

each side of the riparian feature, which in the case of the Eden Ridge Planning Area and Timber Sales 

Project, is 175 feet. For perennial fish-bearing streams this distance is two site-potential trees (or 350 

feet). 

Standards and Guidelines emphasize prohibiting or regulating activities in Riparian Reserves that retard 

or prevent attainment of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives (NWFP, page C-31). Under the 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS), Riparian Reserves are used to maintain and restore riparian 

structures and functions of perennial and intermittent streams, confer benefits to riparian-dependent and 

associated species other than fish, enhance habitat conservation for organisms that are dependent on the 

transition zone between upslope and riparian areas, improve travel and dispersal corridors for many 

terrestrial animals and plants, and provide for greater connectivity of watersheds (NWFP page B-9). 

Riparian Reserve treatments are to designed to restore lands along all streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, 

unstable areas, and potentially unstable areas that are subject to special Standards and Guidelines 

designed to conserve aquatic and riparian-dependent species. Standards and Guidelines apply to activities 

in Riparian Reserves that may otherwise retard or prevent attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

(ACS) Objectives, as defined in the 1994 ROD for the Northwest Forest Plan.

Vegetation management within Riparian Reserves shall apply silvicultural practices to control stocking, 

reestablish and manage stands, improve vegetative health, and acquire vegetation characteristics needed 

to attain ACS Objectives (NWFP page C-32). Thinning within Riparian Reserves and within some 

candidate stands is proposed, based on field reconnaissance. In addition, there are likely to be 

intermittent or perennial streams not yet identified. These areas would need to be identified through 

additional field reconnaissance and mapped in GIS. Some, all or none of these Riparian Reserves may 

need vegetative treatment to maintain or improve their function in accordance with the ACS.

Key Watershed designation is a component of the ACS that is applied to watersheds that contain at-risk 

fish species or anadromous stocks and that provide high quality water and fish habitat. The South Fork 

Coquille River (5th-field watershed) is designated as a Tier 1 Key Watershed (the Middle Fork 

Coquille fifth-field watershed is not). All of the lands associated with the candidate stands have been 

analyzed by a Watershed Analysis and have been consulted during the analysis of this proposal. Under 

Northwest Forest Plan direction, Key Watershed is not a designated area or Matrix, but overlay all 

allocations. 

Standards and Guidelines apply to activities in Riparian Reserves that may otherwise retard or prevent 

attainment of ACS Objectives, as defined in the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan. Standards and Guidelines 

for Key Watersheds and Riparian Reserves are found in Attachment A to the ROD for the Northwest 

Forest Plan. 

According to the Northwest Forest Plan, Basis for Standards and Guidelines (NWFP page B-19: Roadless 

Areas and Key Watersheds; third paragraph):
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-22

Final Environmental Impact Statement

“The amount of existing system and non-system roads within Key Watersheds should be reduced 

through decommissioning of roads. Road closures with gates or barriers do not qualify as 

decommissioning or a reduction in road mileage. If funding is insufficient to implement reductions, 

there will be no net increase in the amount of roads in Key Watersheds. That is, for each mile of new 

road constructed, at least one mile of road should be decommissioned, and priority given to roads 

that pose the greatest risks to riparian and aquatic ecosystems.”

The situation for the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project therefore is; a portion of the Planning Area is 

within a Key Watershed; there are no roadless areas associated with this project and under this Standard 

and Guideline, there is to be no net increase in the amount of roads. Note that this basis for this standard 

and guidelines is “amount of existing system and non-system roads” and not road density (usually 

expressed in miles/sq. mi.). Also note that this Standard and Guideline is applicable at the fifth-field scale 

(the area designated as Tier 1 Key Watershed (and not to any of the smaller subwatershed that comprise 

the larger fifth-field Key Watershed).

Management Prescription MA-11 - Riparian

The SNF Forest Plan allocation of “Riparian” (Prescription MA-11) is now included within the Northwest 

Forest Plan Riparian Reserve allocation; it was generally less restrictive and included less area than does 

Riparian Reserve as now designated. As stated in the 1989 SNF LRMP page IV-125:

“This prescription applied to the riparian ecosystem along all perennial streams (Class I, II, and Ill). 

The minimum area of consideration is 100 feet measured horizontally from each side of the stream. 

The actual width of the riparian zone is determined on the ground and varies based on site-specific 

conditions. The expected average distance of consideration for Class I and II streams is 150 feet. 

Within this Management Area there are three prescription themes that are assigned to individual 

Planning Basins. Two include multiple uses with the emphasis on watershed and fisheries values and 

limited timber production. Prescription B is designed to manage vegetation to maintain water 

temperature. Prescription C manages vegetation to reduce water temperature and improve watershed 

conditions over time. The third prescription is Minimum Level (M) which programs no timber 

harvest that would remove stream shade producing vegetation.”

The Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project is contained within the “South Fork Coquille Planning Basin” (SNF 

LRMP page IV-124), and is assigned Prescription B (SNF LRMP page IV-125). Timber Standard and 

Guideline MA 11-5 (SNF LRMP page IV-127) states: 

“Timber management is programmed at a level that will provide for maintaining the stream 

temperatures without significant increase in critical summer temperatures. Management activities 

may include the following: commercial harvest, site preparation, planting, release, and precommercial 

thinning.

To provide canopy cover for stream shading and large conifers for wildlife and stream habitats; the 

basal area of conifers should be maintained at or above 70 percent of natural conditions along Class I 

and II streams, and 30 percent along Class Ill streams. Harvest shall be done in such a way that 

damage to remaining streamside vegetation is minimized. Priority should be given to planting 

vegetation along shade-deficient stream channels. Directional falling and full suspension should be 

required within the streamside area.

The project level environmental analysis shall examine the cumulative effects of both past and future 

treatments. No more than 11 percent of the Riparian Area acreage within each planning basin shall 

be entered on a first entry basis per decade. Harvest units shall be distributed within each basin, and 

subsequent reentries per site should not occur within 20 years.”
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-23

Final Environmental Impact Statement

3. SPECIAL WILDLIFE SITE (MA 9)

This Prescription is derived from the 1989 LRMP. It is applicable to special wildlife sites and botanical 

sites which are important components for overall wildlife habitat diversity. Included are sites of general 

and special multiple values including water, meadows, and hardwoods. While included within the Eden 

Ridge Planning Area, the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project is not proposing any activities within 

Special Wildlife Site MA-9. 

4. OTHER LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS

Congressionally Designated Areas

The Planning Area does not contain nor are any activities proposed under the Eden Ridge Timber Sales 

Project that are within or adjacent to any Wilderness, Recreation Area, Wild and Scenic River, or any 

other congressionally designated area.

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) were most recently identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation 

Rule. The Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project is not within or adjacent to any area previously inventoried 

as roadless, resulting from the RARE II process or identified in Appendix C of the 1989 SNF FEIS for the 

LRMP. 

Potential Wilderness and Other Undeveloped Areas

There are no large areas within the Eden Ridge Planning Area that currently have few or no classified or 

unclassified roads, or lack evidence of past management (historical clear-cut railroad logging). There are 

several small areas within portions of the Planning Area that were not intensively regenerated following 

historical railroad clear-cut logging. These areas were determined to be late seral condition or areas with 

natural, non-forested or sparse vegetation types. The total area of these is less than 200 acres. The topic 

of Potential Wilderness and Other Undeveloped Areas is further explored as an “Other” issue and is 

documented in FEIS Chapter III (Section E, 14).

5. WATERSHED ANALYSES

Watershed Analysis is a procedure used to characterize conditions, processes and functions related to 

human, aquatic, riparian and terrestrial features within a watershed. Watershed Analysis is issue driven. 

Analysis teams of resource specialists identify and describe ecological processes of greatest concern in a 

particular “fifth field” watershed, and recommend restoration activities and conditions under which other 

management activities should occur. 

Watershed Analysis is not a decision making process. Rather, Watershed Analyses provides information 

and non-binding recommendations for agencies to establish the context for subsequent planning, project 

development, regulatory compliance and agency decisions (See Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis 

1995, p. 1).

For example, in the “Social Discussion” (South Fork Coquille Watershed Analysis, Page S-1), there is a 

discussion under “Timber Commodity” and “Future trends” (WA page S-4) that predicts forested seral

stages and future trends for harvest volume. These trends were based on the conditions prevalent in the 

early 1990s, when regeneration harvest was the predominant harvest type. 

At this time (over 23 years later), minimal amounts of volume have been regeneration harvested within 

the watershed on federally managed lands; the predominant harvest system has been commercial thinning. 

The harvest volume predictions discussed at Page S-5 of the Watershed Analysis have not come to 

fruition and it is likely that the estimate for thinning from the early seral stages was understated (more 

than half of the early seral stages are likely to be commercially thinned). 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-24

Final Environmental Impact Statement

While stated as a prediction for the next 50 years, it is not likely to be exceeded under current trends. 

This annual harvest volume prediction is not considered an annual threshold for this project. The 

Watershed Analysis focused on the use of existing information available at the time the analysis was 

conducted, and provides baseline information. Additional information, determined to be necessary for 

completing an analysis of the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project, has been collected and is considered 

along with existing information provided by Watershed Analyses. Management Objectives and 

Recommendations provided by the Watershed Analysis were considered and addressed as they applied to 

this project.

The Planning Area falls within the South Fork Coquille River and the Middle Fork Coquille River 5thfield watersheds (see MAP I-2). Two watershed analyses have been completed that cover the Planning 

Area and contain a synthesis of scientific knowledge about watershed trends and conditions at watershed 

scales as well as by smaller subwatersheds. They are listed below along with the subwatersheds that 

contain the Eden Ridge Planning Area:

 Myrtlewood Resource Area, Coos Bay District, Bureau of Land Management, 1994

Middle Fork Coquille Analytical Watershed

(Lower) Rock Creek and Myrtle Creek subwatersheds

 Powers Ranger District, Siskiyou National Forest, USDA Forest Service, 1995

South Fork Coquille Watershed Analysis

Coal Creek, Headwaters South Fork Coquille (aka Wooden Rock Creek), and Mill Creek 

subwatersheds

The majority of the proposed candidate stands are within the South Fork Coquille Key Watershed; 

proposed areas in the Middle Fork Coquille are limited to areas along the divide between these two fifthfield watersheds. More information summarized from watershed analyses is contained in the Hydrology 

Report, Appendix C (attached to this FEIS and incorporated by reference).

H. SCOPING AND ISSUES

Scoping is the name for the process used to determine the extent of the environmental analysis to be 

conducted. It is used early and throughout the NEPA process to identify (1) the issues to be addressed, 

(2) the depth of analysis required, (3) alternatives to the Proposed Action, and (4) potential environmental 

effects associated with the Proposed Action. This EIS has been developed with extensive public 

participation. The public involvement requirements of NEPA (40 CFR 1501.7) have been employed in 

order to develop and publish an EIS for release to an informed public.

1. SCOPING PROCESS

In April of 2010, the formal process under NEPA was initiated. Scoping letters were mailed on 4/13/10 

to all known interested publics having been involved in the initial sensing process, describing the 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need for the Project. A Legal Notice for Scoping was published in the 

Coos Bay World, Newspaper of Record, on 4/16/10. 

In addition, Scoping Letters were sent to other agencies such as Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Oregon Department of Forestry, NOAA Fisheries, Bureau of Land Management, and various city and 

county government entities in coastal southwest Oregon. Government-to-Government consultation letters 

were mailed to the Coquille Tribal Council; no response was received. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-25

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Scoping process for this project officially began with the issuance of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to 

prepare an Environmental Impact Statement published in the Federal Register on April 26, 2010 (FR page 

21577-21579). Written and electronic responses to the Scoping Letter were received through June 10, 

2010. Eight sources of substantial input were received from interested individuals, environmental interest 

groups, industry representatives, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Due to the length of time that had passed since the original NOI was published, refinement of the 

Proposed Action, and a change in the Responsible Official, a second (corrected) Notice of Intent was sent 

to the Federal Register and was published on January 18, 2012 (FR Vol. 77, No. 11, page 2508-250). 

Notification was provided to the initial scoping respondents to notify them of the corrected NOI.

Forest Service sponsored field trips were held with interested parties including representatives of the 

Society of American Foresters, American Forest Resource Council, Environmental Protection Agency, 

and Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife on August 1, and August 2, 2011. Notes from these field trips are 

contained in the Project Record. An additional field trip with an individual representing Klamath 

Siskiyou Wildlands Center was conducted in the Spring of 2012 (during the DEIS Comment Period).

Copies of the March, 2012, Draft Eden Ridge Timber Sales Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and 

Appendices, along with an invitation to comment, were mailed to approximately 45 individuals and 

organizations who were involved with this project or who had requested a copy of the DEIS. A 45-day 

DEIS public Comment Period formally began on March 31, 2012, the first day following publication of a 

Notice of Availability (EIS #20120087) in the Federal Register Vol. 77 No. 62 (FR page 19281). The 45-

day comment period closed on May 14, 2012.

Four comment letters were received during the comment period. The original comment letters and copies 

of Forest Service review and coding are part of the Project Record (incorporated by reference). All 

comments were read and coded based on content and intent, by a Forest Service planning team, with 

District Ranger and Forest Supervisor oversight, review and concurrence. Pursuant to 36 CFR 215.6 (b), 

(1), A “Response to Comments” appendix documents the Responsible Official’s consideration and 

response of all substantive comments submitted in compliance with paragraph (a) of this section. This 

document is contained in FEIS Appendix A, incorporated by reference. Comments and responses were 

used to clarify and improve FEIS documentation and analysis.

Additional comments directed to the DEIS were received from Richard Nawa (representing Klamath 

Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Cascadia Wildlands Project and Umpqua Watersheds) via a letter dated June 

6, 2013. While this letter and these comments were received after the DEIS Comment Period had closed, 

the Forest has chosen to respond to substantive comments contained in this letter in a similar fashion as 

those received during the Comment Period. 

2. SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

NEPA requires Federal agencies to focus analysis and documentation on the significant issues related to a 

proposed action. The Interdisciplinary Team with involvement and approval from the District Ranger(s)

and Responsible Official has identified the following as Significant Issues associated with the Proposed 

Action presented in this analysis. 

Issues are defined herein as points of discussion, debate, or dispute about the environmental effects of a 

Proposed Action. Significant Issues as used in this environmental analysis are those that are used to 

formulate alternatives or drive alternative themes, affect the design of component proposals, prescribe 

important Mitigation Measures or Project Design Criteria, or describe important and variable 

environmental effects. They are significant because of the extent of their geographic distribution, the 

duration of the effects, or the intensity of interest or resource conflict.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-26

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The following Significant Issues are organized by broad resource or area categories, with subsequent 

issue statements and discussion. In Chapter III, issue statements are expanded to identify elements, 

mechanisms and indicators that are used to describe the effects or consequences of implementing the 

various alternatives considered in detail. 

The issue statements contain a reference (Chapter and Section, in parenthesis) for where in this 

FEIS document a description or discussion of the effects of each alternative considered in detail is 

located, including further description of indicators, relevant to these issues. A summary of responses 

to Significant Issues is contained within alternative comparison Table II-23, at the end of Chapter II.

Significant Issues are presented in a statement format that intends to identify what actions may have an 

effect on certain resources, resource elements or values. These Significant Issues serve primarily as the 

basis for developing and comparing alternatives, represent variable consequences between alternatives, 

and may serve as decision factors. While the EIS focuses on the Significant Issues, all relevant issues 

identified through scoping are considered and documented in the various resource analyses (see next 

section: Other Issues).

Hydrologic Conditions

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments (especially within Riparian Reserves) 

and other connected actions (especially harvest system access and roads) on hydrologic conditions, 

including channel morphology, large woody material, sediment delivery, or peak flows. (Chapter 

III, Section D, 1)

Water Quality

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments (especially within Riparian Reserves) 

and other connected actions (especially harvest system access and roads) on water quality; stream 

temperature, turbidity, or water quality (303(d) listed waterbodies). (Chapter III, Section D, 2)

Cumulative Watershed Effects

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions 

(especially harvest system access and roads) on the risk for adverse cumulative watershed scale 

impacts. (Chapter III, Section D, 3)

Soils, Geology, and Site Productivity

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions 

(especially harvest system access and roads) on soils, geologic stability, or site productivity through 

detrimental soil disturbance, erosion, or effects on woody material. (Chapter III, Section D, 4)

Economics 

Commercial variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions may 

generate various economic benefits/costs depending on design. Effects of economic factors on the 

costs to implement treatment activities, as well as economic return to the local economy. (Chapter 

III, Section D, 5)
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-27

Final Environmental Impact Statement

3. OTHER ISSUES

Other Issues as used in this environmental analysis are those that have been determined to be relevant, are 

used to disclose consequences, may affect design of component actions, may prescribe Mitigation 

Measures or Project Design Criteria, or whose disclosure of environmental effects are required by law 

or policy. Other Issues differ from Significant Issues in that they often describe minor and/or nonvariable consequences.

Other Issues are also presented in a statement format that intends to identify what actions may have an 

effect on certain resources, resource elements or values. Each Other Issue statement also contains a 

reference (Chapter and Section of this document, in parenthesis) for where in the document a description 

or discussion of the effects of each alternative considered in detail is located, relevant to the stated Other 

Issue. The consequences of each alternative considered in detail, in relation to these issues are also 

summarized at the end of Chapter II, Table II-24.

Aquatic Conservation Strategy

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on attainment of 

the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives associated with the Northwest Forest Plan and/or Standards 

and Guidelines associated with Riparian Reserves and Key Watersheds. (Chapter III, Section E, 1)

Fire/Fuels

Effects of density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on fuel loading and fire

hazard conditions. (Chapter III, Section E, 2)

Air Quality

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments, especially activity fuels treatments on air 

quality. (Chapter III, Section E, 3)

Botanical Resources 

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on rare, special

status, Forest Service Sensitive or Federally listed botanical species. (Chapter III, Section E, 4)

Invasive Plants

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on the spread 

of invasive plant species. (Chapter III, Section E, 5)

Port-Orford-cedar Root Disease 

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on the spread

of Phytophthora lateralis, a non-native pathogen that causes disease, affecting Port-Orford-cedar. 

(Chapter III, Section E, 6)

Threatened Terrestrial Wildlife Species and Critical Habitat

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on Threatened

terrestrial wildlife species and/or Critical Habitat. (Chapter III, Section E, 7)

Northwest Forest Plan Terrestrial Wildlife Species

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on Northwest 

Forest Plan terrestrial wildlife species and habitats. (Chapter III, Section E, 8)

Forest Service Sensitive Terrestrial Wildlife Species and Habitats

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on terrestrial

wildlife species and habitats, identified as Forest Service Sensitive species. (Chapter III, Section E, 9)
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-28

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Terrestrial Wildlife Management Indicator Species

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on Forest Plan

Management Indicator Species. (Chapter III, Section E, 10)

Neo-tropical Migratory Birds

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on other neotropical migratory bird species or habitats. (Chapter III, Section E, 11)

Aquatic Species and Habitats

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on aquatic

species and habitats, including Threatened or Sensitive species and/or Critical Habitat/Essential Fish 

Habitat. (Chapter III, Section E, 12)

Thinning Shock and Windthrow Potential

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on changed

environmental conditions for residual trees causing shock (change in light conditions), and/or leading to 

increased wind throw (trees broken off or uprooted by wind). (Chapter III, Section E, 13)

Potential Wilderness and Other Undeveloped Areas

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions within any 

potentially undeveloped areas generally free of forest roads or evidence of timber harvest, and/or areas 

that may have undeveloped character as potential wilderness. (Chapter III, Section E, 14)

Heritage Resources

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on Heritage

(cultural) resources. (Chapter III, Section E, 15)

Recreation/Human Safety

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on recreation

opportunities, and/or human safety conditions. (Chapter III, Section E, 16)

Climate Change

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on climate

change (greenhouse gas emissions and carbon cycling) and effects from global climate change on this 

proposal. (Chapter III, Section E, 17)

4. OUT OF SCOPE ISSUES

There were several issues identified during Scoping (or the DEIS Comment Period) as being nonsignificant and “out of the scope” of this environmental analysis. These issues include those that are not 

or cannot be addressed or solved in this project-level analysis, issues already decided by law, regulation, 

or other higher level decisions, issues irrelevant to the decision to be made, and/or issues that are 

conjectural or not supported by scientific evidence. These issues are listed along with a rationale for their 

being determined “out of scope”, as follows: 

Use of Port-Orford-Cedar Risk Key

Several commenters suggested non reliance on the Port-Orford-Cedar Risk Key to dismiss or minimize 

the impacts of road construction and timber haul on the spread of P. lateralis. They assert continuing loss 

of mature Port-Orford-cedar (POC) populations is severely affecting riparian forest conditions. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-29

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Additional road construction and unregulated timber haul is predicted to exacerbate this condition. They 

felt that POC management should be a project driver, rather than an afterthought or mitigation measure. 

Seasonal haul restrictions should be meaningful, tied to weather conditions, and mandatory. High-risk 

routes and roads should be closed.

The Forest and this project are required to follow direction provided in USDA-FS 2004: Record of 

Decision and Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment for Management of Port-Orford-Cedar 

in Southwest Oregon, which requires use of the Risk Key, as applicable. Port-Orford-cedar (POC) 

program objectives are to maintain POC as an ecologically and economically significant species on 

National Forest lands. Port-Orford-cedar management provides cost-effective mitigation for controllable 

activities creating appreciable additional risk to important uninfected POC, not to reduce all risk to all 

trees at all cost (USDA-FS 2004). Port-Orford-cedar management slows the spread of the non-native 

pathogen, Phytophthora lateralis, enough to maintain POC’s significant ecological and economic 

functions, without the cost of the management strategy exceeding its effect on the value of these 

functions.

Do not rely on the Matrix land allocation merely for commodity extraction

Commenters suggested that several elements of new information undermine the commodity expectations 

from the Matrix land allocation. They suggested that:

 Global climate change is a compelling issue that requires that we manage the global carbon cycle in 

a way that reduces emissions from logging and increases storage in growing forests like these. 

 Barred owl encroachment was barely mentioned in the 1994 FEIS that supports the Matrix land 

allocation. The barred owl now occupies large areas of suitable habitat that were set aside for the 

spotted owl but are now occupied and defended by barred owls. This means we need to set aside 

more of the Matrix for spotted owl habitat development. By providing more suitable habitat for both 

owls we would be increasing the chances that the two owls can co-exist, while decreasing the risk 

that the barred owl will competitively exclude the spotted owl to the point of extirpation. 

The suggestion to reconsider the Matrix allocation is outside the scope of this project and its analysis. 

The Forest and this project are required to follow direction provided in the Forest Plan, as amended by the 

Northwest Forest Plan (see Management Direction above). The consequences of climate change, and the 

effects on northern spotted owl, its habitat and the effects of competition from barred owls, as applicable 

to this project, are considered within this project level document.

Preponderance of seasonal restrictions makes sales difficult to complete within contract timelines

Many seasonal restrictions associated with timber sales are required by laws, rules, and/or regulations. 

These restrictions are known to encumber activities during implementation and can create a burden on 

operations and affect prospective purchasers. Wherever and whenever possible, the Agency conducts 

required surveys to identify only the appropriate seasonal restrictions. For this project, seasonal 

restrictions are reviewed for all Action Alternatives regarding implementation and their impact on the 

project feasibility.

Monitor and disclose impact on sooty grouse

Commenters recommended that wildlife staff develop a breeding season monitoring route that would 

report birds/mile similar to census routes used by ODFW. They felt that the Eden Ridge public forests 

may become very important to maintain a refugia for sooty (formerly blue) grouse. 

Although sooty grouse may be of more concern elsewhere (e.g., High Cascades portion of the forest),

they are not a Management Indicator Species (MIS) and have no special status for the Rogue RiverSiskiyou NF at this time. They are simply considered an upland game bird species. There is no 

overriding need to consider the Eden Ridge area as a refuge for sooty grouse. The Forest Service does not 

monitor this species or other upland game birds including: ruffed grouse, mountain quail, California quail, 

band-tailed pigeon or wild turkey. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page I-30

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Retain 50% of existing shrub cover in meadow restoration and manzanita cutting

Commenters objected to excessive cutting of manzanita to enhance “meadows”. They asked that at least 

50% of the existing shrub cover be retained because it is an important food source for a variety of wildlife 

and provides nesting habitat for numerous birds.

The need for meadow restoration is to maintain and restore these important and unique habitats across the 

landscape by removing or reducing competing vegetation (including some species of manzanita), thus 

curtailing encroachment of valuable meadow habitat.

This issue is out of the scope of the Eden Ridge project. Meadow restoration work is ongoing in the area

as part of the Meadow Restoration and Enhancement Decision Memo signed November 2005. This type 

of treatment does occur with the Planning Area, within meadows associated with Management Area 9; 

however this allocation is excluded under the Eden Ridge Project. 

I. RELATED PERMITS, PLANS AND ACTIONS

A decision from this analysis may result in one or more commercial timber sale contracts and/or service 

contracts, depending on which actions are selected, the amount (acres) selected, various implementation 

types (logging systems, road access needs, etc.). 

Compliance with all Forest Service contracts would be monitored by the Rogue River-Siskiyou National 

Forest and Powers Ranger District and staff, and Forest Service resource specialists.

Roads used for access may involve Cost Share Agreements with neighboring land owners. Several Cost 

Share Agreements are already in place for existing Forest Service and private roads. These may be used 

for commercial product hauling. In other cases, there may be a need for new road construction and new 

Cost Share Agreements. Obtaining new and utilizing existing Cost Share agreements may reduce the 

amount of new road construction needed for access to proposed treatments.

************************************************************************************
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-1

Final Environmental Impact Statement

II. ALTERNATIVES

A. INTRODUCTION

This Chapter describes the process used to develop the Proposed Action and consider alternatives. It also 

describes alternatives considered in detail (including No-Action), the treatment elements, Project Design 

Criteria and Mitigation Measures to minimize environmental effects, as well as monitoring applicable to 

the Action Alternatives. Alternatives and action elements considered but not analyzed in detail are also 

discussed. Alternative comparison tables are included at the end of this Chapter.

Forest Service policy requires that all projects undertaken on National Forest System land must comply 

with their respective land and resource management plan as amended. For Eden Ridge Timber Sales and 

this portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (RRSNF), land management direction is 

contained in the Siskiyou National Forest (SNF) Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest 

Service 1989) as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of 

Land Management, 1994), as well as other amendments discussed in Chapter I (Management Direction). 

B. CHANGES BETWEEN DRAFT AND FINAL

Minor edits were completed throughout this Chapter to provide clarification of information previously 

presented. Many of these edits were based on comments received during the Comment Period for the 

Draft EIS (DEIS). 

As required by NEPA, this Chapter of the FEIS has identified the agency’s Preferred Alternative.

Based on public and agency comment, edits were made to the silviculture section regarding current and 

desired conditions (now contained within Chapter I), relative density, new Riparian Reserve stand exams, 

proposed treatments, etc.

Based on public and agency comment, the function and description of the Action Alternatives has been 

expanded, notably to identify the issues, concerns and objectives that they address, as well as clarification 

of the differences between alternatives.

Changes were made to the Riparian Reserve Project Design Criteria (PDCs) sub-section, based on public 

and agency comment. Notably, the width for the Primary Shade Zone was increased, based on utilization 

of the 2011 Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategies. DEIS Figure II-9 was 

removed; it discussed prescribed (broadcast) burning, which is not being proposed with this project.

Reference is now made to new National Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Water Quality 

Management (April 2012). The purpose of the National BMP Program is to provide a standard set of core 

BMPs and a consistent means to track and document the use and effectiveness for BMPs on NFS lands. 

These are now used in concert with the General Water Quality Best Management Practices, Pacific 

Northwest Region, November 1988. 

A new section was added for Project Design Criteria (PDC) for Heritage (Cultural) Resources. Minor 

edits were made to Mitigation Measures as necessary for clarification. Cultural Resource Mitigation

Measures were expanded over those included in the DEIS.

The alternative comparison tables found at the end of this Chapter have been revised, based on updated 

analysis and changes to indicators as discussed in Chapter III.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-2

Final Environmental Impact Statement

C. DEVELOPMENT OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

The Purpose and Need and the Significant and Other Issues identified during Scoping were used to 

develop the Proposed Action and alternatives considered in this EIS. This was done to: a) provide a focus

for the decision-maker, b) respond to the Scoping comments, c) respond to management direction, 

including Forest Plan direction as amended, and d) respond to the Purpose and Need for action. The NoAction Alternative (Alternative 1) is designed to address all the above except factor d), and provides a 

benchmark against which to evaluate the other alternatives.

The process for development of the Proposed Action and development of final candidate stands included 

in the Proposed Action utilized Geographic Information System (GIS) systems, and orthographic photos 

linked to analytical spreadsheets and other information such as historical records and stand examination 

data. The process began with all forested stands within the Eden Ridge Planning Area being considered 

for treatment.

The next steps in the process included removal of certain stands or areas because of their obvious current 

conditions, land allocation designation, and other conditions (e.g., currently late-successional habitat or 

non-forest) that would exclude them from the stated objectives and Purpose and Need for this project.

Through a preliminary field examination process, candidate stands were identified. Additional stand 

examination was conducted over several seasons. The majority of proposed candidate stands are 

currently overstocked. Vegetative competition has increased over time since stand initiation in the late 

1930s and 1940s due to the lack of early stand management. Proposed treatments are designed to reduce 

stand densities through stocking level control to allow residual trees to increase in both vigor and growth. 

Within Riparian Reserves, treatments are designed to restore (improve) aquatic ecosystem functions at 

lower tree densities that are on a trajectory to develop high quality, sustainable riparian and latesuccessional habitat. Candidate stands are expected to respond well to thinning since stands are less than

80 years old.

Identification of a Preferred Alternative - NEPA requires that this Final EIS identify the agency’s 

preferred alternative or alternatives, if more than one exists. Under the Final EIS, the Forest Supervisor 

of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest has identified the Preferred Alternative to be some form of 

action, likely Alternative 2, with retention of all silvicultural elements and most of the connected actions. 

Modifications are likely, based on public and other agencies comments, as well as the Interdisciplinary 

Team’s recommendations regarding roads located in sensitive areas, primarily associated with the Coal 

Creek subwatershed. 

D. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

Four alternatives (including a no-action alternative) are analyzed in detail in this EIS. Alternative 1, the 

No-Action Alternative, provides a basic description of conditions (both current and ongoing) for which 

the other alternatives were analyzed and compared. 

In addition to No-Action, this Section discusses alternatives that were considered in detail as alternatives 

that propose “action” in the form of site-specific project proposals to commercially thin and harvest 

timber; construct, reconstruct, and use roads; implement variable density management activities; and 

implement other enhancement projects. These are termed “Action Alternatives.” Three Action 

Alternatives are analyzed in detail in the Final EIS. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-3

Final Environmental Impact Statement

For purposes of this documentation under NEPA, the Proposed Action being analyzed is contained and 

described as Alternative 2. Two additional Action Alternatives (Alternatives 3 and 4) were developed 

and designed to address one or more of the Significant Issues identified during Scoping as being 

associated with Alternative 2. 

Alternative 2, the Proposed Action is designed to address and maximize attainment of the Purpose and 

Need outlined in Chapter I. Alternative 2 also represents the maximum extent of proposed treatments and 

connected actions (e.g., harvest systems and roads). 

Alternative 3 is similar to and is based on the Proposed Action, but differs from the candidate stands, 

opportunities and connected actions associated with the Proposed Action, with modifications that include 

only “high-moderate benefit/low risk” new roads. In relation to Alternative 2, this modification would 

reduce the treated area on some units resulting in a change in configuration, or in some cases, units would 

be combined or dropped. This alternative proposes helicopter logging systems, based on the change in 

access for more conventional systems.

Alternative 4 is also based on the Proposed Action, but differs from the candidate stands, opportunities 

and connected actions associated with the Proposed Action, with modifications that include only the use 

(with some reconstruction and maintenance) of existing roads for treatment access. This alternative also 

excludes some of the higher risk treatments within Riparian Reserves (primarily those associated with 

perennial streams within the lower reaches of Coal Creek (within the Planning Area). In relation to 

Alternative 2 and Alternative 3, these modifications would reduce the treated area on some units,

resulting in a change in unit configuration. In some cases, units would be combined or dropped. This 

alternative also proposes helicopter logging systems, based on the change in access for more conventional 

systems.

Further detail on these alternatives and their function (e.g., the Significant Issue that they address) 

follows in this Section.

1. ALTERNATIVE 1 (No-Action)

Alternative 1 identifies and describes the current conditions of the physical, biological, social and 

economic environments associated with the candidate stands and various analysis areas. As suggested by 

NEPA, a no-action alternative is included and analyzed as a benchmark against which the Proposed 

Action and other Action Alternatives can be compared. 

Under this scenario, Alternative 1 - No-Action would not authorize variable density management and

other connected actions to obtain the Purpose and Need for the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project. The 

specific Desired Conditions (Chapter I) would not be achieved. No-Action would not promote 

sustainable, cost-efficient timber production within Matrix, (within LRMP Standards and Guidelines) to 

support current and future economies while managing tree stocking levels and species composition to 

improve forest health and resiliency. 

For Riparian Reserves, riparian area functions would not be improved, restoration of riparian conditions 

for aquatic habitat, associated with Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives 1, 8, and 9, lost by 

historical clear-cut logging, would not occur through active management. Vegetative, structural and 

species diversity, maintenance or improvement of shading capability of streams; improvement of large 

wood retention and large wood recruitment, and suitable amounts of snags and/or replacement habitat for 

dependent species would not be improved (over current conditions).

MAP I-1, FEIS Chapter I shows the Eden Ridge Planning Area without proposed activities. This map 

also serves as a current condition base-map for comparison with the Action Alternatives.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-4

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Under this scenario, since no project activities would take place, the resulting environmental effects of 

no-action would be compared to the environmental effects of permitting the Proposed Action, or another 

alternative to go forward. Since no activity is planned, no additional design criteria, mitigation measures,

or management requirements or constraints are necessary. This alternative would not preclude future 

vegetation and restoration treatments within the Eden Ridge Planning Area for actions being considered 

with this analysis.

The No-Action alternative should not be confused with a baseline. Whereas a baseline is essentially a 

description of the affected environment at a fixed point in time, the No-Action Alternative for this 

analysis assumes that other things would happen to the affected environment, particularly in a dynamic, 

changing forest ecosystem over time. How this ecosystem could change over time without the proposed 

management actions is discussed more fully in those sections of this FEIS that describe potential 

consequences under No-Action.

2. TREATMENT ELEMENTS APPLICABLE TO ACTION ALTERNATIVES

This Section introduces the activity proposals, specific treatment objectives, methodologies and elements 

associated with the Proposed Action and other alternatives that propose action (i.e., “Action 

Alternatives”). The location reference, land allocation, watershed, and extent of these variable 

components are presented and disclosed under each Action Alternative description (below).

a. Silvicultural Treatments

The primary silvicultural objective for Eden Ridge Timber Sales is to control existing dense stocking 

conditions and to treat subordinate amounts of root disease infection within Matrix candidate stands to 

improve forest health and to sustain or increase tree growth and vigor. Intermediate commercial harvest 

treatments using variable density thinning (VDT) techniques are proposed. Riparian Reserve treatments 

would be designed to maintain or restore (improve) riparian stand conditions to meet NWFP Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy Objectives.

Variable Density Thinning

Research (Carey 2003) (Chan 2004) (Tappeiner 1997) has compared variable density thinning with 

traditional thinning and no treatment and found that introducing variability resulted in greater numbers of 

species of birds, lichens, bryophytes, fungi, and small mammals. Many species that are particularly at 

risk such as Threatened species (including spotted owls and anadromous fish), sensitive species, and 

Survey and Manage species are at risk because their required habitats have been altered by clear-cutting 

in the past (USDA USDI 1994). Variable density thinning to enhance diversity would benefit these 

species.

VDT uses a combination of low and crown thinning to release larger dominant and co-dominant trees. 

Spacing between trees is variable depending on tree diameter distribution on the ground and thinning 

intensity. Individual stand characteristics would be heterogeneous and post-harvest tree spacing would 

not have a rigid, grid-like appearance. 

Intensity of density management treatments ranges from Light (150-225 trees per acre [tpa]), Medium 

(90-150 tpa) or Heavy (50-90 tpa) thinning with a target relative density (RD) of approximately 35-50%. 

Tree species composition is maintained or enhanced by favoring a diverse mixture of conifers and 

hardwoods (see Figure II-1). 

Stocking level control to reduce stand density to a RD of 35-50% would allow stand vigor and growth to 

be maximized (Ellen 1984) by creating more growing space for retained trees and controlling inter-tree 

competition for site resources. Retained trees would ideally have 40% live crown ratios following 

treatment to respond to increased availability of site resources. A live crown ratio of 40% represents a 

generally acceptable level of individual tree vigor (Daniel et al., 1979). 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-5

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Although maximum gross production in coastal Douglas-fir is obtained when RD exceed 40%, thinning 

to relative densities below this optimum may produce less growth per unit area but this would be offset by 

greater growth per tree (Drew and Flewelling; 1979). Reducing treated stands to this target 35-50% RD 

range would achieve desired conditions for Matrix of sustainable, cost-efficient timber production while 

treating candidate stands to improve forest health and resiliency. 

Habitat conditions for wildlife and fish would be improved from treatments within Riparian Reserves. 

This means increased vegetative and structural diversity and species (over current conditions); 

maintenance or improvement of shading capability of streams; improvement of large wood retention and 

large wood recruitment, and providing suitable amounts of snags and/or replacement habitat for 

dependent species.

In order to maintain northern spotted owl dispersal habitat, reducing RD to these levels would result in 

canopy cover within treated stands to be maintained at 40% or greater.

Future thinning treatments could occur when stand density grows back to 50% RD or when dominant and 

co-dominant trees have about 40% live crown ratios. For Douglas-fir, a live crown ratio of 40% appears 

to correspond with a SDI of about 50% of the maximum SDI (i.e., 50% RD) (Long 1985).

Gaps

Gaps are small areas where most or all trees are removed in patches scattered through a thinned stand. 

Gaps can provide breaks in an otherwise uniform canopy allowing sunlight to reach the ground. Where 

gaps are created, seedlings and ground vegetation would naturally regenerate resulting in a multi-storied 

canopy with both vertical and horizontal diversity.

For Eden Ridge, VDT may include creation of irregular shaped openings (i.e., gaps) interspersed within 

some thinning units to primarily treat laminated root rot infection centers. Forest heath treatments would 

harvest all susceptible tree species (Douglas-fir, white fir, western hemlock) within and along the 

perimeter of infection pockets and 50-100’ out from the last symptomatic tree while favoring resistant or 

immune species for leave trees. Gaps may be site prepared and planted afterwards with Port-Orford-cedar 

seedlings (see planting) for improving stand health and stocking conditions to meet sustainable timber 

harvest objectives while enhancing structural and species diversity. Gap size is estimated to be 1⁄4 to 2 

acres depending on extent of infection centers and proximity to existing openings on adjacent private 

timber company lands. Larger gap sizes are estimated to occur in the northeastern corner (Units 002 and 

201; each 2 acre root disease treatment area would be < 2% of unit acres) to treat smaller connected root 

rot infection pockets (see Map B-13 in Silvicultural Diagnosis Report, FEIS Appendix B).

Additionally, portions of dense stands where live tree crowns are <15-20% and not likely to respond to 

thinning may also receive gap treatments. 

Skips

Skips are small areas where no trees are cut in patches scattered through a thinned stand. Skips provide 

dense shade and a place to optimize snag development. In Eden Ridge, VDT may include no-thin areas 

(i.e., skips). Skips can be strategically placed to protect hardwood thickets, minor tree species, pockets of 

large down wood, other unique stand attributes (e.g., large woody material remaining from historical 

railroad logging) or inaccessible areas (see Figure II-1.).

Wide-Thin Gaps

Wide-thin gaps (WTG) may occur around genetic trees selected for cone collection, Port-Orford-cedar 

root disease pockets favoring resistant trees, or dominant tree release of desirable trees from competing 

vegetation. Generally, one (1) to four (4) trees would be retained in WTG (Figure II-1.). The size of 

WTG would be approximately 1⁄4 - 1⁄2 acre.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-6

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 1. Illustration of Stand Treatments

 

 

 

Figure II-1. Examples of Stand Treatments; Eden Ridge Timber Sales

Thinning treatments are designed to enhance development of late seral conditions as recommended in the 

South Fork Coquille Watershed Analysis (1995) by moving stand structure forward by increasing tree

growth through density management, creating structural diversity through skip and gap treatments and to 

improve forest health and resistance to forest pathogens. 

VDT treatments would harvest conifers with diameters ranging approximately 7-24 inches and larger. 

Extracted commercial timber volume is estimated to range 8-20 thousand board feet (mbf) per acre and 

could potentially yield up to 53 million board feet for the entire project.

4. SKIP

5. WIDE -THIN GAP

(1⁄4 to 1⁄2 ACRE OPENINGS WITH A 

DOMINANT TREE RETAINED)

(1⁄4 to 2 ACRE

OPENINGS)
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-7

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Site-specific, integrated silvicultural prescriptions would be developed following a decision on the Eden 

Ridge Timber Sales Project. Silvicultural prescriptions would describe desired conditions of treated 

stands and associated stand structures, tree species composition, canopy retention, tree spacing or basal 

area retention, fuels treatments, snag numbers (where present), large woody material and other key stand 

components. These would be specific to the allocations involved, i.e., Matrix or Riparian Reserve. Final 

silvicultural prescriptions would be approved by Region 6 certified silviculturists working closely with 

resource specialists to ensure integrated resource objectives are met. 

Tree spacing would be variable and would not have a rigid or grid-like appearance. Species diversity 

would be maintained or increased and would include some hardwoods and species of limited local 

occurrence. No old residual trees (old-growth) or remnant trees would be cut, except for potential danger 

trees. If remnant trees were felled as danger trees, they would not be removed.

b. Snags and Down Woody Material

The Siskiyou National Forest LRMP (1989) is the existing policy direction for snags and coarse down 

wood objectives. However, scientific studies on wildlife habitat (Johnson, O’Neil, 2001) have 

determined that snag retention based on biological potential is a flawed technique. This technique was 

used for determining snag requirement standards and guidelines in the LRMP.

The Southwestern Oregon Provincial Interagency Executive Committee requested a province-wide 

process be developed for determining levels of snags and down woody material in forests in the late 

1990s. As a result, landscape stratification based on Plant Association Groups (PAGs), was developed 

across the Forest. 

Ecological processes within PAGs vary due to changes in climate, topography and soil. Each PAG has a 

mean and range for snags and down wood derived from ecological plot data. Recommended means and 

ranges (standard deviations) are broken into diameter classes: 6 to 9 inches, 10 to 19 inches and 20 inches 

and greater and into decay classes: 1 through 5 (Siskiyou NF, 2000; White et al., unpubl.). 

Because the Forest’s PAG data is at a finer scale, the Forest is currently using plant series data from new 

PAG classifications, delineated by geographical regions (Cascades, Siskiyous, Coast), for determining 

snag and down wood objectives on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. The PAG approach being 

utilized by the Forest for snag and down wood objectives meets and exceeds the Forest Plan standards.

Under the Action Alternatives, snags and down wood would be retained to support ecosystem function 

(see FEIS Appendix G, Wildlife Report). Management activities shall be planned to maintain enough 

large woody material (dead and down) to maintain a healthy forest ecosystem (SIS LRMP 1989). LWM 

already on the ground would be protected from disturbance to the greatest extent possible during logging 

and other land management activities that might destroy the integrity of the substrate.

Evaluations would occur after density management treatments to assess potential needs for snag/down 

wood creation. In areas lacking adequate amounts of down woody material (include snags in 

calculations), green trees may be felled. Any leave trees damaged during harvest operations would be left 

standing or felled for safety, but left on site. The intent is to provide future snags or trees with cavities or 

deformities utilized by wildlife. 

Snags

Stand density, past fires and forest disease conditions causing tree mortality affect the current conditions 

for standing dead trees (snags). For reference, Table II-1 lists standing dead present on the 2009 stand 

exam plots.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-8

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table II-1. 2009 Stand Exams Standing Dead (Snags) from Plot Data (FSVEG Report 19)

Location# Stand#

ER

Unit #

(approx.)

Total Standing 

Dead Species DBH Height TPA

6032030 199 2/201 0

6048010 604 320/324 0

6048030 802 307 5 Douglas-Fir 7" 15' 37.4

Douglas-Fir 11" 64' 15.2

Douglas-Fir 13" 97' 10.8

Douglas-Fir 16" 78' 7.2

Douglas-Fir 15" 89' 8.1

6048010 747 906/905 2 Douglas-Fir 28" 86' 0.8

Douglas-Fir 42" 38' 0.4

Snag Recommendations

The LRMP specifies a desired snag quantity of 185 to 235 snags per 100 acres delineated into hard and 

soft 11+, 15+, 17+ and 25+ snag diameter classes to maintain habitat capability of woodpeckers 

(indicators of cavity nesting species) at not less than 60% of potential population levels (LRMP, IV-33 to 

36). Snag quantities are dependent on woodpecker species present in the treatment area. 

As noted above, the Forest is choosing to use plant series data derived from new PAG classifications to 

determine snag and down wood objectives. Table II-2 displays snag data (trees per acre) recently derived 

for the western hemlock plant series in the coast geographic region.1 This data reflects snag quantities 

present in older stands derived from numerous PAG inventory plots and represents desired (target level) 

snag quantities (trees per acre) to develop in candidate units post-treatment.

Table II-2. Snag Data for Western Hemlock Plant Series

COAST - Snags

SERIES Diameter Average TPA

Western Hemlock 0-10” 28.64

Western Hemlock 11-19” 7.93

Western Hemlock 20”+ 6.27

Large snags over 20 inch diameter are particularly essential for forest function. In addition, at least 96 

wildlife species in Oregon and Washington are associated with snags in forests, using snags for shelter, 

roosting and hunting. Most species use snags greater than 14 inch diameter (Rose et al., 2001). Ridges, 

upper thirds of slopes, and riparian areas or lower third of slopes are especially important for latesuccessional dependent species. Snags in various size classes also are important to the recruitment 

pathways of the down, coarse materials important to soils. 

In areas where past management has resulted in a lack of large snags needed for cavity nesting species, 

snags would be created from live trees left in stands. Whenever possible, creation of a minimum of 2 or

more snags per acre over 20 inch dbh within all commercially treated units should be part of each 

silvicultural prescription. Creation can be through girdling, topping the trees with chain saws, blasting, 

inoculation with heart rot fungi, or deliberate injury. These methods would open the trunk to 

development of a hollow core used by woodpeckers and a variety of other birds, mammals, and other 

wildlife. 

 

1 Hochhalter (et al.) Ecology Group, Southwest Oregon Province, plant series data from PAG plots.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-9

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Down Woody Material

Information on down woody material was recorded during 2009 stand exam data collection using 

Brown’s transect protocol (see FEIS Appendix B, Silvicultural Diagnosis, Attachment A, for vegetation 

polygon locations). For reference, Table II-3 displays quantitative downed woody data for stands 

sampled. Down woody material present on stand exam plots was mostly associated with laminated root 

rot pockets and old railroad logging slash. 

Table II-3. Eden Ridge 2009 Stand Exams - Down Woody Data (FSVEG Report 19)

Location# Stand#

ER

Unit #

(approx.)

Tons/ac 

(0-0.24")

Tons/ac 

(0.25-

0.99")

Tons/ac 

(1-2.99")

Sound 

Tons/ac 

(3+")

Rotten 

Tons/ac 

(3+")

Tons / 

ac (ALL)

Ave. 

Diam. 3+ 

Rotten

Pieces/ 

acre 

(ALL)

Photo 

Series 

(1980)

6032030 199 2/201 0.64 1.98 3.87 0.00 43.87 50.36 19.60 168 1DF3 4DF4

6048010 604 320/324 0.37 0.46 1.94 0.00 4.98 7.74 7.60 45 2DF4 3DF4

6048030 802 307 0.59 1.80 2.90 1.41 8.05 14.75 6.00 533

2DF4 3DF4 

4DF4

6048010 747 906/905 0.30 1.91 5.58 0.41 60.49 68.70 16.70 312

4DF4 3MC3 

1MC4 

1DFHD4 

4DFHD4

Down Wood Recommendations

A key element of desired conditions for PAGs is down dead woody material. Existing large woody

material varies depending on past logging operations and PAG in southwest Oregon. Desired levels of 

dead wood were modeled by PAG, based on Ecology Plot data, adjusted by past conditions with 

consideration of the DecAID2 advisory system. These models were intended to be used as a baseline for 

managers to develop prescriptions for landscape management. Treatment units proposed for Eden Ridge

are within the maritime western hemlock PAG model derived from this process (Siskiyou NF, 2000).

As with snags, down logs are important for wildlife and aquatic ecosystem function. In addition, large 

coarse woody material is particularly important to maintaining and holding soils in place. Large down 

woody material left from historical railroad logging represent a unique situation and every effort to avoid 

disturbance and maintain this existing material should be made. The following table displays down wood 

data (pieces per acre, tons and size) for the western hemlock plant series in the coast geographic region 

and represents desired (target level) down wood quantity and size objectives.

Table II-4. Down Wood Data for Western Hemlock Plant Series

COAST – Down Wood 

SERIES DIAMETER

Average 

PIECES PER 

ACRE

Average

TONS

Average 

LENGTH 

(feet)

Western Hemlock 0-10" 110 3 63

Western Hemlock 11-19" 52 11 64

Western Hemlock 20"+ 35 38 111

 

2 DecAID is a wood advisory tool for Washington and Oregon forests and is based on Habitat Model for Wildlife Tree Retention. 

USDA Forest Service, Region 6, Portland Oregon: Kim Mellen (editor) 2003. The title can be read as decayed wood advisor and 

management aid “decay-aid” or “decision-aid”.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-10

Final Environmental Impact Statement

c. Silvicultural Disease Treatments

There are two forest pathogens; Port-Orford-Cedar root disease (Phytophthora lateralis) and laminated 

root rot (Phellinus weirii) affecting forest health in small portions of the Eden Ridge Planning Area 

(within Matrix and Riparian Reserves). This sub-section identifies proposed treatments associated with 

the Action Alternatives.

Laminated Root Rot

Gap Development Treatment

Irregular shaped openings 1⁄4 to 2 acres for tree yield (Matrix) reasons centered on root rot pockets may be

created to treat portions of stands infected with laminated root rot. Treatments would harvest all 

susceptible tree species within and along the perimeter of infection pockets while favoring resistant or 

immune species for leave trees. Gaps may be site prepared and planted afterwards with Port-Orford-cedar 

seedlings for stand health and enhance structural and species diversity within a stand. 

Port-Orford-cedar Root Disease

High-risk Sites

Low-lying wet areas (infested or not) that are located downslope from already infested areas or below likely 

sites for future introductions, especially roads, are high-risk sites. They include streams, drainage ditches, 

gullies, swamps, seeps, ponds, lakes, and concave low lying areas where water collects during rainy 

weather (USDA-FS 2004). High-risk sites also include places with streamside POC within 100 feet below a 

road and non-streamside POC within 50 feet below a road or 25 feet above a road (see Figure II-2).

For the purposes of this analysis, probability (USDA-FS 2004, section 3&4, page 37) below 6.1% for 

spread and establishment of PL in previously uninfested areas is considered low risk. Probabilities of 

spread are based on literature and professional judgment of forest pathologists with substantial amounts of 

experience evaluating PL in the laboratory and in the field (USDA-FS 2004). Probability below 6.1% 

corresponds to Low-risk sites defined as follows:

Low-risk Sites

These are sites with characteristics unfavorable for spread and infection by PL. Low risk sites are defined 

as streamside POC greater than 100 feet from a road and non-streamside POC greater than 50 feet from a 

road. They are sites that do not meet the criteria for high-risk as defined above.

Port-Orford-cedar Risk Key 

The POC Risk Key is used to clarify the environmental conditions that require implementation of one or 

more of the disease controlling management practices listed in the 2004 Record of Decision (ROD) and 

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment for Management of Port-Orford-cedar in Southwest 

Oregon Siskiyou National Forest. The objectives of the amended POC management Standard and 

Guidelines are to:

 Maintain POC on sites where the risk for infection is low.

 Reduce the spread and severity of root disease in high-risk areas to retain its ecological function 

to the extent practicable.

 Reestablish POC in plant communities where its numbers or ecosystem function have been 

significantly reduced.

 Reduce the likelihood of root disease becoming established in disease-free 7th field watersheds.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-11

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Program objectives are to maintain POC as an ecologically and economically significant species on 

National Forest lands. POC management will provide cost-effective mitigation for management activities 

that create appreciable additional risk to important uninfected POC though not to reduce all risk to all 

trees at all cost (USDA-FS 2004). In areas proposed for timber harvest and road building, mitigation 

would be required as described in the POC Risk Key assessment (contained in FEIS Appendix B2, POC

Report, incorporated by reference). 

This project-specific NEPA analysis will appropriately document the application of the risk key and the 

consideration of the available management practices, and will make the project consistent with the midand large-geographic and temporal-scale effects described by the 2004 SEIS analysis and Forest Plan 

Amendment, and permit the project analysis to tier to the discussion of those effects (USDA FS, 2004). 

Recommended POC Treatments

The POC Risk Key assessment for Eden Ridge (see FEIS Appendix B2) recommends the following active 

treatments (see MAP II-1):

Wide-Thin Gap (WTG) Treatments

Remove all live POC within PL infection sites. Leave non-susceptible tree species on site. Thin out all 

live POC within 2 to 3 crown radii from last infected POC along the perimeter of infection sites to 

separate healthy POC from potential root contact with infected POC. Pile and burn all POC slash. Sites 

can be planted with non-susceptible tree seedlings (Douglas-fir, western hemlock, hardwoods). 

Roadside Sanitation

Manage for non-susceptible tree species by removing all POC along road sides and high-risk sites as 

follows:

 100-feet below roads at stream crossings, width of high water table.

 25 feet above roads and 50-feet below roads in non-streamside areas.

Figure II-2. Roadside Sanitation Recommended Treatments
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-12

Final Environmental Impact Statement

MAP II-1. Port-Orford-Cedar Root Disease Treatments

Planting

Restore POC within its natural range by planting non-PL infested areas and low risk areas with resistant 

POC. Gaps from treatment of laminated root rot pockets may be planted with resistant POC seedlings for 

stand health and to enhance structural and species diversity within the Planning Area (presence, location 

and extent of laminated root rot infection to be determined during field layout). 

Recommended planting spacing is twenty-five (25) feet apart or in approximately ten (10) tree clusters at 

100-150 foot spacing to lessen the potential for root grafting (USDA 2004, ROD, page 36). These 

spacing guidelines can be flexible to meet site-specific conditions. Avoid stagnant water, but plant POC 

in areas that maximize chances of maintaining moist surface soil year-round. 

Plant openings created by WTG treatments in PL pockets with Douglas-fir where openings > 1⁄4 acre. 

Western hemlock is anticipated to naturally regenerate in openings and does not need be planted. Do not 

plant POC as these PL pockets are considered high-risk and should be managed for non-host species to 

reduce the potential for long-term PL disease persistence on site. Post-planting tree netting of seedling 

terminal buds may be needed to reduce big game browse damage on Douglas-fir.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-13

Final Environmental Impact Statement

d. Activity Fuels Treatments

Activity fuels treatment refers to the slash and accumulated fuel resulting from the proposed variable 

density management and other silvicultural treatments. While there may be some slash from previous 

harvesting or from natural conditions, the majority of material would be generated through density 

treatment and commercial removal from these actions. Activity fuels treatments proposed for this project 

include only those that are predicted to be necessary to obtain a resultant and acceptable fuels/fire risk. 

The combination of density management and activity fuels treatments should leave the stands in a 

condition where a wildfire could burn through the stand, in the form of a surface fire that would not create 

unacceptable levels of mortality. 

Harvest activities associated with the Action Alternatives would add needles, limbwood, and tops to the 

existing fuel bed in varying degrees throughout each treatment area. Disturbed ground vegetation and 

larger woody material would contribute to the dead fuel loading. In comparison with the natural longterm accumulation of ground fuels, harvest would contribute fuels to the site at an accelerated rate. The 

fuels remaining after harvest would be mostly of the smaller size classes, as most of the larger fuels 

would be removed for utilization, unless contractual requirements (for large woody material) specify that 

they be left on site. 

Below, are fuels treatment options considered for the proposed treatment units. Implementation of these 

fuels treatment methods would likely be one or a combination of several treatments. Estimates of 

anticipated fuel treatments needs are predicted for each treatment unit, for each Action Alternative in the 

following sections (alternative descriptions and tables). This section provides background and 

explanation of these treatments.

No treatment: This method would be appropriate for sites where resulting fuel loadings fall well below 

LRMP Standard and Guideline recommendations by photo series (S&G 12-2, page IV-59). When 

residual fuels exceed the guidelines, not treating the fuels may be appropriate in areas of low risk where 

risks may be assumed for a period, until the hazard has been reduced by natural processes.

Hand piling fuels concentrations: This method would be effective in breaking up fuel continuity 

thereby reducing fire spread rates. Hand piling, followed by burning of the piles, can remove most fuels 

from a site. Hand piling is most effective in continuous moderate fuel loadings (25 to 50 tons per acre), 

and is less effective in scattered light fuels. This method may also be employed in areas where no other 

disposal methods are prescribed, or in conjunction with non-burning types of treatments, but where the 

risks may warrant some sort of hazard reduction. Due to the risk of human presence, hand piling is 

proposed along existing Level 2 Classified Roads 5000, 290, 440, and 448. Within the commercially 

thinned units that are adjacent to these aforementioned roads (depending on Action Alternative), logging 

slash within 100 feet of these roads would be hand piled and burned.

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for detrimental soil conditions and erosion (SNF-LRMP; pages IV44-45) would be applied for this connected action. Slash piles have the potential to create severely 

burned and bare soils in the footprint of the piles. By minimizing the size and maximizing the spacing 

between piles, and burning in the winter and spring windows of opportunity when soil and fuel moistures 

are high, soil detrimental impacts and mineral soil exposure is minimized. This would also compliment 

the objectives of maximizing the retention of Large Woody Material (LRMP S&G 7-8). Burn Plans 

would be required for any fuels treatment (see Section D, 10, Mitigation Measures, this Chapter), and 

would specify forest features that would need protection from burning activities. Large down logs would 

be one of the elements to avoid in placement of burn piles, as well as others.

Yarding of tops: This method would be effective in removing concentrations of the 0 to 3-inch size 

class fuels. In all treatment areas using ground-based or skyline yarding, tops of commercial trees would 

be left attached to a commercial log while yarding (Yard Tops Attached – YTA). The tops would be 

piled and disposed at the landing location.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-14

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Piling and Burning Landing Slash: This method would be effective in disposing of all remaining unmerchantable vegetation on log landings (piling and burning, or utilization as biomass material).

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for fire management (SNF-LRMP; pages IV-59 through 62, as 

amended) would be applied to this project. The fire hazard presented by natural, activity or prior activity 

fuels should be reduced to appropriate levels; and proposed activities should be designed and coordinated 

on the ground to help make the fuel treatment and fire protection as practical and economical as possible.

e. Harvest (Logging) Systems

Considerations for Application of Logging Systems

All candidate stands have been previously logged, with the majority of the Eden Ridge Planning Area 

being previously logged via historical railroad systems. A Transportation and Logging Systems Report 

(Roads Analysis) FEIS Appendix I, is attached to this document and incorporated by reference. This 

report documents the basis for application of potential logging systems and provides the basis for road use 

and proposed new road construction.

Past treatments had different (and typically less) consideration for sensitive slopes, sensitive soils and 

sensitive riparian areas. The entire area was logged with “steam donkey” cable systems. Past cable 

yarding systems, as associated with railroad transport, employed “high lead” or systems that did not 

require or utilize log suspension (as would be required today). Some terrain (as seen in the Action 

Alternatives) would require partial suspension (or full suspension) systems on stands that had previously 

been cable logged without suspension in the past. 

The proposal of system(s) to be used in any given stand is based on existing classified road access, new 

system or temporary road construction needs, as well as economic and technical feasibility identified for 

each treatment unit. The two primary concerns involved with use of the various logging systems is 

the potential detrimental effects to soils and the construction of new roads. New classified or 

temporary roads may be necessary due to the need for a change in the logging system design or to access 

areas that retain no access, reflecting an adherence to current standards and guidelines set forth in the 

Forest Plan. Soil concerns elevate when ground based equipment is considered for use on steeper slopes, 

sensitive riparian areas, sensitive soil types, or unstable areas.

Conversely, there is an operational concern for economics between the various systems being considered, 

i.e., ground based systems are most economic from an operational cost viewpoint, skyline systems 

increase in operational costs, and aerial (full suspension or helicopter) systems are the most costly. Road 

access and landing accessibility and construction costs are also factors to consider.

Logging System Options

Within the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project, logging system options for stands that provide opportunities 

for commercial extraction include ground-based systems, skyline cable systems, and aerial (helicopter) 

systems. Estimates of anticipated logging system needs by Action Alternative are provided in sub-section 

D, 2, this Chapter. This section provides background and explanation of these systems.

Ground-based Systems - Refers to a group of logging methods that are considered ground-based, and 

may also include mechanized harvesting equipment. Typically, logs are harvested using mechanized 

heavy equipment to skid the logs to a landing area, where they would be loaded onto a truck. These 

ground-based systems are usually utilized on terrain where slopes are less than 25-35 percent. The 

maximum percent slope for ground based systems, as designed for the Eden Ridge Planning Area is 35%.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-15

Final Environmental Impact Statement

In all cases, all proposed skid trails should be pre-designated by the operator and approved by the Forest 

Service before felling and skidding. Skid trails should not be allowed to cross specified stream channels 

or only at Forest Service approved locations. In general, skid trail spacing should average 100 feet apart 

and located on the fall line, especially if using harvester-forwarder systems due to the forwarder’s high 

center of gravity. In general, skid trail spacing should average 80 to 100 feet apart. Assuming uniform 

conditions, a typical width of 12 feet; 80 foot spacing equals 15%, and 100 foot spacing equals 12%.” 

Tractor - In this system, a cutter will fall to lead toward designated skid trails, then limb and buck the tree 

in the bed where it landed when it was felled. Three methods of skidding can then be utilized, loader or 

shovel yarding, grapple or choker skidding. Shovel yarding consists of a heal boom loader grabbing the 

logs and swinging them towards the landing in stages. Grapple skidding uses swing grapples attached to 

the rear of the tractor. The clamps pick up one end of the log and the operator positions the log for 

skidding. When several logs are bunched, the grapple can pick up several ends at one time and skid the 

turn to the landing. The third method involves chokers that are attached to the logs and a tractor equipped 

with a winch pulls the logs from their beds into the skid trail. When a group of logs are assembled into a 

turn, the chokers are gathered together, the leading ends of the logs are suspended above the ground 

behind the tractor by way of an integrated arch or similar apparatus, and the trailing end of the logs drag 

along the ground on the way back to the landing. At the landing, a front-end or a knuckle-boom loader is 

used to sort and load logs decked at the landing onto log trucks. 

“Winch/line” Some areas of timber harvest where slopes generally exceed 35% slope but are relatively 

small – usually less than 250 feet wide –can be reached by a winch line from a ground based machine or 

reached from a road by a winch line or loader. The tractor uses a “bull line” to pull the logs to the skid 

trail or road. These areas are usually inside larger ground based inclusions and are considered part of the 

ground based system.

Rubber-tired Skidder - This system is essentially the same as tractor logging in technique, although the 

skidding equipment has some operational and functional differences. While most tractors have steel 

tracks with cleats that run along a rigid rail and tend to churn up some soil when it turns, rubber-tired 

skidders are often articulated in their middle instead of a rigid frame, and they displace somewhat less 

topsoil than a tractor would when it turns. Both types of equipment can have advantages, depending on 

the situation. 

Typically, tractors can work on somewhat steeper slopes, while skidders are faster and average skidding 

distances can be somewhat longer. By virtue of the fact that both tractors and skidders bear the weight of 

one end of the logs being skidded, the weight of the machine skidding logs is not evenly distributed, but is 

instead concentrated near the back of the machine. This configuration can create disproportionately 

higher ground pressure on the soils being skidded upon than the machines rated or calculated pressure (in 

pounds per square inch) would indicate. 

Harvester-Forwarder - A harvester and forwarder are two separate pieces of equipment. The harvester 

(while traveling on pre-designated harvester trails) reaches its boom out to cut the tree, and lays it on its 

side approximately perpendicular to the axis of the skid trail. Rollers on the cutting head then pull the 

tree through delimbing knives which drops the limbs in the harvester trailing front of the harvester as they 

are severed. As each pre-determined length of log has been fed through the harvester head, logs are cut to 

length and allowed to fall into a stack of uniform length logs alongside the harvester trail. As the 

harvester travels through the stand, it rides on the layer of limbs that act as a cushion to help minimize 

soil compaction. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-16

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Later, a forwarder uses the same trails to pick up the logs, load them onto its bunk, and transport the logs 

to the landing, completely free of the ground instead of dragging them behind the machine. Because the 

logs are transported free of the ground, the weight is evenly distributed over all of its wheels, so the 

resultant ground pressure is less than with other ground based systems. This method not only minimizes 

soil compaction, but it virtually eliminates any exposure of subsoil so there is rarely any detrimental 

displacement or erosion. Because of the specialized equipment, there is a slightly higher cost, compared 

to tractor or rubber-tired skidder.

Skyline - Is a system that transports logs from stumps to landings using a wire rope cable that is 

suspended between a tower and a tail tree. This cable (or skyline) functions as an overhead track for a 

load-carrying carriage. Logs are lifted by cables or other devices attached to the carriage and pulled into 

a skyline corridor. The carriage is then pulled to the landing by a mainline powered by a yarder. The 

skyline provides vertical lift so that the logs have their leading end suspended above the ground during 

inhaul. In some cases, the entire log may be suspended above the ground.

Skyline logging is generally specified where road access is available, on slopes greater than 35%, and/or 

where soil or water conditions are a concern. In all cases, one-end log suspension would be required in 

all skyline units. Where logs are to be yarded across specified stream channels or wet areas, full log 

suspension would be required over the designated stream channel. In order to get adequate deflection in 

some units, the skyline may have to be rigged across major streams and/or existing roads.

Guyline anchors are needed and within the Eden Ridge Planning Area, should be adequate in most areas. 

However, in some locations multiple stump anchors, machine anchors, and/or “deadman” anchors may be 

needed. Guyline anchors should generally be green Douglas-fir 15” to 26” dbh and 40+ years of age. 

Guy trees would have to be felled before using the stumps as anchors. 

Tail tree and tail tree anchors would be needed on most skyline corridors. Tree sizes should be from 15” 

to 26”+ in most locations (Douglas-fir). Tail tree rigging heights may be up to 50 feet. Tree sizes and 

rigging heights should be guided by OR-OSHA Chapter 437, Division 6.

Skyline landings would mostly be located in the road prism. Landing orientation would utilize both 

parallel and centralized (radial) configurations. In some cases, landings would need to be placed on 

narrow roads, therefore, a swing boom type yarder would be necessary. If the project specifies that tops 

be left attached to the top log in skyline units, some log processing may be needed on the landings (i.e., 

the whole tree system). This would require slightly larger landings and/or the back-haul of slash in order 

to accommodate the residual slash from the top log and residual limbs. Log processing could be 

accomplished by a relatively small and inexpensive “pull-thru” log processor or a more expensive and 

more efficient mechanical processor. 

Helicopter - This logging system utilizes medium or heavy-lift helicopters to transfer the logs from 

where they are cut to a landing where they are loaded on trucks for haul to a mill. Helicopters are divided 

into three classes, depending on their lift capabilities. Helicopters have high operating costs and are 

usually utilized where there are concerns for ground disturbance or where road building is not desired. 

Aerial systems (e.g., helicopters) would be a system used to accomplish commercial density management 

where existing access systems are not available or would cause extensive resource damage if utilized. 

Helicopters can be used to move material from the treatment area sites, and move them to processing 

areas (i.e., landings). From the landings, material can then be removed from the forest by trucks, utilizing 

existing classified roads suitable for such use. The use of helicopters allows for full suspension of trees or 

material from the treatment area to the landing area and does not create excessive ground disturbance via 

skid trails or skyline corridors. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-17

Final Environmental Impact Statement

This system (helicopter) can be utilized where there is no directly adjacent road access. There are 

limitations however on the flight distance and elevation change from the landing to the stand where 

material would be transported. Landings must be within a distance of approximately 1 mile from the 

treated stand. There are also other factors to consider regarding helicopter systems and economic 

feasibility, including turn size, maintenance and fuel storage landings, etc.

Within the Eden Ridge Planning Area, numerous potential log and service landings are available. 

Helicopter landings, in general, have an average size of about 80 feet by 200 feet and are located as close 

as possible to the harvest units they serve. However, the actual landing size and location can vary widely 

depending on terrain, slope, volume flown per acre, and flight direction. In general, landings should be 

cleared of trees and stumps and leveled as much as possible. In some cases, some surrounding green tree 

might have to be removed to facilitate flight direction. Some of the landings associated with the Eden 

Ridge Planning Area may be located on private land or private roads. These locations would need 

approval from the private land holder if used. Service landing(s) need to be no more than 1 mile from the 

harvest units (less if possible) and accessible by highway fuel trucks.

Prebunching

This system can be subordinate to any of the above systems. It typically involves machine cutting, 

weighing, and bundling logs to make log transport more efficient. A tracked, self-leveling machine can 

typically work on ground up to 35% slope gradient, with minimal adverse effect to soils (minimal 

additional detrimental soil effects and within soils Standards and Guidelines). By making one pass 

through the stand and walking on slash and compacting and dispersing it, slash treatment costs can be 

bypassed and fire danger lessened. 

Use of this equipment can make all phases of the ground based, skyline, and helicopter logging 

considerably more economical and can also treat the slash at the same time. While pre-bunching could be 

used in any systems (where slopes allow), it is especially applicable to helicopter systems. The biggest 

cost factor in helicopter logging is the aircraft cost per hour; anything that can boost the volume per hour 

produced can bring down unit costs. 

Pre-bunching timber in a thinning into flyable bundles with a “cut-to-length” processing machine has 

been proven to maximize volume flown per hour. Production can be increased as the turns fly faster, 

loading is consistent, no excess weight (slash) is flown, landing impact and size are minimized, and labor 

and loading costs are cheaper. The savings from this type of operation is estimated to be about 20-25%.

f. Existing Road (Access) Systems

A Transportation and Logging Systems Report (Roads Analysis) FEIS Appendix I, is attached to this 

document and incorporated by reference. This report documents the basis for application of potential 

logging systems and provides the basis for road use and proposed new road construction. The following 

discussion summarizes the basis for use of existing roads. 

Existing roads are organized into four types; Forest Service Classified (or permanent system) roads, 

existing unclassified roads on National Forest System Lands (NFSL), existing roads currently under a 

Cost Share Agreement with adjacent private landowner interests, and roads that are private roads (not 

inventoried or managed by the Forest Service. 

Considerable effort was made during this planning effort to correctly locate and inventory existing roads 

systems discussed in Appendix I and in this section. In many cases, roads appearing on maps or in 

database inventories were determined to be incorrect based on field examination. These anomalies 

occurring in several ways, e.g., some roads being tracked and mapped as existing Classified roads were in 

fact not correct. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-18

Final Environmental Impact Statement

In other cases, roads existed and are being used that were not being tracked as Classified roads. 

Unclassified roads likewise were found to be in error, either existing as Classified roads or not existing 

but were being tracked as unclassified roads. In order to facilitate use, existing Cost Share roads and the 

inventory of adjacent privately managed roads was updated for this project.

Specific listing of existing road needs (length and quantity) and locations are unique to each of the Action 

Alternatives considered in detail and are contained in the descriptions of each alternative.

Classified Road Systems

The following discussion includes the basis for use of (Classified or permanent system) roads. Forest 

System Roads are under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service and are deemed necessary for protection, 

administration, and use of NFSL. These roads are inventoried, maintained, and managed by the Forest 

Service. Generally, these NFS roads are identified as Maintenance Level 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, under the 

following definitions.

Table II-5. Road Maintenance Level Definitions

Level 1

Basic custodial maintenance is performed to keep damage to adjacent resources to an acceptable level and to 

perpetuate the road to facilitate future management activities. While being maintained at level 1, roads are closed to 

vehicular traffic.

Level 2 Assigned to roads open for use by high clearance vehicles. Traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of one or a 

combination of administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. 

Level 3 Roads in this maintenance level are typically low speed, single lane with turnouts and spot surfacing. Some roads may 

be fully surfaced with either native or processed material. 

Level 4 Most roads are double lane and aggregate surfaced. However, some roads may be single lane. Some roads may be 

paved and/or dust abated. 

Level 5 These roads are normally double lane, paved facilities. Some may be aggregate surfaced and dust abated. 

Most of the currently existing Classified road system within Eden Ridge is currently managed as 

Maintenance Level 1 or 2.

Unclassified Roads

The Eden Ridge Planning Area contains additional roads, trails or grades that are not inventoried, 

maintained, or currently managed by the Forest Service. As noted above, some unclassified roads were 

found to be in error, either existing as Classified roads or not existing but were being tracked as 

unclassified roads. Further use of correctly inventoried unclassified roads is discussed in the next section 

under proposals for construction, reconstruction or use as part of the Eden Ridge Proposed Action.

Cost Share Roads

The Eden Ridge Planning Area is completely surrounded by private lands owned and managed for timber 

production. There is an extensive network of existing roads to facilitate access to these lands. In the past, 

some of these roads also facilitated access to NFSL and cooperative Cost Share Agreements were put in 

place. 

These agreements require a proportionate share of use, maintenance and reconstruction of roads that serve 

mutual benefit. The intent of the Cost Share Agreement is to eliminate the need for duplicate road 

systems and share in the cost and maintenance of these facilities that benefit both parties. While some 

cost share roads currently exist, construction, reconstruction and/or use of additional cost share roads is 

discussed in the next section. Some existing roads on private lands are also being proposed to be added to 

existing Cost Share Agreements to minimize the need for construction of new roads.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-19

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Private Roads

As noted above, the Eden Ridge Planning Area is completely surrounded by private lands owned and 

managed for timber production. There is an extensive network of existing roads to facilitate access to 

these lands. While not providing direct access to NFSL, in some cases these roads provide the most 

logical product haul and may be used under agreement or permit under the Eden Ridge Timber Sales 

Project.

g. Proposed Road (Access) Systems

Product Transport or Haul

Hauling involves loading and transporting logs or other products on log trucks along roads associated 

with the harvest activity areas. These roads need to be in a safe and acceptable condition for this purpose, 

and could require Classified road reconstruction or maintenance standards prior to this use. Hauling 

occurs on all road surface types including asphalt, aggregate gravel, and native-surfaced. 

Classified Road Maintenance

This activity includes several related activities which maintain drainage, cuts and fills and surfacing of the 

road prism to accommodate light and commercial road traffic; while maintaining the integrity of the road 

facility and minimizing effects to natural resources adjacent to the road. Much of this work is done with a 

motor grader, dump trucks and backhoe. 

Road maintenance includes travel way surface maintenance, drainage ditch maintenance, culvert cleaning, 

surface rock replacement, shaping of the roadway and ditches by blading, removal of slough materials, 

compacting and other mechanized and hand work. Classified road maintenance involves activities of a 

lesser scale and effect than Classified road reconstruction. Note that some items associated with routine 

road maintenance are sometimes included in contracts and identified as road reconstruction.

It is estimated that road maintenance would be needed on the road system utilized for this project, over a 

number of years. This would vary according to the Actions Alternatives due to stand treatment locations, 

the proposed harvest access and logging system, and the conditions preceding the need for the road. Road 

maintenance renders the road durable and useable, and when not further needed, allows it to be in a 

storage condition that minimizes effects on soil, water and other resources. 

Road maintenance includes use of rock quarries and water sources, roadside brushing, grading, ditching, 

rocking of perennial stream crossings on native surface roads and other activities needed to maintain the 

road facility in good condition. Maintenance work is usually performed commensurate to the use of the 

road and the condition of the road.

Classified Road Reconstruction

Reconstruction involves maintenance and improvements to existing Classified (system) roads, to make 

them suitable for logging equipment and harvest treatment access. Reconstruction involves restoring a 

Classified system road to its previous operational condition. Road repairs could have one or more of the 

following work items: removing fallen trees, cleaning out culvert inlets, removing and disposing of small 

cut slope slides, falling danger trees, replacing minor amounts of road surfacing, replacing, adding 

additonal drainage structures, etc. 

Treatments could include grading, clearing, restoring road width loss, or stabilizing a cut or fill 

(embankment) slope that was lost due to storm damage, by placing riprap materials (large boulders) 

against existing slopes, and may include widening and surface rock replacement.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-20

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Previously existing spur roads, skid roads, or old railroad grades could be reconstructed and utilized for 

development of Classified road access. This would place the impacts on areas already affected and lessen 

the environmental impact associated with new road construction in undeveloped areas. A reconstructed 

Classified road is often more environmentally sound than a temporary road because it is designed to a 

higher standard. When closed for a long period of time, a Classified road can be a more stable facility 

when left in a storage condition. 

It is estimated that road reconstruction would be needed on portions of the road system utilized for this 

project, over a number of years and projects. This would vary according to the Action Alternatives due to 

stand treatment locations, the proposed harvest access and logging system, and the conditions preceding 

the need for the road. Performing road repairs could also be accomplished by future commercial timber 

sales or stewardship contracts that would include requirements to perform minor road reconstruction work 

and applicable road maintenance work. 

Culvert replacement may occur in some stream channels and drains that relieve road ditches. Many 

culverts in channels are determined to be undersized to handle the water and sediment from areas above 

the structure. Culverts have a lifespan and effectiveness that diminishes as rust and corrosion decrease 

the strength and integrity of the structure. These culverts would be replaced as necessary. This project 

provides the opportunity to upgrade culverts for additional resource protection and enhancement.

Work would entail excavating the fill covering the current culvert and removing the culvert. Fills placed 

over the new pipe would be compacted and the road prism shaped to provide good drainage in and around 

the new culvert. Project Design Criteria and preventive mitigation measures would be used to minimize 

stream channel disturbance at the site and reduce the amount of unconsolidated material remaining in the 

channel after installation of the new culvert is completed. 

New Classified Roads

The Eden Ridge Planning Area currently has a minimal existing road network and when the harvesting 

that created the candidate stands of today occurred, the area was logged by historical railroad systems. 

Most of the existing Classified roads evolved from early railroad grades but do not adequately serve the 

Planning Area for today’s needs and systems. Because the area is primarily allocated to Matrix, the 

Forest Service conducted a Roads Analysis process which identified the need for additional, permanent, 

Classified roads (FEIS Appendix I; Transportation and Logging Sustems Report).

New Classified roads were determined to be necessary to minimize temporary impacts on resources, 

especially, land, water, wildlife, and air. These new Classified roads are necessary to to maintain a 

quality that permits future use without need to re-accomplish or replace work that is currently in 

satisfactory condition. Construction should minimize repeated impacts and avoid unacceptable risks to 

resources. It should not result in higher future capital expenditures that could be required if, for example, 

roads had to be rebuilt or relocated for each sale or entry.

New Classified road construction is designed to result in the lowest total transportation cost (construction, 

hauling, and maintenance) for the intended management use, while ensuring safety and minimizing 

temporary or extended resource impacts (FSM 2432.34 and FSM 7700). Timber sale contracts may 

authorize construction of both specified Classified roads and temporary roads. 

All proposed new Classified roads would be created and managed as Operational Maintenance Level 2 

roads and Maintenance Level 1 when not in use for harvest activities. System roads are for long-term, 

multiple management needs, often with some potential for future use every five-to-ten years. At this 

time, the critical vehicle has been identified as a skyline yarder, and the design vehicle has been identified 

as a log truck. The traveled-way width would be generally 12-14 feet plus curve widening, fill widening, 

and turnouts, unless the critical vehicle dictates otherwise.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-21

Final Environmental Impact Statement

All proposed new system roads would be rocked as needed to minimize erosion and allow for extended 

use during wet conditions. All new Classified roads (including those crossing Riparian Reserve) would 

be engineered and designed to minimize environmental impacts. Designed roads constructed on 

NFSLwould be accompished to standards appropriate for the intended uses; considering safety, cost of 

transportation, and impacts on lands and resources. Designed roads would be constructed as stable and 

durable structures to facilitate maintenance during and after use. 

This design would include necessary drainage facilities, adequate erosion control, closure devices, and 

resource protection devices. Closure of all new construction of system roads would typically be 

accomplished via a road entrance closure of native materials (logs, earth, boulders) after timber sale 

activites had occurred, placing them into Maintenance Level 1 Status. 

Some new Classified roads would cross Riparian Reserves, under specially designed Project Design 

Criteria (see Section D, 3, Project Design Criteria For Riparian Reserves, this Chapter).

In addition, some of these proposed new Classified roads would potentially be constructed under terms of 

the existing Cost Share Agreement (subject to agreement between the Government and private 

landowners).

Temporary Road (Access) Systems and Landings 

A temporary road is a road necessary for emergency operations or authorized by contract, permit, lease or 

other written authorization that is not a Forest road and that is not included in a Forest transportation atlas 

(36 CFR 212.1). For the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project, some new temporary road construction may 

be needed for candidate stand access. Temporary roads include those roads needed only for the 

purchaser’s use for a given timber sale(s), such as roads used to haul timber from landings to permanent 

National Forest System roads. 

The Forest Service and the purchaser must agree upon the location, resource protection requirements for 

road construction, clearing widths, and closure or rehabilitation requirements. Temporary roads are not 

constructed to serve long-term future uses and must be closed prior to closure of the timber sale (FSM 

2432.34b). 

Temporary roads are proposed where it is likely that a one-time access is needed as part of a contract, for 

access to harvest units. They typically have a lower planning, design, and initial development cost than 

permanent system roads. Forest Service regulations (36 CFR 223.37) require temporary roads to be 

revegetated within ten years. These roads cannot be compared to engineered roads (permanent system 

roads) as they are not designed for multiple uses or long-term resource protection (e.g., all-weather 

maintenance).

In this analysis, a temporary road is defined as a created travel way, for the purpose of transporting logs 

that is built, utilized, and decommissioned (obliterated) over the course of the treatment/harvest operation. 

Temporary roads would not be surfaced (rocked) and would be used during dry conditions only.

These roads would be built and removed by the operator as part of the Forest Service timber sale or 

stewardship contract. In constructing these temporary roads, no large diameter trees (e.g., late-seral or 

“old-growth” type trees would be felled for road clearing. Estimates of temporary road needs are 

provided in sub-section D, 2, this Chapter, and would vary according to the Action Alternatives due to 

stand treatment locations, the proposed harvest access and logging system, and the conditions preceding 

the need for the road. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-22

Final Environmental Impact Statement

In many cases, these temporary roads are essentially access to or an extension of a landing (a few hundred 

feet), or could actually be a travel way of up to 1,800 feet. Temporary roads are considered as part of the 

affected (detrimental) soil conditions under the Soil Quality Standards and Guidelines. Maximum percent 

of area for detrimental soil conditions would be 15 percent for an activity area (including roads and 

landings: SNF LRMP Standards and Guidelines for Soils; 7-2).

Temporary roads would be managed in accordance with water quality Best Management Practices3

(BMPs) R-23. In order to prevent continued low level casual use, and to minimize resource impacts, such 

roads and landings would be obliterated at the completion of their intended use. Effective obliteration is 

generally achieved through a combination of the following measures:

-Temporary culverts are removed and natural drainage configuration is re-established;

-Road surfaces are ripped;

-Sideslopes are reshaped and stabilized; road is effectively drained; and

-Road is blocked to further use, and road is returned to vegetation production through revegetation 

(seeding, planting browse species, or hardwood/conifer trees).

Landings

Some of the areas associated with the candidate stands have an existing network of roads and landings 

from previous harvests. However, there would also be a need for some additional areas created for log 

landings. These would primarily occur in areas where no landing currently exist or where a change in 

logging systems (e.g., where skyline logging is now prescribed in areas previously railroad logged).

These additional landings are highly variable by Action Alternative and the selected logging system. For 

example, helicopter systems typically require larger (1 acre or more) landing areas, whereas a tractor 

system could utilize areas barely larger than a road-width, although tractor and skyline systems would 

typically require many more landings.

Temporary road (and landing) locations and stabilization measures are typically determined by the Forest 

Service with agreement by the contractor/purchaser. The Forest Service may request the advice of a 

watershed specialist in determining the most appropriate location and stabilization measures to be applied. 

Special stabilization measures would be required if need for a temporary road would extend for more than 

one year (seasonal mitigation measures).

Log landings may be a specified road requirement when they meet all of the following conditions: 1) 

when constructing the landing and the road simultaneously would reduce cost and soil disturbance, 2) 

when logging system planning has confirmed the need to locate the landing on a specified location, 3) 

when the landing lies on or immediately adjacent to the road, and 4) when the landing area is to remain a 

permanent part of the road. The road and landing must result in a contiguous cross-section. To the extent 

possible, location of landings would coincide with turnouts, borrow areas, and turnarounds.

 

3 This refers to the General Water Quality Best Management Practices, Pacific Northwest Region, November 1988. These are 

now used in concert with the National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management (April 2012). The purpose of 

the National BMP Program is to provide a standard set of core BMPs and a consistent means to track and document the use and 

effectiveness for BMPs on NFS lands.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-23

Final Environmental Impact Statement

h. Similar and/or Related Actions

Similar actions, which when viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or proposed agency actions ,have 

similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their environmental consequences together, such as 

common timing or geography (40 CFR 1508.25(a)(3)). The Forest has chosen to analyze the following 

similar and/or related actions within the Eden Ridge FEIS. 

These other miscellaneous actions are included under the Proposed Action and the Action Alternatives; 

they are designed as resource enhancement, restoration, or improvements. These actions would occur in 

proximity to commercial and silvicultural stand treatments. They could be financed through collections 

generated via forthcoming timber sales (for example Knutson-Vandenberg [KV] funds), or through Forest 

Service appropriated resource and enhancement funding, or stewardship contract agreements. 

There may also be opportunities for public learning and interpretation of actions associated with this 

project.

Non-Commercial Treatments

Non-commercial treatments are proposed for 363 acres within the ER Planning Area (see Table II-6 and 

MAP II-2). Options include restoration, rehabilitation, reforestation, removal or thinning of noncommercial sized trees. An example of stand conditions that could benefit from these treatments is 

shown in Figure II-3. The purpose of these treatments, considered Timber Stand Improvement, is to 

comply with the National Forest Management Act of 1976 and the 1989 LRMP. 

Table II-6. Eden Ridge Non-Commercial Treatment Units

Unit Reference Acres

900 85

901 7

902 7

903 5

904 14

905 140

906 82

907 12

908 9

Total 363

Figure II-3. Example of Dense Stands Proposed for Non-Commercial Treatment

Unit 905
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-24

Final Environmental Impact Statement

MAP II-2. Non-Commercial Treatments within Eden Ridge Planning Area

Portions of proposed units for non-commercial treatments have high height to diameter ratios on 

overstory trees and forest health issues with laminated root rot, shallow soils and windthrow (e.g., Unit 

908). These areas may be treated by removing small diameter material for biomass and planting with 

POC and other resistant tree species. 

Some plantations within commercial unit boundaries are non-commercial due to tree size, density and 

high height to diameter ratios. These areas may also be treated (or skipped) by removing small diameter 

material for biomass and planting.

Snag/Down Wood Creation

Following harvest operations, if funding is available, in areas where there is a lack of large snags needed 

for cavity nesting species, snags may be created from live trees left in stands. Creation can be through 

girdling, topping the trees with chain saws, blasting, inoculation with heart rot fungi, or deliberate injury. 

These methods would open the trunk to development of a hollow core used by woodpeckers and a variety 

of other birds, mammals, and other wildlife. Whenever possible, creation of snags over 20” dbh should 

be part of each prescription (see Section D, 2, b., snag and large wood objectives for the western hemlock

plant series in the coast geographic region, as applicable to the Eden Ridge Project).

Meadow Enhancement

Following harvest operations, the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project may provide the funding mechanism 

if funding is available for non-commercial treatments to enhance meadow and other grassy area 

conditions. These treatments have already been analyzed under NEPA and a separate decision already 

made (Meadow Restoration and Enhancement Decision Memo, signed in November 2005). Treatments 

may include removal of encroaching brush and conifers, underburning and vehicle access controls. The 

site locations include Coal Meadows, Sweeney Meadows, proximity of Unit 316, and other identified 

locations within the Planning Area but outside of treatment units. Treatment of these sites would be

directed by Wildlife Biologists.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-25

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Stream Enhancement 

The Eden Ridge Project proposes to place 150 large trees in stream channels and adjacent floodplains to 

increase channel stability, rearing habitat, pool formation, spawning gravel deposition, channel 

complexity, hiding cover, low velocity areas, and floodplain function. Live and dead trees may be 

removed from riparian areas to provide wood for enhancement projects, under special conditions 

described in the Project Design Criteria (see Section D, 3, e., this Chapter, and FEIS Appendix H). This 

action could involve the use of log trucks and dump trucks for transport and excavator-type machinery, 

low ground pressure equipment, cable yarders, draft horses, or helicopters for placement. Plans and 

designs would be consistent with Forest Plan direction, funding opportunities, and watershed restoration 

plans (e.g., USDA FS 2006). 

Approximately 1 Mile of upper Coal Creek tributaries within Units 905 and 906 would have trees felled 

toward the channel and approximately 1 mile of Wooden Rock would have stream enhancement. 

Approximately 50 trees per mile would be placed within approximately 3 miles of stream (150 trees total, 

22,650 cubic feet). The proposed enhancement is located in resident fish habitat ranging from ten miles 

to twenty seven miles upstream of critical coho habitat and three to eight miles for essential fish habitat 

(see FEIS Appendix H).

Native Grass/Forb Seeding

Following harvest operations, if funding is available, seeding of disturbed sites associated with logging 

skid trails, landings, temporary roads and burned slash piles would reduce the opportunity for non-native 

plants(including noxious weeds) to invade disturbed sites and reduce erosion from exposed mineral soils. 

Seeding exposed mineral soil with native grass seed (~4-8 lbs/acre) would restore and improve forage for 

wildlife that benefit from grasses and forbs; e.g. deer, elk, mice, rabbits and their predators.

Invasive Plant Treatments

Monitor and treat invasive plants within Project Area boundaries to reduce/eliminate current populations 

and reduce the future spread of non-native vegetation. Treatment would be completed in disturbed areas 

within the watersheds by hand pulling only. 

Depending upon funding availability, monitor and treat invasive species within the Planning Area for up 

to 5 years after completion of the project.

Other Wildlife Opportunities

Following harvest operations, if funding is available, artificial nest/roost box creation for cavity nesting 

species may be appropriate. Locations include any created gaps/openings within all treatment units, 

meadows or grassy areas, and riparian areas within the Project Areas.

3. PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA FOR RIPARIAN RESERVES

This section discusses elements related to the design of treatments and actions (i.e., Project Design 

Criteria), applicable to Riparian Reserves, under the Action Alternatives. These elements were utilized to 

develop proposals and/or are to be employed during on-the ground project designation/implementation 

and are designed to address overall objectives (attain the Purpose and Need) and resource objectives to 

manage consequences (obtain compliance with Standards and Guidelines). Other elements that manage 

consequences during actual operations are termed “Mitigation Measures” and are discussed in Section D, 

10 of this Chapter.

Project Design Criteria are employed concurrent with the various silvicultural treatment elements 

described in Section D, 2 of this Chapter. Many specific Riparian Reserve design elements would require

site-specific recommendations for application from Forest Service resource professionals during 

implementation (adaptive management). This is an overall design element/mitigation measure applicable 

to all treatments.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-26

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Density management and/or commercial extraction within Riparian Reserve shall only be considered to 

maintain, enhance or restore Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives. Timber harvest in 

Riparian Reserves is prohibited unless treatments promote desired vegetation characteristics needed to 

attain ACS objectives or to mitigate damaging effects from catastrophic events such as fire, flooding, 

volcanic, wind, or insect damage (NWFP Standards and Guidelines, Timber Management, TM-1). 

Situations in which timber harvest may be needed to maintain or restore (improve) ACS Objectives 

include thinning in forested Riparian Reserves to improve root strength, and other characteristics having 

to do with overall health and vigor of the stand. A young healthy stand has greater potential to restore the 

timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input and storage (water quality and aquatic habitat). A 

young healthy stand also has greater potential to grow into a late seral forest, eventually providing latesuccessional habitat.

Riparian Reserve and its appurtenant Standards and Guidelines apply where these reserves overlap other 

land allocations (i.e., within Matrix). Consequently, field identification of Riparian Reserves and 

validation of fish-bearing status and stream classification would be required before implementation of 

treatments. An estimate of Riparian Reserve acreage within proposed units associated with each Action 

Alternative has been made and is described in Section D, 7, 8 and 9, this Chapter.

Thinning within Riparian Reserves associated with perennial streams within some candidate stands is 

proposed, based on field reconnaissance. Further investigation during implementation may identify 

Riparian Reserves that are currently fully functioning and not in need of thinning treatments. There are 

likely to be intermittent or perennial streams not yet identified. These areas would need to be identified 

through additional field reconnaissance and mapped in GIS. Some, all or none of these Riparian Reserves 

may need vegetative treatment to maintain or improve their function in accordance with the ACS.

Specifically for the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project, proposed Riparian Reserve treatments and 

connected actions are to be designed to avoid or minimize conditions that would increase hydrologic 

connectivity, increase drainage from roads into steams (especially higher order streams), increase 

interception and concentration of subsurface slope flow by road cuts, concentrate runoff into centralized 

drainage conduits (especially near higher order streams), increase runoff from impervious surfaces or 

concentrated areas of compaction (landings, skyline pads, roads), and increase activity generated 

sediment, especially in high-risk areas.

High-risk areas for increased runoff, erosion and hydrologic connectivity as classified for the Eden Ridge 

Timber Sales Project include steep slopes, high water table areas, proximity to previously disturbed areas 

(e.g., regeneration harvest along FS/private land boundaries, and proximity to high order streams (midand low- slope positions in watersheds).

a. Overall Project Design Criteria for Riparian Reserve Treatments

This sub-section discusses criteria for proposed silvicultural treatments and connected actions associated 

with timber yarding and felling within Riparian Reserves. Access and haul are discussed in the next subsection on roads.

Riparian Reserve widths are based on one site-potential tree height4 each side of stream course (assumed 

to be 175 feet for all areas within Eden Ridge Planning Area). The width for fish-bearing streams is two 

site potential tree heights on each side. All Riparian Reserves would be identified during implementation 

and prior to treatments (including currently unmapped Riparian Reserves within treatment areas).

 

4 A site potential tree height is the average maximum height of the tallest dominant trees (200 years or older) for a given site 

class.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-27

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Riparian Reserve treatments and project design elements fall into three categories; fish-bearing 

perennial streams, non-fish-bearing perennial streams, and intermittent and ephemeral streams, 

(see next sub-sections). Further explanation of categories and terms used in these criteria are contained 

below.

Silvicultural treatments within Riparian Reserves would include density management thinning via 

removal of intermediate and suppressed trees. Treatments would be designed to produce a variable thin 

and create an uneven canopy closure across the stand. For the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project, Riparian 

Reserve treatments would typically occur within the outer edges of Riparian Reserves (upland, farthest 

from stream course, typically with no actual riparian vegetation).

 No density management treatment would reduce the existing overstory canopy closure within 

Riparian Reserve to less than 50%.

 Commercial extraction of trees would occur outside of variable, no-treatment stream course buffers, 

according to stream category and thinning intensity (see next sections and Table II-8).

 To reduce the risk of sediment delivery, soil compaction or the loss of soil infiltration capacity in 

the riparian area to the streams, yarding activities within 100 feet of stream courses, pre and post 

activity would not result in a loss of more than 10% of the soil infiltration capacity which 

reduces concerns for sediment reaching the stream. This activity would include existing skid trails, 

which could be re-utilized as necessary and then be ripped (as feasible) to re-establish soil 

infiltration capacity. Use of long-lining (winch line) to remove material from treatment areas is 

allowed where it is determined to be of benefit to Riparian Reserve conditions such as reducing the 

amount of skid trails needed. 

 Yarding activities should achieve full suspension over the active channel5. To facilitate log 

suspension with skyline operations, corridors for cable rigging would be allowed to pass through 

Riparian Reserves. A maximum clearing width of 12 ft. is required and logs may be yarded 

through this corridor if necessary. Corridors must be spaced at a minimum of 200 feet apart if they 

pass through Riparian Reserves. Corridor “rub trees” within the Riparian Reserve, even if 

damaged, would either be left standing or felled and left in place.

 Hand piles and burning should be no closer than 25 ft. from stream channel to maintain ground 

vegetation.

 No new temporary roads or landings, gap treatments, or heavy thinning is proposed nor allowed 

within Riparian Reserves without prior field examination by a Soils Scientist, Hydrologist, or 

Geologist to prescribe site specific mitigation, if needed.

b. Design Criteria for Perennial Streams

This category includes permanently flowing perennial fish-bearing and non-fish-bearing streams. The 

primary concern regarding yarding Riparian Reserves with fish bearing streams is prevention of sediment 

delivery to streams, prevention of concentrated overland flow, wood recruitment, and maintenance of 

stream temperatures. Project design features would follow direction provided in NWFP Temperature 

TMDL Implementation Strategies of 20116. This involves protection, maintenance and enhancement of 

existing stream shade, and maintenance of the existing micro-climate, ambient air temperature, and air 

movement. 

 

5 Active channel is the bank full width of flowing perennial or intermittent streams.

6 Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation strategies were updated in 2011 (Evaluation of the Northwest 

Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy and Associated Tools to achieve and maintain stream temperature water quality 

standards- USFS and BLM). Recommended Primary Shade Zone widths were increased over the September 9, 2005 version. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-28

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The primary difference between fish-bearing and non-fish-bearing stream is the width of the entire 

Riparian Reserve (which is differentiated by fish-bearing status) as shown below:

Fish-bearing Riparian Reserve widths are two site potential tree heights each side of stream 

course (175 ft. X 2 = 350 ft. each side; total width 700 ft.).

Nonfish-bearing Riparian Reserve widths are one site potential tree height each side of stream 

course (175 ft. each side; total width 350 ft.).

The Stream Channel Protection Zone buffer is 50-85 feet from the edge of stream course based on the 

Primary Shade Zone. This zone is an area where no commercial extraction would occur (larger trees 

felled for skyline corridor clearing would be left), however some enhancement treatments could occur. 

Distance from active stream channel varies according to height of existing overstory trees and hill slope in 

immediate area. The following table establishes the width of the Primary Shade Zone.

Table II-7. Primary Shade Zone Width, Based on Adjacent Hill Slope within Perennial Streams

Hill Slope

<30%

Hill Slope

30% to 60%

Hill Slope >60%

Tree Height >60 – 100 ft. 50 ft. 55 ft. 60 ft.

Tree Height >100– 140 ft. 70 ft. 75 ft. 85 ft.

The Temperature Implementation Strategies allow the distances in the above table to be less (but not less 

than 25 ft.) if the trees are located on a south facing slope (175-185 degree azimuth) and therefore do not 

provide stream shade. Note: no large wood, or remnant trees with a potential for instream recruitment

would be cut or removed.

The Riparian Treatment Zone is an area where density management, fuels reduction or other

enhancement treatments could occur, outside of the Stream Channel Protection Zone (50 to 85 feet), in 

accordance with design criteria. 

Figure II-4. Riparian Reserve Design Elements – Perennial Fish & Non-Fish Bearing Streams

Stream Zone (50-85 feet:

includes 25 Foot No Cut Buffer)

Riparian 

Treatment 

Zone

Two Site Potential Tree Heights

(Fish bearing) 

One Site Potential Tree Height

(Non-fish Bearing)

Riparian 

Treatment 

Zone

Total Riparian 

Reserve Width 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-29

Final Environmental Impact Statement

c. Design Criteria for Non Fish-bearing Intermittent and Ephemeral Streams

Seasonally flowing intermittent and ephemeral non-fish-bearing streams have buffers established for the 

prevention of sediment delivery to streams, prevention of concentrated overland flow, and maintenance of 

micro-climates, ambient air temperature and humidity. There are no fish-bearing ephemeral or 

intermittent stream channels in the Eden Ridge Planning Area.

The primary difference between perennial and intermittent/ephemeral streams is the buffers for no-cut, 

and allowable density management and commercial extraction activities. The intermittent/ephemeral 

Riparian Reserves and non-fish bearing Riparian Reserves are the same, one site potential tree heights on 

each side of stream course (175 feet on each side; total 350 feet). The Stream Channel Protection Zone

(25 to 40 feet) width is based on the intensity of proposed riparian treatments (see Figure II-1), i.e., a 

Light Thin would be 25 ft.; a Medium Thin would be 35 ft.; and a Heavy Thin would be 40 ft. 

Figure II-5. Riparian Reserve Design Elements – Ephemeral and Intermittent Stream Channels

The following table presents and summarizes the overall Project Design Criteria developed for Riparian 

Reserves (PDCRR), for Eden Ridge Timber Sales. 

Total Riparian 

Reserve Width 

Riparian 

Treatment 

Zone

One Site 

Potential

Tree Height

One Site 

Potential

Tree Height

Riparian 

Treatment 

Zone

Stream Channel Protection Zone

(25-40 feet; includes No-Cut Buffer 25 feet)
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-30

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table II-8. Overall Design Criteria for Timber Felling and Yarding within Riparian Reserves

Stream Channel Project Activities Buffer Riparian 

Reserve PDCRR Name

Range of Commercial 

Prescriptions Outside of 

Buffer (TPA)

Ephemeral and 

Intermittent

Non-fish

Bearing Streams

No-cut buffer except for hazard 

trees, corridor or anchor trees 

(for skyline cable yarding) may 

be felled and left at site, no 

commercial removal.

Stream side to 25 feet 

along both sides of 

channel.

One site potential 

tree height each 

side of stream 

(175 feet each 

side; total width 

350 feet)

Stream Channel 

Protection Zone

Light Thin = 150-225

Density management and 

commercial extraction allowed.

25 feet from stream side to 

edge of Riparian Reserve, 

along both sides of 

channel, based on one site 

potential tree height.

Riparian 

Treatment Zone

Light Thin = 150-225

Ephemeral and 

Intermittent

Non-fish

Bearing Streams

No-cut buffer except for hazard 

trees, corridor or anchor trees 

(for skyline cable yarding) may 

be felled and left at site, no 

commercial removal.

Stream side to 35 feet 

along both sides of 

channel.

One site potential 

tree height each 

side of stream 

(175 feet each 

side; total width 

350 feet)

Stream Channel 

Protection Zone

Medium Thin = 90-150

Density management and 

commercial extraction allowed.

35 feet from stream side to 

edge of Riparian Reserve, 

along both sides of 

channel, based on one site 

potential tree height.

Riparian 

Treatment Zone

Medium Thin = 90-150

Ephemeral and 

Intermittent

Non-fish

Bearing Streams

No-cut buffer except for hazard 

trees, corridor or anchor trees 

(for skyline cable yarding) may 

be felled and left at site, no 

commercial removal.

Stream side to 40 feet 

along both sides of 

channel.

One site potential 

tree height each 

side of stream 

(175 feet each 

side; total width 

350 feet)

Stream Channel 

Protection Zone

Heavy Thin = 50-90

Density management and 

commercial extraction allowed.

40 feet from stream side to 

edge of Riparian Reserve, 

along both sides of 

channel, based on one site 

potential tree height.

Riparian 

Treatment Zone

Heavy Thin = 50-90

Perennial

Non-fish

Bearing Stream

No-cut buffer (same as 

Ephemeral and Intermittent

Streamside to 50-60 feet 

along both sides of 

channel

One site potential 

tree height each 

side of stream 

(175 feet each 

side; total width 

350 feet)

Primary Shade 

Zone (includes 

Stream Channel 

Protection Zone)

Light Thin = 150-225

Medium Thin = 90-150 

Heavy Thin = 50-90

Density management and 

commercial extraction allowed 

(same as Ephemeral and 

Intermittent).

50-85 feet from stream 

side to edge of Riparian 

Reserve, along both sides 

of channel, based on one 

size potential tree height.

Riparian 

Treatment Zone

Light Thin = 150-225

Medium Thin = 90-150

Heavy Thin = 50-90

Perennial

Fish Bearing 

Streams

No-cut buffer (same as 

Ephemeral and Intermittent

Same as Perennial 

Non-fish Bearing Stream Two site potential 

tree height each 

side of stream 

(350 feet each 

side; total width 

700 feet)

Same as Perennial 

Non-fish Bearing 

Stream

Light Thin = 150-225

Medium Thin = 90-150 

Heavy Thin = 50-90

Density management and 

commercial extraction allowed 

(same as Ephemeral and 

Intermittent).

Same as Perennial 

Non-fish Bearing Stream, 

except Riparian Treatment 

Zone extends from 50-85’ 

buffer limit to edge of two 

site-potential tree buffer

Same as Perennial 

Non-fish Bearing 

Stream

Light Thin = 150-225

Medium Thin = 90-150 

Heavy Thin = 50-90

d. Project Design Criteria for Roads and Landings Within Riparian Reserves

As noted herein and as documented in the Road Analysis (Transportation and Logging Systems Report, 

FEIS Appendix I), the Eden Ridge Planning Area currently has a minimal existing road network and 

when the harvesting that created the candidate stands of today occurred, the area was logged by historical 

railroad systems. Most of the existing roads evolved from early railroad grades but do not adequately 

serve the Planning Area for today’s needs and systems. 

In order to adequately and efficiently access the Planning Area for today’s management systems, a need 

was identified for additional Classified or temporary roads. Given the current situation, these proposed 

new access roads could not be developed without the need to cross some drainages designated as Riparian 

Reserve.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-31

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Temporary Road Construction and Decommissioning Design Criteria

Temporary road construction and decommissioning would be managed in accordance with water quality 

Best Management Practices7(BMPs) R-23. In order to prevent continued low level casual use, and to 

minimize resource impacts, such roads would be obliterated at the completion of their intended use. 

Effective obliteration is generally achieved through a combination of the following measures:

 Temporary culverts are removed and natural drainage configuration is re-established;

 Road surfaces are ripped;

 Sideslopes are reshaped and stabilized; road is effectively drained; and

 Road is blocked to further use, and road is returned to vegetation production through revegetation 

(seeding, planting browse species, or hardwood/conifer trees).

 Remove those elements of a road that reroute hillslope drainage and present slope stability 

hazards. Another term for this is “hydrologic obliteration.”

Temporary roads constructed would be closed after the season of use, and if kept open over winter, would 

be winterized. Drainage work to winterize temporary roads would include water bars at suitable intervals 

and out sloping.

New Road Construction Design Criteria

Some of the proposed new Classified roads would cross Riparian Reserves under specially designed 

Project Design Criteria for Riparian Reserves (see below).

 No new road construction is proposed nor would be allowed to cross or disturb any fish bearing

perennial stream, especially the banks of fish bearing portions/tributaries of Coal Creek and 

Wooden Rock Creek. 

 New classified road construction would only be allowed to cross non fish bearing perennial 

streams or intermittent streams and would include engineering design as Operational 

Maintenance Level 2 roads during use, and Maintenance Level 1 when not in use for harvest 

activities. 

 Perennial channels would be dewatered or water would be rerouted during construction with 

manufactured or natural sediment filters placed within the channel to prevent sediment from 

discharging downstream. 

 New permanent stream crossings would be designed to accommodate at least the 100-year flood, 

including associated bedload and debris.

 Relief ditch spacing would be shortened on new road segments within Riparian Reserves to 

reduce concentration of road runoff into stream courses such that water does not channelize when 

leaving the relief culvert. 

 All exposed soils near streams would be mulched for erosion control.

 Roads would be designed to minimize hydrologic connectivity and sediment delivery. This 

includes roads inside and outside of Riparian Reserves. Road drainage would be routed away 

from potentially unstable channels, fills, and hillslopes.

 No side-casting (placement of unconsolidated earthen waste materials resulting from road 

construction or maintenance) would be allowed in Riparian Reserves.

 Minimize or avoid disruption of natural hydrologic flow paths, including diversion of stream flow 

and interception of surface and subsurface flow when considering constructing or reconstructing 

roads or landings either inside or outside of Riparian Reserves.

 

7 General Water Quality Best Management Practices, Pacific Northwest Region, November 1988. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-32

Final Environmental Impact Statement

 Where physically feasible, construction of stream crossings would avoid diversion of stream flow 

out of the channel and down the road.

Landing Design Criteria

All landings, designated skid trails, staging or decking within Riparian Reserves would:

 Be of minimum size as possible to only allow harvest operations;

 Be located above the break in slope above the stream channel;

 Landing slopes would be armored with logs or other woody material capable of protecting the 

slope surface; 

 Landing surfaces would drain away from the stream channel during use, and, would be 

revegetated/mulched after use; 

 Landing site restoration would consist of :

-Loose soil material on the downslope side would be pulled back

-Placement of slash on bare soils located on the downhill slope; and

 All new landings will be at least 100 feet away from stream channels.

e. Stream Enhancement Project Design Criteria

 Place large wood (LWM) and boulders only in those areas where they would naturally occur and in 

patterns that closely mimic that which would naturally occur for that particular stream type. 

 LWM includes whole conifer and hardwood trees, logs, and root wads. LWM size (diameter and 

length) should account for bankfull width and stream discharge rates. When available, trees with 

rootwads should be a minimum of 1.5 times bankfull channel width, while logs without root wads 

should be a minimum of two times the bankfull width. Place wood in a manner that most closely 

mimics natural accumulations of LWM for that particular stream type. Structures may partially or 

completely span stream channels or be positioned along streambanks. 

 No conifers should be felled in the riparian area for in-channel large wood placement unless conifers 

are overstocked and treatments are consistent with Project Design Criteria in vegetation treatment 

categories. Felled hazard trees can be used for in-channel wood placement. 

 LWM may be buried into the streambank or channel, but shall not constitute the dominant placement 

method of LWM. 

 Tree Removal for LWM Projects: 

o Trees may be removed by cable, ground based equipment, horses or helicopters, or felled 

directly into the stream. Felled trees may be stock-piled for later instream enhancement projects. 

o Individual trees or small groups of trees (<5) should come from the periphery of permanent 

openings (roads etc.) or from the periphery of non-permanent openings (e.g., plantations, along 

recent clear-cuts, etc.). 

o Trees selected for LWM enhancement projects must be spaced at least one site potential tree 

height apart and at least one crown width from any trees with potential nesting structure for 

ESA-listed bird species. 

 Instream work would only occur during the ODFW instream work period (typically July 1 

through September 15).

4. WILDLIFE PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA

This sub-section discusses elements related to the design of treatments and actions (i.e., Project Design 

Criteria), applicable to terrestrial wildlife, under the Action Alternatives. These elements were utilized to 

develop proposals and/or are to be employed during on-the ground project designation/implementation 

and are designed to address overall objectives (attain the Purpose and Need) and resource objectives to 

manage consequences (obtain compliance with Standards and Guidelines). 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-33

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Maintain Northern Spotted Owl Dispersal Habitat

Canopy cover within proposed stands (all units) would be maintained at 40% or greater. Maintain 

decadent woody material such as large snags and downed wood providing benefits for spotted owl prey 

species (see Section D, 2, b., snag and large wood objectives for the western hemlock plant series in the 

coast geographic region, as applicable to the Eden Ridge Project) (PDF #1; Wildlife Report, FEIS

Appendix G, Attachment A).

Protect all Known Del Norte Salamander Sites

To protect any talus habitat from ground disturbing activities that may cause compaction; designate a 

buffer of at least one site potential tree or at least 100' horizontal distance, whichever is greater for all 

known Del Norte salamander locations (see FEIS Appendix G, Wildlife Report, Table G-15). Maintain at 

least 40% canopy closure and avoid activities that would disturb the surface talus layer. Partial harvest 

within the buffer may be possible if 40% canopy closure can be maintained; in such cases, tree harvest 

must be conducted using helicopter or suspended cable systems to avoid compaction or other disturbance 

of talus (PDF #4; Wildlife Report, FEIS Appendix G, Attachment A).

Protect Northern Spotted Owl Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat

Exclude from treatment any stand or portion thereof meeting Recovery Action 32; high-quality spotted 

owl nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF) habitat. To be determined by wildlife biologist (PDF #5; 

Wildlife Report, FEIS Appendix G, Attachment A).

Protect Potential High-Quality Spotted Owl Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat and Potential 

Marbled Murrelet Habitat

As part of implementation, an analysis exercise would be done to determine whether or not any 5-acre 

portion of a candidate stand contains 6 or more trees with potential late-successional habitat structure. If 

an area contains 6 or more remnant trees8 with potential structure, it constitutes potential suitable habitat. 

Any stand with a potential suitable habitat (remnant tree component) would be further assessed with a 

walk-through of the area that would be impacted (USDI, 2006). If a late successional component is 

confirmed, that portion of the stand (or the entire stand) would be excluded from treatments (including 1⁄2 

site tree un-thinned buffer) (PDF #6; Wildlife Report, FEIS Appendix G, Attachment A).

Maintain Wildlife Reserve Trees, Snags, and Down Wood

Management activities shall be planned to maintain enough large woody material (dead and down) to 

maintain a healthy forest ecosystem for multiple species. In conformance with the marking guidelines, 

within harvest units, leave up to 4 dominant / co-dominant trees per acre which contain nests, wildlife 

cavities, structural deformities, and/or damage likely to lead to snag formation. To provide for structural 

diversity for multiple species, remnant trees would be retained. Remnant trees felled for operational safety 

needs would be retained on-site (PDF #15 & #9; Wildlife Report, FEIS Appendix G, Attachment A).

To the extent compatible with safety provisions, retain all snags with tree diameter >=10”. Retain on site, 

all commercial size down-woody material. "Leave-trees" damaged during project operations would be 

left on site. The intent is to maintain or minimize the loss of existing snag numbers following all 

treatment activities. All snags felled for safety would remain on site (PDF #12; Wildlife Report, FEIS 

Appendix G, Attachment A).

 

8 Remnant trees = Generally large old trees that were not removed during earlier regeneration harvest activities or that survived 

stand replacement fires. In some cases they are single trees, while other areas have groups of older trees up to a half acre in 

size. These trees generally range from 34” dbh to in excess of 60” dbh and are often at least twice the diameter of the average 

tree in the stand they are located in. They often have a “wolfy” structure consisting of moss covered limbs/platforms > 4-6” 

diameter, and fire scars or charred bark. Generally, bark is thicker and more furrowed and crowns tend to be more flat topped, 

less “pointed” than younger trees.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-34

Final Environmental Impact Statement

5. BOTANICAL RESOURCES PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA

This sub-section discusses elements related to the design of treatments and actions (i.e., Project Design 

Criteria), applicable to botanical resources, including invasive species, under the Action Alternatives. 

These elements were utilized to develop proposals and/or are to be employed during on-the ground 

project designation/implementation and are designed to address overall objectives (attain the Purpose and 

Need) and resource objectives to manage consequences (obtain compliance with Standards and 

Guidelines). 

Sensitive Plant Bensoniella oregana

Protect existing known sites (see FEIS Appendix F for locations) of the sensitive plant Bensoniella 

oregana by avoiding direct trampling, maintaining coarse woody material for moisture retention and 

maintaining the current amount of shade to light ratio. Layout aggregated retention zones or skips in 

areas where Bensoniella oregana was found. A buffer of 100 foot radius from the edge of each 

population is recommended. Protect existing known sites of the sensitive plant Bensoniella oregana by 

avoiding direct trampling, maintaining coarse woody material for moisture retention and maintaining the 

current amount of shade to light ratio.

Populations of Bensoniella oregana found within the road prisms (e.g., proposed Road W, in Unit 326)

would be flagged prior to implementation of the project. The proposed new road should be moved further 

to the north of the buffer area. No equipment or vehicles should be parked or driven within the flagged 

areas. Protect existing known sites of the sensitive plant Bensoniella oregana by precluding any direct 

trampling of individuals or a population.

Avoid thinning below 40% canopy cover with 60% or above preferred for this species. Use dispersed 

retention with random aggregate retention or skips as outlined in the FEIS Chapter II, Section D,2, b, and 

the Silviculture Report for this project. Allow for continued and future ectomycorrhizal colonization of 

remaining trees post-thinning.

Fungi

Maintain down wood in all stages of decay across forested landscapes. Following the current forest 

standards should meet this criterion. Many fungal species are associated with larger down woody 

material in advanced stages of decay. Allow for future saprophytic fungi colonization by retaining as 

much downed large wood as possible.

Maintain and avoid disturbance of all larger well decayed logs during stand treatments. In younger 

stands, following disturbance or harvest, the presence of large, well decayed down wood legacy can 

provide habitat for both ectomycorrhizal and wood-decay fungi, as well as plant seedlings. For some 

fungi, spore dissemination into disturbed areas is the primary method of re-establishment. 

6. CULTURAL (Heritage) RESOURCES PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA

This sub-section discusses elements related to the design of actions (i.e., Project Design Criteria), 

applicable to cultural resources under the Action Alternatives. These criteria were utilized to develop 

proposals and/or are to be employed during on-the ground project designation/implementation and are 

designed to address overall objectives (attain the Purpose and Need) and resource objectives to manage 

consequences. Other elements that manage consequences during actual operations are termed “Mitigation

Measures” and are discussed in Section D, 10 of this Chapter.

In accordance with Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with SHPO (a copy of this MOA is attached to 

FEIS Appendix J), during project implementation, sale design and road locations, an archaeologist should 

be involved in laying out the various sales to flag out key features/activity areas, including key examples 

of skid trails and associated features such as camps, day-use areas, trestles, anchor stumps, spar trees and 

angled logs (internal use reference map available from Forest Archaeologist).
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-35

Final Environmental Impact Statement

In accordance with the MOA with SHPO, during determination of road locations, limit impacts to railroad 

grades; design to minimal road width and limit locations to one ‘lane’ where sidings exist, leaving fill and 

cut features intact. The siding areas are not to be used as turn outs. Most of the historical features also lie 

along the old grades. Those features that retain some integrity as identified in the Cultural Resource 

Inventory #1352 would be avoided.

7. ALTERNATIVE 2 (Proposed Action)

a. Function

Alternative 2 is the Proposed Action and was developed by identifying treatment opportunities within the 

Planning Area using an interdisciplinary team process. Vegetative management needs and silvicultural 

opportunities were identified and field verified. Treatments of proposed candidate stands were analyzed 

for compliance with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and other laws and policies. 

The Proposed Action is designed to address and maximize attainment of the Purpose and Need outlined in 

Chapter I. Specifically for the Eden Ridge Timber Sales project, Needs include Improvement of Overall 

Forest Vigor and Resiliency, Contribution of Commercial Timber to the Probable Sale Quantity, and 

Improve Riparian Reserves- Meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives.

Alternative 2 responds to the goals and objectives outlined by the Land and Resource Management Plan 

(1989 Forest Plan) for the Siskiyou National Forest, as amended by the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan (and 

other amendments), and helps move the Planning Area toward desired conditions described in that plan 

and specifically for this Planning Area. This alternative is designed to improve overall forest health by 

stimulating natural processes that encourage more stable and resilient forest vegetative conditions, 

manage stand densities and species composition, and (within Matrix) provide for a sustainable yield of 

commercial timber and other commodities. For Riparian Reserves that would be treated, latesuccessional stand conditions would be enhanced and a trend toward meeting the Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy Objectives would be obtained.

b. Description

Alternative 2 proposes intermediate commercial harvest treatments using variable density thinning 

techniques and other connected actions on approximately 3,314 total acres of second growth conifer 

stands artificially and naturally regenerated following timber harvest during the late 1930s through the 

1940s via historical railroad logging methods. Commercial and other silvicultural treatments are detailed 

in Table II-9 and displayed on MAP II-3. Candidate stands are located on suitable forest land primarily 

designated as the Matrix land allocation under the Forest Plan as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan. 

Within the 3,314 acres of treatments, also included are treatments within Riparian Reserves that overlap 

into overstocked drier upland forests (1,097 Riparian Reserve acres; Table II-9 provides an estimate of

the Riparian Reserve area within a unit).

Commercial treatments would involve harvest of conifers with diameters 7 inches and larger dbh which is 

a viable product size under current and anticipated market conditions. Estimated commercial volume 

could average 8 to 20 thousand board feet (mbf) per acre. Other wood product commodities are 

anticipated including biomass (chips), and firewood. Harvest treatments from this alternative could yield 

up to an estimated 53 million board feet9 and would be implemented utilizing multiple timber sale 

contracts over an approximate 5-year period. 

 

9 Based on an overall average of 17.5 thousand board feet (mbf) per acre removed. This is an estimate only and is not 

considered an output threshold for the project
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-36

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Treatments would occur within the South Fork Coquille River and the Middle Fork Coquille River 5thField watersheds, and the Lower Rock Creek, Myrtle Creek, Headwaters South Fork Coquille River, Coal 

Creek, and Mill Creek 6th field watersheds (as indicated in Table II-9). Treatments segregated by 

watershed were identified to assist with effects analysis and alternative formulation.

Actual conditions on the ground may differ from map-delineated stands; therefore, there would be a need 

to be flexible and adjust treatments and/or stand boundaries as needed. All Project Design Criteria 

(Sections D, 3 through 6) and Mitigation Measures (Section D, 10) are incorporated as part of this 

alternative. All Similar and/or Related Actions (Section D, 2, h) are also included in this 

alternative, notably non-commercial treatments proposed on 363 acres. 

Silvicultural Treatments

The primary silvicultural treatment is to control dense stocking conditions through variable density 

thinning treatments (VDT) to improve overall forest health, vigor and resiliency (see Section D, 2, a). 

Silvicultural treatments include management of two forest pathogens, Port Orford cedar root disease 

(Phytophthora lateralis) and laminated root rot (Phellinus weirii) affecting forest health in small portions 

of the Planning Area as discussed in Section D, 2, c. 

Logging Systems

Under this alternative, commercial products could be yarded to landings or decking areas using groundbased systems (tractor or log forwarder), or skyline cable systems. Logging systems projected to be 

utilized to harvest trees are also displayed in Table II-9. Tractor, or ground-based systems, would be used

on approximately 2,119 acres, or 64% of the treated area. Skyline systems would be used on 

approximately 1,195 acres, or 36% of the treated area. Helicopter systems are not proposed under this 

alternative but could be an option to reduce environmental effects if economics were favorable. Under 

this alternative, harvest systems were designed to meet specific environmental protection needs and 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines in the most cost-effective manner. 

Road (Access) Systems

Products would be hauled using existing system (Classified) roads or newly constructed roads to 

manufacturing plants by log trucks or chip vans. Use of approximately 31 miles of existing Classified 

roads is proposed. In addition, approximately 6 miles of reconstruction of existing Classified roads are 

proposed, as well as approximately 6 miles of existing Classified road maintenance (Table II-12). In 

addition to several roads already managed as Cost Share use roads, proposed Cost Share Supplemental 

Road Use Agreements would manage approximately an additional 7 miles.

New Classified (system) and temporary road construction is proposed to access some units under this 

alternative, as discussed in this Chapter, Section D, 2, g. Also see FEIS Appendix I (Roads Analysis) for 

the basis of new road construction under this alternative. A total of approximately 11.1 miles of new 

road construction (Table II-10) is proposed. New road construction would include approximately 10.8

miles of new Classified roads, in 43 segments, ranging from 0.11 miles to 1.93 miles. New Classified 

roads would be managed as Maintenance Level 1 (closed until further need). Approximately 0.29 miles 

of new temporary road is proposed, in two segments, not longer than 0.25 miles in length (Table II-11). 

Refer to MAP II-3 for the general locations of road use and proposed road construction, reconstruction, 

and maintenance needs associated with the Proposed Action.

Activity Fuels Treatments

Activity fuels treatments proposed under this alternative include only those that are predicted to be 

necessary to obtain a resultant and acceptable fuels/fire risk, as discussed in this Chapter, Section D, 2, d. 

Several methods of activity fuels treatment are being proposed, including: Yarding with Tops Attached, 

Hand Piling fuels concentrations: Piling and Burning landing slash, and No Treatment. Anticipated 

methods are displayed in Table II-9.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-37

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table II-9. Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) - Silvicultural Treatments

Unit 

Reference

Estimated 

Unit Acres

Matrix 

Acres

Riparian 

Reserve 

Acres

Within 

Unit

Silvicultural 

Prescription

Proposed 

Logging 

System

Fuels 

Treatment

Existing 

Road 

Access

New Road 

Access

Reference

001 187 95 92 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT GB YTA CRM & CRR -

002 137 108 29 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT GB YTA CRM -

003 135 63 72 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT S YTA,P & B CRU A

004 8 8 0 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT GB YTA, P & B - A

005 126 66 60 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT GB YTA, P & B - B

006 102 87 15 VDT/LRR/POCPLT/POC-RS GB YTA, P & B CRU & CRR D

007 70 54 16 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT GB YTA, P & B CRU E1, E2

101 65 46 19 VDT/LRR/POCPLT/POC-RS GB YTA, P & B CRU F

102 46 32 14 VDT/LRR/POCPLT/POC-RS S YTA, P & B CRU G

103 61 46 15 VDT/LRR/POCWTG/POC-RS S YTA CRU H

201 117 105 12 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT GB YTA, P & B CRU -

202 57 24 33 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT S YTA, P & b CRU -

203 19 15 4 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT GB YTA, P & B CRU -

204 48 40 8 VDT S YTA, P & B - E1, E3

205 14 13 1 VDT S YTA - E2

206 25 18 7 VDT GB YTA CRU & CRR I

207 17 10 7 VDT GB YTA CRR I & J

208 21 13 8 VDT S YTA CRM -

209 79 41 38 VDT S YTA, P & B CRM K & L

210 13 13 0 VDT GB YTA CRM C & M

211 23 11 12 VDT S YTA CRM C & M

212 26 18 8 VDT S YTA, P & B CRM C & M

213 22 8 14 VDT S YTA CRM N

214 36 18 18 VDT S YTA, P & B CRU

215 29 29 0 VDT S YTA, P & B - O1, O2

216 17 17 0 VDT/ POC-RS GB YTA - O1, O3

217 6 6 0 VDT S YTA, P & B - D

218 17 14 3 VDT GB YTA, P & B CRU -

301 13 3 10 VDT/P-3 treatment S YTA, P & B CRU -

302 7 5 2 VDT/P-3 treatment S YTA, P & B CRU -

303 12 12 0 VDT GB YTA, P & B CRU P1, P2

304 6 6 0 VDT S YTA - P3

305 8 7 1 VDT S YTA - P3

306 15 11 4 VDT S YTA - P4

307 24 15 9 VDT GB YTA - Q1, Q2, Q3

308 13 1 12 VDT GB YTA - Q1, Q2, Q4

309 14 3 11 VDT GB YTA, P & B CU R

310 49 37 12 VDT GB YTA - S1, S2

311 36 24 12 VDT GB YTA CRR S1, S2, S3, S4, 

S5, S6 & T

312 38 19 19 VDT S YTA CRR S1, S2, S3, S4, 

S5 & S6 

313 93 73 20 VDT GB YTA CRR S1, S2, S3, & T 

314 40 22 18 VDT S YTA - T

315 26 22 4 VDT S YTA CRR S1, S2, S3, S4, 

S5, S6 & S8

316 33 23 10 VDT S YTA - T

317 74 48 26 VDT GB YTA CRR S1, S2, S3, S4, 

S5, S6 & S8

318 25 20 5 VDT GB YTA CRR -

319 86 72 14 VDT/ POC-RS GB YTA CRU & CRR T

320 37 21 16 VDT/LRR/POCPLT/POC-RS S YTA CRU T
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-38

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Unit 

Reference

Estimated 

Unit Acres

Matrix 

Acres

Riparian 

Reserve 

Acres

Within 

Unit

Silvicultural 

Prescription

Proposed 

Logging 

System

Fuels 

Treatment

Existing 

Road 

Access

New Road 

Access

Reference

321 16 16 0 VDT S YTA CRR -

322 35 35 0 VDT GB YTA CRR V

323 31 11 20 VDT S YTA CRR V

324 95 58 36 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT GB YTA CRR U

325 135 101 34 VDT/LRR/POCPLT/POC-RS GB YTA, P & B CRU X & Y

326 155 106 49

VDT/POC-WTG/

POC-RS/ P3,P8,P9 

treatment

GB YTA CRR W

327 47 23 23 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT/ 

POC-WTG/ POC-RS GB YTA CRR W

328 52 42 10 VDT/ POC-RS/P3 

treatment S YTA - D

329 41 14 27

VDT/POCWTG/POC-RS/P9 

treatment

S YTA CRR -

330 18 7 11 VDT POC-RS/P9 

treatment GB YTA CRR -

331 13 7 6

VDT/POC-WTG/ 

POC-RS/P3 

treatment

S YTA, P & B CRR -

332 44 39 5

VDT/POCWTG/POC-RS GB YTA, P & B CRU -

333 86 65 21 VDT/POCWTG/POC-RS GB YTA, P & B CRU -

334 88 46 42 VDT/POCWTG/POC-RS GB YTA, P & B CRU Z

335 38 27 11 VDT/POCWTG/POC-RS S YTA, P & B CRU -

336 49 24 25 VDT/POCWTG/POC-RS S YTA, P & B CRU -

337 19 16 3 VDT S YTA, P & B - C & M

338 24 2 22 VDT S N/A CRR S1, S2, S3, S4, 

& T

340 19 11 8 VDT/ POC-RS S YTA, P & B - Q4

341 25 12 13 VDT/ POC-RS GB YTA, P & B CRU Q4

342 16 7 9 VDT/ POC-RS S YTA CRU -

343 18 18 0 VDT/ POC-RS GB YTA - Q1, Q3

344 30 27 3 VDT/ POC-RS S YTA, P & B - Q1, Q3

345 17 17 0 VDT/ POC-RS GB YTA, P & B CRU -

401 8 8 0 VDT/P6 treatment GB YTA CRU -

402 20 14 6 VDT/P6 treatment S YTA CRU -

403 5 2 3 VDT S YTA CRU -

75 Total 

Units 3,314 2,217 1,097

Table Notes and Legend

There is no Unit 339

000s Middle Fork Coquille 5th Field, (Lower) Rock Creek 6

th Field watershed

100s Middle Fork Coquille 5th Field, Myrtle Creek 6th Field watershed

200s South Fork Coquille 5th Field, Wooden Rock Creek 6th Field watershed (Headwaters SF Coquille)

300s South Fork Coquille 5th Field, Coal Creek 6th Field watershed

400s South Fork Coquille 5th Field, Mill Creek 6th Field watershed

VDT Variable Density Thinning (Commercial)

POC-PLT Port Orford Cedar; site prep and planting of resistant POC seedlings

POC-WTG Port Orford Cedar; Wide Thin Gap, eradication treatment

POC-RS Port Orford Cedar; Roadside Sanitation
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-39

Final Environmental Impact Statement

LRR Laminated Root Rot; gap treatments centered around disease pockets, possible plant with POC and other species

P-# Plantation thinning (circa 1939-1963); commercial and non-commercial thinning

YTA Yarding Tops Attached

P&B Pile and Burn

GB Ground based logging systems

S Skyline logging systems

CRU Classified road use

CRM Classified road use with maintenance

CRR Classified road use with reconstruction

Table II-10. Proposed New Classified (System) Road Construction – Alternative 2

Road 

Segment 

Reference

Length 

(miles) Notes

A 0.23 Ridgetop road, skyline access

B 0.74 Crosses some riparian; some grade up to 10%

C 0.03 Begins on PVT; ties to road M for FS access

D 0.60 Ridgetop road, skyline access

E1 0.34 Ridgetop road, skyline and GB access

E2 0.22 Ridgetop road, skyline and GB access

E3 0.20 Ridgetop road, skyline access

F 0.39 Crosses riparian, minimal grade

G 0.15 Ridgetop road, skyline access, no grade

H 0.21 Ridgetop road, skyline access, no grade

I 0.09 Ties to existing route planned for reconstruction

J 0.08 Crosses riparian; provides GB access

K 0.36 Begins on PVT; for FS skyline access

L 0.01 Begins on PVT; for FS skyline access

M 0.81 Ties to road C for FS access, minimal grade

N 0.04 Begins on PVT for FS access

O1 0.28 First segment for skyline access; minimal grade

O2 0.23 Second segment for skyline access; minimal grade

O3 0.24 Third segment for skyline access; minimal grade

O4 0.18 Additional segment for skyline access; minimal grade

P1 0.06 Begins on PVT, ties to P2 for FS access

P2 0.08 Ties to P1 for FS access

P3 0.13 Short spur; skyline access

P4 0.11 Short spur; skyline access

Q1 0.11 Begins on PVT; ties to roads Q2 for FS access

Q2 0.05 Segment for skyline access

Q3 0.10 Segment for GB access

S1 0.09 Joins existing road with existing road proposed for reconstruction

S2 0.12 Joins existing road with existing road proposed for reconstruction

S3 0.06 Construction of new road to avoid railroad trestle 

S4 0.15 Segment for GB access

S5 0.05 Construction to bypass old railroad trestle

S6 0.24 Additional segment for GB & skyline access

S7 0.11 Construction to bypass old railroad trestle

S8 0.04 Construction to bypass old railroad trestle

S9 0.06 Construction to bypass old railroad trestle

T 1.93 Crosses some riparian; some grade up to 10%

U 0.38 Crosses some riparian; minimal grades

V 0.14 Ridgetop road, skyline & GB access

W 0.61 Crosses riparian; GB access

X 0.22 Skyline access; minimal grade

Y 0.18 GB access; minimal grade

Z 0.35 Crosses riparian; some grade up to 10%

TOTAL 10.81
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-40

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table II-11. Proposed New Temporary Road Construction – Alternative 2

Road 

Segment 

Reference

Length 

(miles) Notes

Q4 0.25 No template crosses riparian

R 0.03 Short spur; joins with existing road

TOTAL 0.29

Table II-12. Proposed Classified Road Use, Maintenance, and Reconstruction - Alternative 2

Classified Road Use Reference Miles

3300000 1.21

3358000 1.01

5000000 10.36

5000200 4.25

5000210 0.75

5000290 3.00

5000297 1.10

5000420 0.34

5000440 5.06

5000441 0.56

5000445 0.11

5000448 2.90

5000449 0.38

Classified Road Use Total 31.03

Classified Use & Maintenance 2000 0.76

2600100 0.26

5000444 0.42

5000445 0.89

5000446 0.35

5000450 1.01

5000670 1.75

5000671 0.06

Classified Use & Maintenance Total 5.50

Classified Use W/Reconstruction 5000291 0.10

5000298 0.18

5000299 2.02

5000299.1 0.03

5000442 1.24

5000442.1 0.18

5000443 0.72

5000446 0.31

5000447 0.19

5000448.1 0.45

5000451 0.65

Classified Use W/Reconstruct Total 6.07
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-41

Final Environmental Impact Statement

This page is intentionally left blank
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-42

Final Environmental Impact Statement

c. Summary of Alternative 2

Summary

Alternative 2 would enact the following vegetation management actions:

3,314 acres of commercial variable density management thinning treatments

(in several separate timber sales), on 75 Units,

producing approximately 53 million board feet of commercial volume;

Ground-based systems would be used on approximately 2,119 acres, or 64%; Skyline 

systems would be used on approximately 1,190 acres, or 36% of the treated area. 

Use of approximately 31 miles of existing Classified roads,

Construction of 10.8 miles of new Classified road (in 43 segments), 

Construction and decommissioning of 0.3 miles of temporary road,

Use and reconstruction of 6.1 miles of existing Classified road,

Use of and maintenance of 5.5 miles of existing Classified road; and

363 acres of non-commercial silvicultural treatments and other Similar and/or Related 

actions.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-43

Final Environmental Impact Statement

MAP II-3. Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-44

Final Environmental Impact Statement

8. ALTERNATIVE 3

a. Function

Alternative 3 is similar to and is based on the Proposed Action, but differs from the candidate stands and 

opportunities associated with the Proposed Action, with modifications that include only “high to 

moderate road benefit/low to moderate environmental risk” new roads. For the Eden Ridge Timber Sales 

analysis, a “high benefit” new road would be one that provides current and future access for a large area, 

as compared to a “low benefit” road which for its length and potential environmental impact, would 

access fewer acres. A “high environmental cost” new road could be one that would require crossing highrisk areas or a number of Riparian Reserve areas, or is in a position on the terrain that would allow 

surface runoff into perennial streams, or is a road that would have steeper grades and/or involve a large 

amount of cut and fill of material during construction. An assessment of the new roads associated with 

the Proposed Action (Roads Analysis) is contained in FEIS Appendix I (Transportation and Logging

Systems Report; Table I-4).

This theme was derived from comments received during Scoping based on the effects of proposed new 

roads and road use. This alternative is designed to address and proposes to reduce the environmental 

effects associated with Significant Issues (Chapter I) including Hydrologic Conditions (channel 

morphology, large woody material, sediment delivery, and peak flows; Water Quality( stream 

temperature, turbidity, and water quality (303(d) listed waterbodies); Cumulative Watershed Effects (risk 

for adverse cumulative watershed scale impacts); and Soils, Geology, and Site Productivity (soils, 

geologic stability, and site productivity through detrimental soil disturbance, erosion, or effects on woody 

material), over Alternative 2. 

Specifically, in relation to Alternative 2, several new proposed Classified (system) roads are dropped 

(Roads “E2, J, O1, O2, O3, P1, P2, W, X, Y Z”); proposed Temporary Road “R” is dropped; and several 

new proposed Classified roads are reduced in their length (Roads “F, M, T and U”). The total reduction 

in new road miles (both Classified and Temporary) is 6.39 miles.

In relation to Alternative 2, this modification would reduce the treated area on some units resulting in a 

change in configuration, or in some cases, units would be combined or dropped. In order to retain 

treatments and maximize attainment of Purpose and Need under this alternative’s function, this alternative 

includes helicopter logging systems, based on the change in access for conventional systems. The total 

estimated amount of treated acres is 3,240; a reduction of 74 acres from Alternative 2.

Alternative 3 is also designed to respond to the goals and objectives outlined by the Land and Resource 

Management Plan (1989 Forest Plan) for the Siskiyou National Forest, as amended by the 1994 

Northwest Forest Plan (and other amendments), and helps move the Planning Area toward desired 

conditions described in that plan and specifically for this Planning Area. This alternative is designed to 

improve overall forest health by stimulating natural processes that encourage more stable and resilient 

forest vegetative conditions, manage stand densities and species composition, and (within Matrix) provide 

for a sustainable yield of commercial timber and other commodities, with less environmental impact and 

risk (primarily associated with roads), as compared to the Proposed Action. For Riparian Reserves that 

would be treated, late-successional stand conditions would be enhanced and a trend toward meeting the

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives would be obtained.

b. Description

Alternative 2 proposes intermediate commercial harvest treatments using variable density thinning 

techniques and other connected actions on approximately 3,240 total acres of second growth conifer 

stands artificially and naturally regenerated following timber harvest during the late 1930s through the 

1940s via historical railroad logging methods. Commercial and other silvicultural treatments are detailed 

in Table II-13 and displayed on MAP II-4. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-45

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Candidate stands are located on suitable forest land primarily designated as the Matrix land allocation 

under the Forest Plan as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan. Within the 3,240 acres of treatments, 

also included are treatments within Riparian Reserves that overlap into overstocked drier upland forests 

(1,053 Riparian Reserve acres; Table II-13 provides an estimate of the Riparian Reserve area within a 

unit).

Commercial treatments would involve harvest of conifers with diameters 7 inches and larger dbh which is 

a viable product size under current and anticipated market conditions. Estimated commercial volume 

could average 8 to 20 thousand board feet (mbf) per acre. Other wood product commodities are 

anticipated including biomass (chips), and firewood. Harvest treatments from this alternative could yield 

up to an estimated 52million board feet (see footnote #9 above) and would be implemented utilizing 

multiple timber sale contracts over an approximate 5-year period. 

Treatments would occur within the South Fork Coquille River and the Middle Fork Coquille River 5thField watersheds, and the Lower Rock Creek, Myrtle Creek, Headwaters South Fork Coquille River, Coal 

Creek, and Mill Creek 6th field watersheds (as indicated in Table II-13). 

Actual conditions on the ground may differ from map-delineated stands; therefore, there would be a need 

to be flexible and adjust treatments and/or stand boundaries as needed. All Project Design Criteria 

(Sections D, 3 through 6) and Mitigation Measures (Section D, 10) are incorporated as part of this 

alternative. All Similar and/or Related Actions (Section D, 2, h) are also included in this 

alternative, notably non-commercial treatments proposed on 363 acres. 

Silvicultural Treatments

The primary silvicultural treatment is to control dense stocking conditions through variable density 

thinning treatments (VDT) to improve overall forest health, vigor and resiliency (see Section D, 2, a). 

Silvicultural treatments include management of two forest pathogens, Port Orford cedar root disease 

(Phytophthora lateralis) and laminated root rot (Phellinus weirii) affecting forest health in small portions 

of the Planning Area as discussed in Section D, 2, c. 

Logging Systems

Under this alternative, commercial products could be yarded to landings or decking areas using groundbased systems (tractor or log forwarder), skyline cable systems, or full suspension aerial systems 

(helicopter). Logging systems projected to be utilized to harvest trees are also displayed in Table II-13. 

Tractor, or ground-based systems, would be used on approximately 1,786 acres, or 55% of the treated 

area. Skyline systems would be used on approximately 941 acres, or 29% of the treated area, and 

helicopter systems are anticipated under this alternative on approximately 513 acres or 16% of the treated 

area. 

Road (Access) Systems

Products would be hauled using existing system (Classified) roads or newly constructed roads to 

manufacturing plants by log trucks or chip vans. Use of approximately 31 miles of existing Classified 

roads is proposed. In addition, approximately 4 miles of reconstruction of existing Classified roads are 

proposed, as well as approximately 6 miles of existing Classified road maintenance (Table II-16). In 

addition to several roads already managed as Cost Share use roads, proposed Cost Share Supplemental 

Road Use Agreements would manage approximately an additional 7 miles.

New Classified (system) and temporary road construction is proposed to access some units under this 

alternative, as discussed in this Chapter, Section D, 2, g. Also see FEIS Appendix I (Roads Analysis) for 

the basis of new road construction. A total of approximately 4.5 miles of new road construction (Table 

II-14) is proposed. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-46

Final Environmental Impact Statement

New road construction would include approximately 4.45 miles of new Classified roads, in 27 segments, 

ranging from 0.11 miles to 1.60 miles. New Classified roads would be managed as Maintenance Level 1 

(closed until further need). Approximately 0.03 miles of new temporary road is proposed, in one segment 

(Table II-15). 

Refer to MAP II-4 for the general locations of road use and proposed road construction, reconstruction, 

and maintenance needs associated with the Proposed Action.

Activity Fuels Treatments

Activity fuels treatments proposed under this alternative include only those that are predicted to be 

necessary to obtain a resultant and acceptable fuels/fire risk, as discussed in this Chapter, Section D, 2, d. 

Several methods of activity fuels treatment are being proposed, including: Yarding with Tops Attached, 

Hand Piling fuels concentrations: Piling and Burning landing slash, and No Treatment. Anticipated 

methods are displayed in Table II-13.

Table II-13. Alternative 3 – Silvicultural Treatments

Unit 

Reference

Estimated 

Unit Acres

Matrix 

Acres 

Riparian 

Reserve 

Acres

Within 

Unit

Silvicultural 

Prescription

Proposed 

Logging 

System

Fuels 

Treatment

Existing 

Road 

Access

New Road 

Access 

Reference

001 187 95 92 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT GB YTA CRM & CRR -

002 137 108 29 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT GB YTA CRM -

003 135 63 72 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT S YTA,P & B CRU A

004 8 8 0 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT GB YTA, P & B - A

005 55 20 35 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT GB YTA, P & B - B

005A 72 47 25 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT H YTA - HL 7&8 -

006 119 101 18 VDT/LRR/POCPLT/POC-RS GB YTA, P & B CRU & CRR D

007 70 54 16 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT GB YTA CRU E1, E3

101 65 46 19 VDT/LRR/POCPLT/POC-RS GB YTA, P & B CRU -

102 46 32 14 VDT/LRR/POCPLT/POC-RS S YTA, P & B CRU G

103 61 46 15 VDT/LRR/POCWTG/POC-RS S YTA CRU H

201 117 105 12 VDT/LRR/POCPLT/POC-RS GB YTA, P & B CRU -

202 57 24 33 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT S YTA, P & b CRU -

203 19 15 4 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT GB YTA, P & B CRU -

204 48 40 8 VDT S YTA, P & B - E1, E3

206 25 18 7 VDT GB YTA CRU & CRR I

207 17 11 7 VDT H YTA CRR, HL 8 -

208 21 13 8 VDT S YTA CRM -

209 79 41 38 VDT S YTA CRM K & L

210 13 13 0 VDT GB YTA, P & B CRM C & M

211 23 11 12 VDT S YTA CRM C & M

212 44 32 12 VDT H YTA CRM, HL 10 -

213 22 8 14 VDT S YTA, P & B CRM N

214 36 18 18 VDT S YTA CRU

215 81 70 11 VDT H YTA, P & B - HL 10&11 -

216 35 35 0 VDT/ POC-RS GB YTA, P & B - -

301 13 3 10 VDT/P-3 treatment S YTA, P & B CRU -

302 7 5 2 VDT/P-3 treatment S YTA, P & B CRU -

303 12 12 0 VDT GB YTA, P & B CRU -

305 8 7 1 VDT S YTA - P3

306 15 11 4 VDT S YTA - P4

307 37 16 21 VDT H YTA - HL 1&2 -

309 14 3 11 VDT GB YTA CU R

310 49 37 12 VDT GB YTA - S1, S2

311 36 24 12 VDT GB YTA, P & B CRR S1, S2, S3, S5, 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-47

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Unit 

Reference

Estimated 

Unit Acres

Matrix 

Acres 

Riparian 

Reserve 

Acres

Within 

Unit

Silvicultural 

Prescription

Proposed 

Logging 

System

Fuels 

Treatment

Existing 

Road 

Access

New Road 

Access 

Reference

S6 & T

312 38 19 19 VDT S YTA CRR S6 

313 55 44 11 VDT GB YTA CRR -

315 26 22 4 VDT S YTA CRR S1, S2, S3, S4, 

S5, S6 & S8

316 112 84 28 VDT H YTA -HL 3&4 -

317 74 48 26 VDT GB YTA CRR S1, S2, S3, S5, 

S6 & S8

318 25 20 5 VDT GB YTA CRR -

319 70 56 14 VDT/ POC-RS GB YTA CRU & CRR T

320 42 25 17 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT/ 

POC-RS S YTA CRU T

321 16 16 0 VDT H YTA CRR, HL 

5&6 -

322 35 35 0 VDT GB YTA CRR V

323 31 11 20 VDT S YTA CRR V

324 63 46 17 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT GB YTA CRR U

325 99 89 10 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT/ 

POC-RS GB YTA CRU -

326 138 105 33

VDT/POCWTG/POC-RS

P3,P8,P9 treatment

GB YTA CRR -

327 131 48 81 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT/ 

POC-WTG/POC-RS H YTA CRR, HL5&6

328 52 42 10 VDT/ POC-RS P3 

treatment S YTA, P & B - D

329 41 14 27

VDT/POC-WTG/

POC-RS/P9 

treatment

S YTA CRR -

330 18 7 11 VDT/ POC-RS/P9 

treatment GB YTA CRR -

331 13 7 6

VDT/POC-WTG/

POC-RS/P3 

treatment

S YTA CRR -

332 44 39 5

VDT/POCWTG/POC-RS GB YTA CRU -

333 86 65 21 VDT/POCWTG/POC-RS GB YTA CRU -

334 74 45 29 VDT/POCWTG/POC-RS GB YTA, P & B CRU -

335 38 27 11 VDT/POCWTG/POC-RS S YTA, P & B CRU -

336 49 24 25 VDT/POCWTG/POC-RS S YTA, P & B CRU -

341 22 9 13 VDT/POC-RS GB YTA, P & B CRU -

342 16 7 9 VDT/ POC-RS S YTA, P & B CRU -

345 17 17 0 VDT/POC-RS GB YTA, P & B CRU -

401 8 8 0 VDT/P6 treatment GB YTA CRU -

402 20 14 6 VDT/P6 treatment S YTA CRU -

403 5 2 3 VDT S YTA CRU -

65 Total 

Units 3,240 2,187 1,053

Table Notes and Legend

000s Middle Fork Coquille 5th Field, (Lower) Rock Creek 6th Field watershed

100s Middle Fork Coquille 5th Field, Myrtle Creek 6th Field watershed

200s South Fork Coquille 5th Field, Wooden Rock Creek 6th Field watershed (Headwaters SF Coquille)

300s South Fork Coquille 5th Field, Coal Creek 6th Field watershed

400s South Fork Coquille 5th Field, Mill Creek 6th Field watershed
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-48

Final Environmental Impact Statement

VDT Variable Density Thinning (Commercial)

POC-PLT Port Orford Cedar; site prep and planting of resistant POC seedlings

POC-WTG Port Orford Cedar; Wide Thin Gap, eradication treatment

POC-RS Port Orford Cedar; Roadside Sanitation

LRR Laminated Root Rot; gap treatments centered around disease pockets, possible plant with POC and other species

P-# Plantation thinning (circa 1939-1963); commercial and non-commercial thinning

YTA Yarding Tops Attached

P&B Pile and Burn

GB Ground based logging systems

S Skyline logging systems

H Helicopter logging system

HL Helicopter landing and reference

CRU Classified road use

CRM Classified road use with maintenance

CRR Classified road use with reconstruction

Table II-14. Proposed New Classified (System) Road Construction – Alternative 3

Road 

Segment 

Reference

Length 

(miles) Notes

A 0.23 Ridgetop road, skyline access

B 0.27 Shortened to avoid riparian and steeper grades

C 0.03 Begins on PVT; ties to road M for FS access

D 0.60 Ridgetop road, skyline access

E1 0.34 Ridgetop road, skyline and GB access

E3 0.20 Ridgetop road, skyline access

F 0.22 Shortened to avoid riparian, minimal grade

G 0.15 Ridgetop road, skyline access, no grade

H 0.21 Ridgetop road, skyline access, no grade

I 0.09 Ties to existing route planned for reconstruction

K 0.36 Begins on PVT; for FS skyline access

L 0.01 Begins on PVT; for FS skyline access

M 0.25 Ties to road C for FS access

N 0.04 Begins on PVT for FS access

P3 0.13 Short spur; skyline access

P4 0.11 Short spur; skyline access

Q1 0.11 Begins on PVT; ties to roads Q2 for FS access

Q2 0.05 Segment for skyline access

Q3 0.10 Second segment for GB access

S1 0.09 Joins existing road with existing road proposed for reconstruction

S2 0.12 Joins existing road with existing road proposed for reconstruction

S3 0.06 Construction of old railroad grade trestle to classified road

S5 0.05 Construction to bypass old railroad grade trestle

S6 0.24 Additional segment for GB & skyline access

S7 0.11 Construction to bypass old railroad grade trestle

S8 0.04 Construction to bypass old railroad grade trestle

S9 0.06 Construction to bypass old railroad grade trestle

T 0.32 Shortened to avoid riparian and reduce grade

U 0.12 Shortened to avoid riparian and grade

V 0.14 Ridgetop road, skyline & GB access

TOTAL 4.45

Table II-15. Proposed New Temporary Road Construction – Alternative 3

Road 

Segment 

Reference

Length 

(miles) Notes

R 0.03 Short spur; joins with existing road

TOTAL 0.03
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-49

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table II-16. Proposed Classified Road Use, Maintenance, and Reconstruction - Alternative 3

Classified Road Use Reference Miles

3300000 1.21

3358000 1.01

5000000 10.36

5000200 4.25

5000210 0.75

5000290 3.00

5000297 1.10

5000420 0.34

5000440 5.06

5000441 0.56

5000445 0.11

5000448 2.90

5000449 0.38

Classified Road Use Total 31.03

Classified Use & Maintenance 2000 0.76

2600100 0.26

5000444 0.42

5000445 0.89

5000446 0.35

5000450 1.01

5000670 1.75

5000671 0.06

Classified Use & Maintenance Total 5.50

5000298 0.18

5000299 1.98

5000442 1.09

5000447 0.19

5000451 0.65

Classified Use W/Reconstruct Total 4.09

c. Summary of Alternative 3

Summary

Alternative 3 would enact the following vegetation management actions:

3,240 acres of commercial variable density management thinning treatments

(in several separate timber sales), on 65 Units,

producing approximately 52 million board feet of commercial volume;

Ground-based systems would be used on approximately 1,789 acres, or 55%; Skyline 

systems would be used on approximately 941 acres, or 29%; and helicopter systems would 

be used on approximately 513 acres, or 16% of the treated area. 

Use of approximately 31 miles of existing Classified roads,

Construction of 4.5 miles of new Classified road (in 27 segments), 

Construction and decommissioning of 0.03 miles of temporary road,

Use and reconstruction of 4.1 miles of existing Classified road,

Use of and maintenance of 5.5 miles of existing Classified road; and

363 acres of non-commercial silvicultural treatments and other Similar and/or Related 

actions.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-50

Final Environmental Impact Statement

MAP II-4. Alternative 3
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-51

Final Environmental Impact Statement

9. ALTERNATIVE 4

a. Function

Alternative 4 is also based on the Proposed Action, but differs from the candidate stands and 

opportunities associated with the Proposed Action, with modifications that include only the use (with 

reconstruction and maintenance) of existing roads for treatment access. An assessment of the new roads 

associated with the Proposed Action (Roads Analysis) is contained in FEIS Appendix I (Transportation 

and Logging Systems Report; Table I-4). Alternative 3 identifies the new roads with “high to moderate 

road benefit/low to moderate environmental risk.” These roads, as well as all new Classified or 

Temporary roads included in Alternative 2, are excluded in this alternative. This alternative also excludes 

some of the higher risk treatments within Riparian Reserves (primarily those associated with perennial 

streams within the lower reaches of Coal Creek (within the Planning Area); e.g., Units 301, 302, 303, 

304, 305, 306, 307, 308 and 309.

This theme was derived from comments received during Scoping based on the effects of proposed new 

roads and road use. Scoping comments asked for an alternative that would not include new roads. This 

alternative is designed to address and proposes a reduction of the environmental effects associated with 

Significant Issues (Chapter I) including Hydrologic Conditions (channel morphology, large woody 

material, sediment delivery, and peak flows; Water Quality( stream temperature, turbidity, and water 

quality (303(d) listed waterbodies); Cumulative Watershed Effects (risk for adverse cumulative watershed 

scale impacts); and Soils, Geology, and Site Productivity (soils, geologic stability, and site productivity 

through detrimental soil disturbance, erosion, or effects on woody material), over Alternative 2 and 3. 

In relation to Alternative 2 and Alternative 3, these modification would reduce the treated area on some 

units, resulting in a change in configuration, or in some cases, units are combined or dropped. This 

alternative includes as reduced amount of anticipated skyline and ground based logging systems, opting to 

helicopter logging systems, based on the change (or lack of) access for conventional systems. The total 

estimated amount of treated acres is 3,058; a reduction of 256 acres from Alternative 2. Because of the 

change to more expensive logging system (helicopter), this alternative highlights the concern for the 

Significant Issue of Economics (effects of economic factors; benefits/costs depending on design) for 

implementation of treatment activities, as well as economic return to the local economy. This alternative 

is designed to portray the economic effects of no new road access.

Alternative 4 is also designed to respond to the goals and objectives outlined by the Land and Resource 

Management Plan (1989 Forest Plan) for the Siskiyou National Forest, as amended by the 1994 

Northwest Forest Plan (and other amendments), and helps move the Planning Area toward desired 

conditions described in that plan and specifically for this Planning Area. This alternative is designed to 

improve overall forest health by stimulating natural processes that encourage more stable and resilient 

forest vegetative conditions, manage stand densities and species composition, and (within Matrix) provide 

for a sustainable yield of commercial timber and other commodities, with less environmental impact and 

risk (primarily associated with roads and treatments in proximity to perennial streams or highriskwatersheds, e.g., Coal Creek), as compared to the Proposed Action or Alternative 3. For Riparian 

Reserves that would be treated, late-successional stand conditions would be enhanced and a trend toward 

meeting the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives would be obtained.

b. Description

Alternative 4 proposes intermediate commercial harvest treatments using variable density thinning 

techniques and other connected actions on approximately 3,058 total acres of second growth conifer 

stands artificially and naturally regenerated following timber harvest during the late 1930s through the 

1940s via historical railroad logging methods. Commercial and other silvicultural treatments are detailed 

in Table II-17 and displayed on MAP II-5. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-52

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Candidate stands are located on suitable forest land primarily designated as the Matrix land allocation 

under the Forest Plan as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan. Within the 3,058 acres of treatments, 

also included are treatments within Riparian Reserves that overlap into overstocked drier upland forests 

(965 Riparian Reserve acres; Table II-17 provides an estimate of the Riparian Reserve area within a 

unit).

Commercial treatments would involve harvest of conifers with diameters 7 inches and larger dbh which is 

a viable product size under current and anticipated market conditions. Estimated commercial volume 

could average 8 to 20 thousand board feet (mbf) per acre. Other wood product commodities are 

anticipated including biomass (chips), and firewood. Harvest treatments from this alternative could yield 

up to an estimated 49 million board feet (see footnote #9 above) and would be implemented utilizing 

multiple timber sale contracts over an approximate 5-year period. 

Treatments would occur within the South Fork Coquille River and the Middle Fork Coquille River 5thField watersheds, and the Lower Rock Creek, Myrtle Creek, Headwaters South Fork Coquille River, Coal 

Creek, and Mill Creek 6th field watersheds (as indicated in Table II-17). 

Actual conditions on the ground may differ from map-delineated stands; therefore, there would be a need 

to be flexible and adjust treatments and/or stand boundaries as needed. All Project Design Criteria 

(Sections D, 3 through 6) and Mitigation Measures (Section D, 10) are incorporated as part of this 

alternative. All Similar and/or Related Actions (Section D, 2, h) are included in this alternative, 

notably non-commercial treatments proposed for 363 acres. 

Silvicultural Treatments

The primary silvicultural treatment is to control dense stocking conditions through variable density 

thinning treatments (VDT) to improve overall forest health, vigor and resiliency (see Section D, 2, a). 

Silvicultural treatments include management of two forest pathogens, Port Orford cedar root disease 

(Phytophthora lateralis) and laminated root rot (Phellinus weirii) affecting forest health in small portions 

of the Planning Area as discussed in Section D, 2, c. 

Logging Systems

Under this alternative, commercial products could be yarded to landings or decking areas using groundbased systems (tractor or log forwarder), skyline cable systems, or full suspension aerial systems 

(helicopter). Logging systems projected to be utilized to harvest trees are also displayed in Table II-17. 

Tractor, or ground-based systems, would be used on approximately 1,441 acres, or 47% of the treated 

area. Skyline systems would be used on approximately 457 acres, or 15% of the treated area, and 

helicopter systems are anticipated under this alternative on approximately 1,160 acres or 38% of the 

treated area. 

Road (Access) Systems

Products would be hauled using existing system (Classified) roads or newly constructed roads to 

manufacturing plants by log trucks or chip vans. Use of approximately 31 miles of existing Classified 

roads is proposed. In addition, approximately 2 miles of reconstruction of existing Classified roads are 

proposed, as well as approximately 6 miles of existing Classified road maintenance (Table II-18). In 

addition to several roads already managed as Cost Share use roads, proposed Cost Share Supplemental 

Road Use Agreements would manage approximately an additional 7 miles.

Under this alternative, no new Classified (system) or temporary road construction is proposed. The theme 

of this alternative is to utilize only existing Classified system roads for access. Reconstruction along 3 

railroad grades includes new road construction where stream crossings replace rail trestle bridges. Refer 

to MAP II-5 for the general locations of road use, reconstruction, and maintenance needs associated with 

this alternative.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-53

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Activity Fuels Treatments

Activity fuels treatments proposed under this alternative include only those that are predicted to be 

necessary to obtain a resultant and acceptable fuels/fire risk, as discussed in this Chapter, Section D, 2, d. 

Several methods of activity fuels treatment are being proposed, including: Yarding with Tops Attached, 

Hand Piling fuels concentrations: Piling and Burning landing slash, and No Treatment. Anticipated 

methods are displayed in Table II-17.

Table II-17. Alternative 4 – Silvicultural Treatments

Unit 

Reference

Estimated 

Unit Acres

Matrix 

Acres 

Riparian 

Reserve 

Acres

Within 

Unit

Silvicultural 

Prescription

Proposed 

Logging 

System

Fuels 

Treatment

Existing 

Road 

Access

001 187 95 92 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT GB YTA CRM & CRR 

002 137 108 29 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT GB YTA CRM

003 31 16 15 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT S YTA,P & B CRU

003A 51 19 32 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT S YTA -

004 8 8 0 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT GB YTA, P & B -

005 55 20 35 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT GB YTA, P & B -

005A 124 74 51 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT H YTA - HL 9&15

006 119 101 18 VDT/LRR/POCPLT/POC-RS GB YTA CRU & CRR

007 70 54 16 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT GB YTA CRU

101 33 23 10 VDT/LRR/POCPLT/POC-RS GB YTA, P & B CRU

102 26 19 7

VDT/LRR/POCPLT/POC-RS S YTA, P & B CRU

102A 52 37 15 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT H YTA CRU, HL 19

103 43 28 15 VDT/LRR/POCWTG/POC-RS S YTA, P & B CRU

103A 17 17 0 VDT/LRR/POC-WTG H YTA CRU, HL 20 

201 117 105 12 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT GB YTA, P & B CRU

202 51 19 32 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT S YTA, P & B CRU

203 19 15 4 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT GB YTA, P & B CRU

204 104 82 23 VDT H YTA - HL 9&15

208 21 13 8 VDT S YTA, P & B CRM

209 79 41 38 VDT H YTA CRM ,HL

13&14

211 36 24 12 VDT H YTA CRM , HL

16&17

212 44 32 12 VDT H YTA CRM, HL 10

213 22 8 14 VDT H YTA CRM ,HL 12

214 33 17 16 VDT S YTA, P & B CRU

215 81 70 11 VDT H YTA - HL 10&11

216 35 35 0 VDT/ POC-RS GB YTA, P & B -

310 49 37 12 VDT H YTA - HL 21

312 38 19 19 VDT H YTA CRR, HL

2&22

313 130 99 31 VDT H YTA CRR, HL

2&22

315 26 22 4 VDT H YTA CRR, HL

2&22

316 33 23 10 VDT H YTA - HL 21&22

317 74 48 26 VDT H YTA CRR, HL

21&22

319 121 96 25 VDT/ POC-RS GB YTA, P & B CRU & CRR

320 37 21 16 VDT/LRR/POCPLT/POC-RS H YTA CRU, HL 20

322 35 35 0 VDT GB YTA, P & B CRR

323 59 22 37 VDT S YTA, P & B CRR

324 95 59 36 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT H YTA CRR, HL

5,6&20
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-54

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Unit 

Reference

Estimated 

Unit Acres

Matrix 

Acres 

Riparian 

Reserve 

Acres

Within 

Unit

Silvicultural 

Prescription

Proposed 

Logging 

System

Fuels 

Treatment

Existing 

Road 

Access

325 99 89 10 VDT/LRR/POCPLT/POC-RS GB YTA, P & B CRU

326 138 105 33

VDT/POCWTG/POC-RS/ 

P3,P8,P9 treatment

GB YTA, P & B CRR

327 116 67 50 VDT/LRR/POC-PLT/ 

POC-WTG H YTA CRR, HL18&19

330 18 7 11 VDT/ POC-RS/P9 

treatment GB YTA, P & B CRR

331 13 7 6

VDT/POCWTG/POC-RS/P3 

treatment

S YTA, P & B CRR

332 44 39 5

VDT/POC-WTG/ 

POC-RS GB YTA, P & B CRU

333 86 65 21 VDT/POCWTG/POC-RS GB YTA, P & B CRU

334 74 45 29 VDT/POCWTG/POC-RS GB YTA, P & B CRU

335 38 27 11 VDT/POCWTG/POC-RS S YTA, P & B CRU

336 49 24 25 VDT/POCWTG/POC-RS S YTA, P & B CRU

341 22 9 13 VDT/POC-RS GB YTA, P & B CRU

342 16 7 9 VDT/POC-RS S YTA, P & B CRU

345 17 17 o VDT/POC-RS GB YTA, P & B CRU

401 8 8 0 VDT/P6 treatment GB YTA CRU

402 20 14 6 VDT/P6 treatment S YTA CRU

403 5 2 3 VDT S YTA CRU

53 Total 

Units 3,058 2,093 965

Table Notes and Legend

000s Middle Fork Coquille 5th Field, (Lower) Rock Creek 6th Field watershed

100s Middle Fork Coquille 5th Field, Myrtle Creek 6th Field watershed

200s South Fork Coquille 5th Field, Wooden Rock Creek 6th Field watershed (Headwaters SF Coquille)

300s South Fork Coquille 5th Field, Coal Creek 6th Field watershed

400s South Fork Coquille 5th Field, Mill Creek 6th Field watershed

VDT Variable Density Thinning (Commercial)

POC-PLT Port Orford Cedar; site prep and planting of resistant POC seedlings

POC-WTG Port Orford Cedar; Wide Thin Gap, eradication treatment

POC-RS Port Orford Cedar; Roadside Sanitation

LRR Laminated Root Rot; gap treatments centered around disease pockets, possible plant with POC and other species

P-# Plantation thinning (circa 1939-1963); commercial and non-commercial thinning

YTA Yarding Tops Attached

P&B Pile and Burn

GB Ground based logging systems

S Skyline logging systems

H Helicopter logging system

HL Helicopter landing and reference

CRU Classified road use

CRM Classified road use with maintenance

CRR Classified road use with reconstruction
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-55

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table II-18. Proposed Classified Road Use, Maintenance, and Reconstruction - Alternative 4

Classified Road Use Reference Miles

3300000 1.21

3358000 1.01

5000000 10.36

5000200 4.25

5000210 0.75

5000290 3.00

5000297 1.10

5000420 0.34

5000440 5.06

5000441 0.56

5000445 0.11

5000448 2.90

5000449 0.38

Classified Road Use Total 31.03

Classified Use & Maintenance 2000 0.76

2600100 0.26

5000444 0.42

5000445 0.89

5000446 0.35

5000450 1.01

5000670 1.75

5000671 0.06

Classified Use & Maintenance Total 5.50

Classified Use W/Reconstruct10 5000442 1.09

5000451 0.65

Classified Use W/Reconstruct Total 1.74

 

10

 Reconstruction along 3 rail grades includes 0.25 miles of new road construction where stream crossings replace rail trestle 

bridges.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-56

Final Environmental Impact Statement

c. Summary of Alternative 4

Summary

Alternative 4 would enact the following vegetation management actions:

3,058 acres of commercial variable density management thinning treatments

(in several separate timber sales), on 53 Units,

producing approximately 49 million board feet of commercial volume;

Ground-based systems would be used on approximately 1,441 acres, or 47%; Skyline 

systems would be used on approximately 457 acres, or 15%; and helicopter systems would 

be used on approximately 1,160 acres, or 38% of the treated area. 

Use of approximately 31 miles of existing Classified roads,

Use and reconstruction of 1.74 miles of existing Classified road,

Use of and maintenance of 5.5 miles of existing Classified road; and

363 acres of non-commercial silvicultural treatments and other Similar and/or Related 

actions.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-57

Final Environmental Impact Statement

MAP II-5. Alternative 4
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-58

Final Environmental Impact Statement

10. MITIGATION MEASURES ASSOCIATED WITH ACTION ALTERNATIVES

This sub-section discusses elements that would be required of an Action Alternative to manage 

consequences during actual operations; these are termed “Mitigation Measures” Other elements 

associated with the design of treatments and actions (i.e., Project Design Criteria), are applicable to 

Action Alternatives and are to be employed during on-the ground project designation or implementation 

(see Section D, 3, above). 

The Forest Service is required by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for 

implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA to identify all relevant, reasonable mitigation measures 

that could improve the project or reduce adverse environmental effects. Mitigation, as defined in the 

CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1508.20), includes:

 Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.

 Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.

 Rectifying or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations 

during the life of the action.

 Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

 Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment.

The Proposed Action may include commercial tree harvest and removal that would be accomplished by 

private contractors. Contracts for commercial harvest operations would require mitigation measures to be 

incorporated as contract requirements. The Forest Service has long-standing experience in applying 

mitigation measures under traditional timber sale contracts, and therefore, contract language that could be 

applied to contracts is included. Forest Service contract administrators and resource specialists are

responsible for enforcing the implementation of contract provisions.

Note that some measures would be enacted only if certain (future) conditions exist that would 

require it (e.g., if a nesting pair of spotted owls is discovered adjacent (within 300 meters) to a 

proposed treatment area or a previously unknown heritage site is discovered). 

Proposed mitigation measures and standard operating procedures designed to avoid or minimize adverse 

effects (or implement positive effects) are identified by resource topic area, and in some cases, by the 

specific component or sub-component activity. These measures are specific to implementation of actions 

considered within this FEIS. Standards and Guidelines and mitigation measures identified in the Siskiyou

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (and 

other amendments) are also incorporated by reference as required measures. 

In addition, all contracts or other methodology for implementation of actions would comply with all 

requirements and standards for protection of Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive species, in 

compliance with the Endangered Species Act. 

The effectiveness and feasibility of the following mitigation measures are assessed based upon the 

following rating system. These ratings are applied to all mitigation measures. Each measure identifies 

the code for effectiveness and feasibility at the end of the statement or paragraph. Ratings were 

determined by professional resource specialists, based on current scientific research and/or 

professional experience or judgment. Mitigation Measures designed for the protection of soils, site 

productivity, and water quality are generally referred to as Best Management Practices (BMPs) for which 

there has been extensive monitoring and validation of their effectiveness.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-59

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table II-19. Effectiveness and Feasibility Rating System

EFFECTIVENESS (E)

E1 Unknown or experimental; logic or practice estimated to be less than 75% effective; little or no experience in 

applying this measure. 

E2 Practice is moderately effective (75 to 90%). Often done in this situation; usually reduces impacts; logic 

indicates practice is highly effective but there is minimal literature or research. 

E3 Practice is highly effective (greater than 90%). Almost always reduces impacts, almost always done in this 

situation; literature and research can be applied.

FEASIBILITY (F)

F1 Unknown or experimental; little or no experience in applying this measure; less than 75% certainty for 

implementation. May be technically difficult or very costly. May be legally or socially difficult.

F2 Technically probable; greater than 75% certainty for implementation as planned; costs moderate to high in 

comparison to other options. Legally or socially acceptable with reservations.

F3 Almost certain to be implemented as planned; technically easy; costs low in comparison to other options. 

Legally or socially expected.

The following discussion by specific resource areas, provide additional mitigation and further explanation 

of the methodology, effectiveness, and feasibility of the mitigation measures.

a. Geology

The Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy includes unstable and potentially unstable 

areas within Riparian Reserves. No commercial activities will occur within the Riparian Reserves of 

unstable and potentially unstable terrain. A Hydrologist or Geologist will assist in field validation and 

identification of additional unstable areas during layout of stand treatments (BMP T-6). E3/F3

b. Soils

Mitigation Measures designed for the protection of soils, site productivity, and water quality are generally 

referred to as Best Management Practices (BMPs) as described in General Water Quality Best 

Management Practices, Pacific Northwest Region, November 1988, in concert with National Core BMP 

Technical Guide (USDA FS, 2012). While the terminology in the BMPs is dated (for example 

Streamside Management Unit now falls under Riparian Reserve), they are still considered effective under 

today’s management direction. 

Prelocate skid roads in all ground based treatment units; up to 150 feet endlining required to designated 

skid roads. Skid road locations are to be approved by the Forest Service (BMP T-11). Ground-identified 

pre-designated skid trail patterns are to be authorized that will limit the area used for harvest access skid 

trails when employing ground-based harvest systems to ensure compliance with Standards and Guidelines 

to protect the soil resource and long-term site productivity. E3/F3

During operations, heavy machinery use within a treatment unit shall be planned and approved by the 

Forest Service to be consistent with Forest Plan Standard and Guidelines for Soils. The maximum 

percent of area for detrimental soil conditions under the LRMP is 15% for an activity area (SNF LRMP 

S&G 7-2). This standard includes roads and landings. The 10% soil infiltration capacity standard also 

applies within Riparian Reserves, as noted in Section D, 3, above. E3/F2

The use of vehicles and equipment shall be limited to dry soil conditions to minimize compaction. 

Percent moisture levels are to be determined by a Soil Scientist, using standard soils methodology, during 

project layout and implementation. E3/F2
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-60

Final Environmental Impact Statement

During implementation, management activities will be designed to retain effective ground cover to protect 

the soil resource, as specified in the SNF LRMP (1989), and to leave woody material in accordance with 

the silvicultural prescription. E3/F2

All skyline logging will be done with equipment capable of suspending one end of the log; up to 150 foot 

lateral yarding required to skyline corridors (BMP T-12). Whenever feasible, parallel yarding corridors 

are preferred over ‘fan’ settings in order to minimize soil/vegetation disturbance immediately below the 

yarder. Yarding corridors shall target a spacing of no closer than 150 feet as much as possible (BMP T12). An effective slash cover and/or water bars in skyline corridors and skid trails will be installed 

following the completion of operations for erosion control (BMP T-16). E3/F3

During implementation, complete maintenance and erosion control on landings/roads/trails prior to the 

onset of extended periods of wet weather (BMP T-13, R-18). Restrict hauling on roads during extended 

periods of wet weather (BMP R-20). E3/F3

During implementation, ground-based heavy equipment used for cutting/ skidding/forwarding will be 

restricted to Forest Service-designated or approved skid trails that are obligated for this use, or to 

locations where thick slash mats are created using mechanized limbing/topping systems, or to periods 

when the ground is frozen or snow-covered to a depth that minimizes soil compaction. E3/F3

Ground-based systems are restricted to slopes of 35% or less. Designated skid trails and skyline corridors 

are to be spaced at a distance approved by the Forest Service to keep detrimental soil conditions to within 

the maximum percent of area for detrimental soil conditions under the LRMP; 15% for an activity area 

(SNF LRMP S&G 7-2)(BMP T-5, T-9, T-11, T-13, VM-1, VM-4). E3/F2

During implementation, pre-existing (legacy) skid trails, temporary roads and landings shall be re-used to 

the extent practicable; so as to minimize additional ground impacts (detrimental soil conditions)(BMP T11). E3/F2

One or more of the following soil restoration methods shall be used (alone or in combination) to 

rehabilitate soil conditions on detrimentally disturbed ground (for example, on legacy or newlydesignated skid trails and landings) where compaction tests or other monitoring identifies a need for a 

remedial or impact containment action. (BMP T-14, T-15, T-16, R-23):

After completion of logging, deep subsoiling of heavily compacted skid trails and landings may be 

employed, where soil conditions are feasible. This operation would use a specially-designed 

subsoiler implement, mounted on a -tracked excavator, to fracture and loosen compacted soil layers

to re-establish water infiltration and deep root penetration. Mechanized equipment used for 

subsoiling would be restricted to the ground areas already disturbed to avoid creating additional 

ground impacts. 

After completion of logging, scarification (ripping) of skid trails and other disturbed soil areas may 

be employed. This operation would use standard rock rippers or similar equipment, to superficially 

cultivate the surface of tractor skid trails as a way to promote natural herbaceous re-vegetation by 

providing seed catchments and shallow water infiltration. 

During subsoiling or scarification, 5 to 10 tons per acre of woody material and/or slash may be placed 

on top of disturbed ground areas, either manually or with a machine. Dispersing organic material 

evenly across tractor skid trails, landings, and other bare soil areas reduces erosion and increases 

water infiltration.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-61

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Following completion of logging operations, and in situations where rapid (within months) protection 

of bared soils is necessary, mulching, grass seeding, shrub planting or tree planting may be conducted 

using native, non-invasive (and weed-free) grass seed or local native plants (as recommended by a 

botanist). Optionally, or in combination, sediment capture devices, such as rice straw wattles or 

bales, may be used to control erosion and reduce sediment movement. 

Selection and use of the above actions will be based on the existing condition of the site following 

completion of logging operations. These actions do not result in instant restoration; rather they begin the 

process of restoration. E3/F2

All re-constructed or newly-constructed temporary roads will be reclaimed as soon as practical by the 

contractor before the storm season, unless mitigated with prescriptions provided on a case-by-case basis 

from a soils/geology/hydrology specialist. E3/F2

Reclamation of temporary roads may include one or more of the following actions: removal of 

temporarily installed culverts, excavating cross ditches (water bars) to drain water captured by the former 

running surface, placing large logs or rocks onto the running surface to deter vehicle use, or re-contouring 

the road template to near-natural ground conditions. In addition, any of the soil restoration methods 

above may be used to decommission temporary truck roads as well (BMP R-23). E3/F2

Plan pile burning operations for when litter, duff, and soil moistures are high enough to minimize 

consumption of soil organic matter and minimize soil heating. Minimize the size of slash hand piles.

Distribute piles to reduce severe burn impacts from concentrated fuel (BMP F-2, F-3). E3/F2

c. Hydrology

Special Riparian Reserve Mitigation Measures:

In addition to Riparian Reserve PDCs (Section D, 3) the following measures will apply to hydrology:

Currently unmapped Riparian Reserves within the Project Areas or within one site-potential tree 

(assumed to be 175 feet for all areas) of the stream course will be identified prior to implementation of 

treatments by watershed specialists and/or biologists. E3/F3

Yarding activities should achieve full suspension over the active channel. To facilitate log suspension 

with skyline operations, corridors for cable rigging would be allowed to pass through Riparian Reserves. 

A maximum clearing width of 12 ft. is required and logs may be yarded through this corridor if necessary. 

Corridors must be spaced at a minimum of 200 feet apart if they pass through Riparian Reserves. 

Corridor “rub trees” within the Riparian Reserve, even if damaged, will either be left standing or felled 

and left in place. E3/F3

No new temporary roads or landings, gap treatments, or heavy thinning is proposed nor allowed within 

Riparian Reserves without prior field examination by a Soils Scientist, Hydrologist, or Geologist to 

prescribe site specific mitigation, if needed (including relocation of the road). E3/F3

Fire, engineering and aquatic resource personnel will work together to determine suitable pump chances 

and the measures needed for the protection of aquatic resources. Refuel 100 feet from a stream or use 

measures to assure fuel does not reach flowing water. Water withdrawal equipment must have a 3.82 

intake screen in order to avoid fish entrapment. E3/F3
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-62

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Special Haul Restrictions to Prevent Fine Sediment Delivery to Streams:11

OPERATIONS WITHIN THE NORMAL OPERATING SEASON (June 1 to Oct 31st). Project design

features will be implemented to make it unlikely that sediment would reach stream channels. E3/F3

 Road crown will be maintained.

 Operations shall cease at any time when the travel way of the road is wet and turbid water or fines 

are observed moving off the road surface to ditch lines that deliver to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)

or any stream type.

 If fine sediment is observed to be moving off the road surface to ditch lines or streams due to timber 

sale activities, the Forest Service is responsible to have the Timber Sale Purchaser place sediment 

filters to prevent this sediment from reaching any stream.

IF OPERATIONS OUTSIDE THE NORMAL OPERATING SEASON: November 1 through May 31st

are allowed, the following rules must be applied to timber haul on gravel roads adjacent EFH or any 

stream type stream channels: E3/F3

 Operations shall cease at any time when the travel way of the road is wet and turbid water or fines 

are observed moving off the road surface to ditch lines that deliver to EFH or any stream type. 

 If fine sediment is observed to be moving off the road surface to ditch lines or streams due to timber 

sale activities, the Forest Service is responsible to have the Timber Sale Purchaser place sediment 

filters to prevent this sediment from reaching any stream.

 Road Rutting: No hauling down the gravel road surface if rutting is occurring, indicating the 

subsurface is wet. 

 Wet weather conditions must be monitored daily by the Forest Service for the chance of 

precipitation, especially 1 inch of rain in 24 hours.

Road Activity Mitigation Measures

Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be used for all road activities such as road reconstruction and/or 

maintenance work (Land and Resource Management Plan, Siskiyou National Forest, 1989, Appendix F 

and General Water Quality Best Management Practices, PNW, November 1988). These are now used in 

concert with the National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management (April 2012). The 

purpose of the National BMP Program is to provide a standard set of core BMPs and a consistent means 

to track and document the use and effectiveness for BMPs on NFS lands. E3/F3

Follow Road River-Siskiyou National Forest Road Use Rules. E3/F3

Follow Road Management Objectives (RMO) Operational Restrictions for hauling under wet conditions. 

E3/F3

d. Recreation

Not all areas will receive treatment at the same time – efforts should be made to ensure that a range of 

recreational experiences remain available to the recreating public. Public safety should be a top priority. 

A number of mitigation measures will be implemented as necessary to reduce the effects of 

implementation on recreation users. These would include advanced notice of closures, signing at 

appropriate locations, alternate route suggestions, and notification of various user groups. E3/F3

 

11 Luce, C.H. and Black T.A. 2001. Effects of Traffic and Ditch Maintenance on Forest Road Sediment Productions, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Boise, Idaho. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-63

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Identify any recreation improvements (trails, trailheads, signs) on contract area maps and protect, repair 

and restore any damage caused by project operations. E3/F3

All project activities (Forest Service and contract) will comply with State and Federal Occupational 

Safety and Health (OSHA) codes. All Forest Service project operations will be guided by FS Handbook 

6709.11 (Health and Safety Code Handbook). E3/F3

As necessary, restrict or close areas to hunting where contractors or Forest Service personnel are working. 

E3/F2

No trash will be left on public lands by any contractor or contractor crew associated with this project. 

This includes commercial timber removal, non-commercial treatments, activity fuels treatment 

contractors and includes items such as aluminum cans, lunch wrappers, paint cans, and other refuse. 

E3/F3

e. Botanical and Invasive Plant Species

Invasive Species

To prevent the introduction of invasive plant seed into the Planning Area from other projects that the 

contractor has worked on in the recent past, before entering RRSNF lands, the contractor is required to 

clean the undercarriage, tires, wheels and other parts of off-road equipment to prevent the spread of seed 

from off forest areas. When leaving RRSNF to work in other areas the contractor should clean vehicles 

again before returning to work on this project. E3/F3

Contracts and permits should contain appropriate clauses concerning the prevention or spread of invasive 

plants as described in the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Preventing and Managing 

Invasive Plants Record of Decision (September 2005). E3/F3

Operational site should be surveyed for invasive species; if detected, appropriate action will be taken in 

accordance with RRSNF Integrated Noxious Weed Plans. E3/F3

To prevent the inadvertent establishment of non-native grass species into e project areas, use locally 

collected native grass seed for erosion control, wildlife seeding and invasive plant abatement. E3/F3

To prevent the inadvertent establishment of non-native grass species into project areas, use only certified 

weed free straw/mulch if needed for erosion control or other purposes during road construction. E3/F3

To prevent the inadvertent dispersal of invasive plant seed into project areas, all rock sources for road 

work/construction must first be inspected by a botanist to ensure they are weed free before being used. 

E3/F3

Use prevention practices found in Pacific Northwest Invasive Plant Program ROD (2005), and the ROD 

and LRMP Amendment for Management of Port-Orford-Cedar in Southwest Oregon, Siskiyou National 

Forest (March 2004). This direction includes making sure heavy equipment brought to the forest is clean 

of noxious weeds (including seeds), any material brought to the forest (such as hay, rock, soil) is noxious 

weed free material, and conducting road maintenance activities in a way to minimize noxious weed 

introduction/spread. E3/F3
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-64

Final Environmental Impact Statement

f. Port-Orford-cedar Management Practices 

The following management practices for Port-Orford-cedar are taken from the Risk Key assessment 

(FEIS Appendix B2 – April 1, 2013)

Project Scheduling - schedule commercial treatments/road building west of Doe Swamp to occur during 

the dry season (or wash project equipment). E3/F3

Utilize Uninfested Water - Use uninfested water sources for equipment washing, road watering and 

other water-distribution needs or treat water with Clorox©bleach to prevent/reduce the spread of 

Phytophthora lateralis (PL). E3/F3

Unit Scheduling - Conduct work in all timber sale units where PL is not present before working in units 

infested with PL. E3/F3

Road Management Measures - Implement proactive disease-prevention measures including not building 

roads (e.g., Road W through PL pockets in Units 326 and 327) or relocating the proposed road to avoid 

these infested areas. E3/F3

Resistant POC Planting - Silvicultural prescriptions for sites having potential for growing POC will 

provide for the establishment of the species through natural or artificial regeneration and maintenance as a 

viable stand component through the current and future rotations. E2/F3

Washing Project Equipment - Wash project equipment prior to beginning work in uninfested project 

areas, when leaving infested areas to work in uninfested areas, and when leaving project areas to 

minimize the transportation of infested soil to uninfested areas. E3/F3

Summer Rain Events - Apply contract clause to require cessation of harvest operations when indicators 

such as puddles in the roadway, water running in roadside ditches, or increases in soil moisture indicate 

an unacceptable increase in the likelihood of spreading PL. E2/F3

Site-Specific POC Management - Manage to favor POC uphill from creeks, on ridgetops and on welldrained sites to emphasize management of POC on sites where conditions make it likely that trees will 

escape infection. Emphasis may include priority retention during thinning or other silvicultural 

treatments and planting to increase the presence of POC in areas unfavorable to PL. E2/F2

g. Terrestrial Wildlife Species and Habitat

In addition to Wildlife PDCs (Section D, 4, this Chapter) the following measures will apply for protection 

of terrestrial wildlife species and habitats:

Mitigation Measures to Protect Northern Spotted Owls Include:

If spotted owls are detected in or adjacent to treatment units, mitigation measures (Project Design 

Criteria) from the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Formal Consultation on timber harvest, meadow 

restoration and quarry activities proposed by the Rogue River–Siskiyou National Forest (TAILS #: 

13420-2009-F-0146) dated August 27, 2009 (USDA/USDI, 2009c) will be applied to proposed activities 

(PDF #2 & #3, Wildlife Report Attachment A). E3/ F3

If a previously unknown spotted owl nest or activity center is located, delay project activities within or 

adjacent to a Project Area until September 30th, or until a Forest Service Wildlife Biologist determines 

that the site is non-reproductive. E3/ F3 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-65

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Any of the following mitigation measures may be waived in a particular year if nesting or reproductive 

success surveys conducted according to the FWS-endorsed survey guidelines reveal that spotted owls are 

non-nesting or that no young are present that year. Waivers are valid until March 1 of the year following 

the survey. Previously known sites: activity centers are assumed occupied unless protocol surveys 

indicate otherwise.

Work activities (such as tree felling, yarding. road construction, hauling on roads not generally used by 

the public, muffled blasting) that produce loud noises above ambient levels, or produce thick smoke that 

would enter the stand, will not occur within specified distances (see table below) of any nest site or 

activity center of known pairs and resident singles between 1 March and 30 June (or until two weeks 

after the fledging period) - unless protocol surveys have determined the activity center to be not occupied, 

non-nesting, or failed in their nesting attempt. E3/F3

March 1 — June 30 is considered the critical early nesting period. The agency biologist has the option to 

extend the restricted season to as late as 30 September during the year of harvest, based on site-specific 

knowledge (such as a late or recycle nesting attempt). The restricted area is calculated as a radius from 

the assumed nest site (point). See Appendix F of the Biological Opinion for a discussion of the rationale

for the 30 June restriction date. 

Smoke producing activities will not take place within 0.25 mile of known active northern spotted owl 

nests between 1 March and 30 June (or until two weeks after the fledging period) unless smoke will not 

drift into the nest stand. E3/F3

Table II-20. Northern Spotted Owl Restrictions- Harassment Distances

Type of Activity Zone of Restricted Operation

Blast of more than 2 pounds of explosive I mile

Blast of 2 pounds or less of explosive 120 yards

Impact pile driver, jackhammer. or rock drill 60 yards

Helicopter or single-engine airplane 120 yards for small helicopters; 0.25 miles for 

Type I or II helicopters

Chainsaws (hazard trees. tree harvest. etc.) 65 yards

Heavy equipment 35 yards

Mitigation Measures to Protect Marbled Murrelet Include:

To protect marbled murrelets from disturbance; the following mitigation measures (Project Design 

Criteria) from the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Formal Consultation on timber harvest, meadow 

restoration and quarry activities proposed by the Rogue River–Siskiyou National Forest (TAILS #: 

13420-2009-F-0146) dated August 27, 2009 (USDA/USDI, 2009) will be applied to proposed activities

FWS Project Design Criteria apply to two different inland management zones dealing with 

removal/degradation of habitat and disturbance of nesting murrelets. Survey Area A = Area west of the 

line between the coastal Western Hemlock/Tanoak Zone and inland Mixed Conifer/Mixed Evergreen 

Zone; this area is the known range for marbled murrelet in SW Oregon. Survey Area B = Area 6.5 miles 

(10 km) east of Area A (although Area B is outside the known range for this species, potential nesting 

habitat will continue to be surveyed in this “buffer” area, where projects may affect this potential habitat). 

No surveys for marbled murrelets are required on land outside of (east of) Areas A and B. E3/F3

(I) For Survey Areas A and B, if the project removes or degrades suitable habitat, the project must 

be surveyed to protocol (current Pacific Seabird Group two year protocol – to document 

presence/absence of murrelet). If it is not feasible to complete the two-year protocol, the FWS will be 

contacted on a case-by-case basis to discuss other means of insuring that potential nest trees are not 

impacted (PDF#7, Wildlife Report Attachment A). 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-66

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The action agency has the option of not surveying suitable habitat and classifying these stands as 

“Occupied.” A “new” LSR must be established for any timber stand in Areas A or B that is determined to 

be or assumed to be occupied by marbled murrelet (per NWFP ROD, page C-10).

(II) For Survey Areas A and B work activities (such as tree felling, yarding, road and other construction 

activities, hauling on roads not generally used by the public, muffled blasting) which produce noises 

above ambient levels will not occur within specified distances (see table below) of any occupied stand 

or unsurveyed suitable habitat between April 1 – August 5. For the period between August 6 –

September 15, work activities will be confined to between 2 hours after sunrise to 2 hours before 

sunset. 

(III) Clean up trash and garbage daily at all construction and logging sites. Keep food out of sight so 

as to not attract crows and ravens (predators on eggs or young murrelets) (PDF #8, Wildlife Report

Attachment A).

(IV) Blasting (open air/unmuffled) – No blasting activities 1 April through 15 September within 1.0 

mile of occupied stands or unsurveyed suitable habitat. This distance may be shortened if significant 

topographical breaks or blast blankets (or other devices) muffle sound traveling between the blast and 

nest sites or less than 2 lbs. of explosives are used. If not, then use described distance.

Table II-21. Murrelet Restrictions- Harassment Distances

Type of Activity Zone of Restricted Operation

Blast of more than 2 pounds of explosive I mile

Blast of 2 pounds or less of explosive 120 yards

Impact pile driver, jackhammer. or rock drill 120 yards

Helicopter or single-engine airplane 120 yards for small helicopters; 0.25 miles for 

Type 1 or 2 helicopters

Chainsaws (hazard trees. tree harvest. etc.) 120 yards

Heavy equipment 120 yards

Mitigation Measures to Protect Peregrine Falcon Include:

To manage habitat for Sensitive species (peregrine falcon) viability and maintenance of populations 

throughout their existing range on the Forest protect all existing and newly discovered peregrine falcon 

nest sites during the courtship period through the dispersal of young (January 1 - July 31). Implement 

Seasonal Restrictions on All Activities (January 1 to July 31) within disturbance distances (PDF #10, 

Wildlife Report Attachment A). E3/F3

To limit harassment and disturbance to nesting Sensitive species – peregrine falcon, helicopter landing 

locations within 1 mile of the known or any newly found peregrine falcon sites will require approval of 

the district wildlife biologist prior to implementation. (PDF #11, Wildlife Report Attachment A). 

E3/F3

General Terrestrial Wildlife Mitigation:

Management activities shall be planned to maintain enough large woody material (dead and down) to 

maintain a healthy forest ecosystem for multiple species. Large down woody material left from historical 

railroad logging represent a unique situation and every effort to avoid disturbance and maintain this 

existing material should be made. E3/F2
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-67

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Leave trees damaged during harvest operations will be left standing or felled for safety, but left on site. 

The intent is to maintain damaged trees, which may become snags or develop cavities, to contribute to the 

large woody material needs following all treatment activities (PDF #13, Wildlife Report Attachment 

A). E3/F3

To protect grassy areas which provide habitat for deer, elk, and other wildlife, do not operate equipment 

in or construct/locate corridors, skid trails, landings, slash piles, or any roads within meadows and 

identified grassy areas (PDF #14, Wildlife Report Attachment A). E3/F3

Should future surveys locate any R6-listed Sensitive species (or if new species known to occur within the 

area become listed) management within associated units will be halted pending analysis of the impacts of 

the activities. Management may continue, prescriptions or timing altered, or units may be dropped, based 

on the analysis. E3/F3

General Recommendation for Neo-tropical Migratory Birds:

Efforts should be made to reduce impacts to nesting birds that may be present in project areas that may be 

directly impacted by burning operations. Operations should occur outside of the spring breeding/nesting 

season as much as possible (February-May). E2/F2

h. Aquatic Species and Habitat

All project elements would be accomplished within Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) and Standard Operating Procedures. Standard Operating Procedures 

include adherence to State Water Quality standards; ODFW instream work periods; hazardous materials 

plans; EPA requirements for storage and use of petroleum products; ODFW, and NOAA Fisheries criteria 

for culvert replacements; and BMPs for rock quarry operations. 

Additional site specific BMPs and Project Design Criteria were developed to further avoid, minimize or 

reduce adverse impacts to aquatic resources, SONC coho salmon, their critical habitat and Essential Fish 

Habitats. Mitigation measures for density management, timber felling, yarding and hauling are 

primarily discussed within Project Design Criteria for Riparian Reserve (Section D, 3), and in

Mitigation Measures described above for Hydrology and Water Quality. 

Refuel power equipment, or use absorbent pads for immobile equipment, and prepare concrete at least 

150 feet (or as far as possible from the water body where local site conditions do not allow a 150 foot 

setback) from water bodies to prevent direct delivery of contaminants into associated water bodies. 

Develop and implement an approved spill containment plans that includes having a spill containment kit 

on-site and at previously identified containment locations. E3/F3

Water withdrawal equipment must have a fish screen installed, operated and maintained in accordance 

with NOAA Fisheries recommendations (3/32” mesh size). E3/F3

If rock quarries on the forest are utilized to produce aggregate for rocking roads, landings, or pump 

chances, shape for drainage and apply appropriate erosion control techniques for waste disposal. Require 

quarry development plans to include BMPs and mitigation measures as part of the contract, monitoring 

plans to comply with stormwater pollution directives, and a site restoration plan to comply with Regional 

directives. E3/F3
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-68

Final Environmental Impact Statement

i. Cultural (Heritage) Resources

The Forest consults with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on the mitigation of 

adverse effects to historic properties in the state of Oregon considered eligible to the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP). Specific mitigation measures for adverse effects to the Smith-Powers Logging 

Railroad are documented in the Memorandum of Agreement between the Rogue River-Siskiyou National 

Forest and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office Regarding the Eden Ridge Timber Sales 

Project, Coos County, Oregon. This MOA includes the mitigation measures that are required for the 

predicted effects to the Smith-Powers Logging Railroad, and which are summarized here. 

A Forest Archaeologist will aid in the layout of timber sales to ensure that key features are identified on 

the ground for avoidance. E3/F3

Limit impacts to the railroad grade during road construction and logging activities. This includes 

constructing minimal road width and limiting construction activities to one ‘lane’ where sidings exist, 

leaving fill and cut features intact. The siding areas are not to be used as turn outs. Most of the 

historical features also lie along the old grades. Those features that retain some integrity will be 

avoided. In some cases, timber may be removed from within the feature boundary by directional 

felling and keeping equipment outside the feature. Skid trail features that still retain donkey mounds 

and other associated features will be avoided. Where necessary, designate yarding corridors crossing 

perpendicular to linear features. E3/F2

An Archaeologist will monitor during road construction to note type and quantity of artifacts/features,

to recover information from artifacts and features uncovered during project implementation and note 

unusual artifacts. Spot check monitor throughout the various sales. The Forest will provide brief 

reports documenting any materials or features recovered during monitoring activities for the Oregon 

SHPO. E3/F2

Include contract clause C6.24 which provides for the protection of cultural resources regardless of 

when they are discovered. If concentrations of artifacts/features are discovered during project 

implementation, stop and notify a Forest Archaeologist, and the concentration shall be avoided. 

Concentrations of artifacts could be similar to the day-use features avoided, could be a dump or single 

donkey sled, or could be a variety of artifacts dispersed over an area of several acres. Coordination 

with the Archaeologist and SHPO will determine final treatment of the area. E3/F2

Eden Ridge historical railroad logging provides an opportunity to bring interpretive displays to the 

public. Interpretive products are to include a Passport in Time (PIT) volunteer project, a popular 

article on the history of the Smith-Powers Logging Railroad on Eden Ridge, and a traveling exhibit. 

Results of the PIT project will be documented and submitted to the Oregon SHPO. E3/F2

The Forest will prepare a final report incorporating all information from monitoring, Passport in Time, 

implementation activities, or other sources into a single report amending the site record for the Oregon 

SHPO. E3/F2

j. Fuels and Air Quality

Using fire as a treatment for activity fuels can generate a considerable amount of smoke particulates. Fire 

managers plan the dispersal of smoke away from designated areas in accordance with the State of Oregon 

Smoke Management plan. Burn Plans will be submitted and authorized prior to ignition. E3/F2

Efforts to reduce smoke emissions from prescribed fire are being implemented to lessen the impact on air 

quality. One effort is seasonal burning. Spring burning, for example, results in reduced fuel consumption 

and emissions due to high fuel moistures. Springtime weather conditions may also have more favorable 

atmospheric conditions that can lead to better smoke dispersion. E3/F2
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-69

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other efforts include burning concentrations of fuel (spot-burning) rather that the entire area, burning 

when the 1,000 hour fuel moistures are high, burning within 4 -8 months of slash creation when higher 

fuel moistures are present in the larger material, burning when the duff moisture is high, using rapid 

ignition to achieve a high intensity fire, prompt “mopping up” of fires after flames have diminished, and 

further utilization of material prior to burning, i.e., firewood. These methods will aid in reducing the total 

amount of pollutants produced by burning. E3/F2

Optimizing flaming combustion can be achieved by burning piled fuels, rather than broadcast burning. 

Careful machine piling reduces the amount of dirt in piles, thereby reducing the smolder phase of a fire. 

In addition, real time monitoring can be performed such that ignition can be halted if smoke impacts 

become greater than acceptable. E3/F2

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for detrimental soil conditions and erosion (SNF-LRMP; pages IV44-45) will be applied to this project. By minimizing the size and maximizing the spacing between piles, 

and burning in the winter and spring windows of opportunity when soil and fuel moistures are high, soil 

detrimental impacts and mineral soil exposure is minimized. This would also compliment the objectives 

of maximizing the retention of Large Woody Material (LRMP S&G 7-8). Large down woody material 

left from historical railroad logging represent a unique situation and every effort to avoid disturbance and 

maintain this existing material will be made. E3/F2

11. MONITORING

This section discusses monitoring elements and requirements that would be specifically designed for 

proposed management activities, under the action selected under the NEPA process. Monitoring is 

important for tracking the implementation of a project; ensuring projects are implemented as planned, as 

well as to measure success in meeting the stated project goals, objectives, and application of design 

elements and required mitigation. 

Monitoring of all activities is required for all selected actions and would be carried out according to the 

Monitoring Plan. A draft Monitoring Plan Framework is included in this sub-section. However, a 

Monitoring Plan will be incorporated by reference and made an attachment to the Record of Decision, if a 

decision for the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project is rendered. This will allow it to be developed 

specifically to the alternative and the components and methodology it may contain, and be specific to the 

area(s) where actions are being authorized. Other resource topics and questions would likely be 

developed for the forthcoming Monitoring Plan.

a. Monitoring Framework

Monitoring and evaluation are separate, sequential activities that provide information to determine 

whether programs and projects are meeting Forest Plan direction. Monitoring collects information, on a 

sample basis, from sources specified in the Forest Plan. 

When designing a monitoring plan, a full spectrum of techniques and methods should be used to evaluate 

the results obtained from monitoring. Evaluation techniques include, but are not limited to: 

o Site-specific observations by on-site resource specialists.

o Field assistance trips by other technical specialists.

o On-going accomplishment reporting processes.

o Formal management reviews on a scheduled basis. 

o Discussions with other agencies and various public users.

o Interdisciplinary team reviews of monitoring results.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-70

Final Environmental Impact Statement

o Involvement with existing research activities. 

o Review and analysis of records documenting monitoring results. 

o Re-measuring existing permanent inventory plots.

This Monitoring Plan Framework is developed as an iterative tool for assessing whether the projects are 

achieving the overall goals and objectives. This plan establishes monitoring objectives and protocol for 

implementation, baseline, and effectiveness monitoring.

Implementation monitoring will track the project through layout, contract preparation, during and 

immediately following project implementation, to ensure that it is implemented as planned. This asks, 

"Did we do what we said we were going to do as outlined in the Record of Decision?"

Baseline monitoring will be carried out in conjunction with effectiveness monitoring. Baseline data will 

be collected prior to project implementation to characterize the existing conditions specifically for 

comparison to post project conditions and will provide a basis for effectiveness monitoring.

Effectiveness monitoring will determine if the project activities were effective in achieving the stated 

goals and objectives based on comparison of pre (baseline) and post project conditions. Effectiveness 

monitoring asks, "Were the results of the project as we had planned?"

The lessons learned from monitoring and data collection will be useful for modifying project plans to 

better meet project goals and objectives. If monitoring indicates laws, regulations, standards or critical 

objectives are not being met, the project will be modified as necessary and appropriate. 

b. Implementation Monitoring

Implementation monitoring asks the question, did we implement the project as outlined in the Record of 

Decision including consistency with land allocations guiding the implementation of management 

activities in the project areas? The following monitoring question will be used to complete 

implementation monitoring:

Evaluation Question

Were treatments implemented according to Project Design Criteria, including appropriate mitigation 

measures and management constraints outlined in the Record of Decision? 

If implementation deviated from design criteria and mitigation measures, document how and why 

implementation deviated and whether the desired objectives as documented in the EIS were achieved.

Approach

A table can be used to track project implementation including application of required mitigation measures 

and management requirements. Tables can be used to track commercial timber harvest units. Another 

table can track post-harvest treatments such as reforestation, non-commercial density management, etc. 

Another table can track the other activities such as road construction, wildlife habitat improvement 

activities, etc. 

Timber sale activities will also use the Timber Information Manager System (TIMS) (Forest Service 

Manual 2493 and Forest Service Handbook 2409.14) for tracking and reporting. Implementation 

monitoring is part of the regular program of work and as such, it is fully funded through the life of each of 

the projects. Vegetation management treatments are entered into the Forest Service Activities Tracking 

System (FACTS), a corporate database for recording activities accomplished on the ground.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-71

Final Environmental Impact Statement

c. Effectiveness Monitoring

Effectiveness monitoring will determine if the project activities were effective in achieving the stated 

goals and objectives based on comparison of pre (baseline) and post project conditions. Effectiveness 

monitoring asks, “Were the result of the project as we had planned?” Effectiveness monitoring is closely 

tied to baseline monitoring. 

Baseline data will be collected prior to project implementation to characterize the existing conditions 

specifically for comparison to post project conditions and will provide a basis for effectiveness 

monitoring.

1) Soil Conditions

Detrimental soil conditions can be expected to occur as a result of implementing the Eden Ridge Timber 

Sales Project. The degree, extent, and duration of resultant detrimental soil conditions within each 

activity area influence the magnitude of productivity loss associated with any alternative. Degree refers 

to the magnitude of change in soil properties such as increase in bulk density or decrease in 

macroporosity and the depth to which those changes occur. Extent refers to the area affected by such 

changes. Duration refers to the length of time such changes may persist on a site.

The Pacific Northwest Region (R6) has developed several policy standards for permitted amounts of 

detrimental soil conditions within activity areas. The policy standards are contained in Forest Service 

Manual 2500 – R6 Supplement, 2500-98-1 and include definitions for what constitutes soil damage and 

how to assess quality conditions and trends.

Evaluation Questions

How effective was project design, including mitigation measures, in minimizing soil impacts and meeting 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for soil protection?

Approach

A Soil Scientist or Hydrologist, in cooperation with the other Forest Service personnel, will monitor 

activities during implementation and document observations. Specialists will coordinate monitoring of 

post-activity soil conditions on all units harvested with ground-based logging systems.

2) Water Quality, Hydrologic Function, and Aquatic Resources

The greatest concern for impacting water quality, hydrologic function, and aquatic habitat is associated 

with accelerating erosion and sedimentation to streams. Ground disturbing activities associated with 

planned activities will increase the potential for surface erosion and sediment production during and for 1 

to 2 years following implementation of each project. The potential for increased sedimentation will taper 

off once ground cover and vegetation is reestablished.

Project design elements and mitigation measures are required during project implementation to avoid 

impacts altogether or minimize potential impacts to water quality, hydrologic function and aquatic 

resources. Implementation monitoring described above will track the implementation of mitigation 

measures, while this section is designed for monitoring the site-specific effectiveness of mitigation as it is 

implemented. 

Reference is now made to new National Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Water Quality 

Management (April 2012). The purpose of the National BMP Program is to provide a standard set of core 

BMPs and a consistent means to track and document the use and effectiveness for BMPs on NFS lands. 

These are now used in concert the General Water Quality Best Management Practices, Pacific Northwest 

Region, November 1988. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-72

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Evaluation Questions 

How effective was project design, including mitigation measures, in minimizing impacts to water quality 

and meeting Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines?

How effective are Best Management Practices in providing protection to riparian areas and minimizing 

impacts to aquatic systems?

Approach

In conjunction with site visits by Forest Service contract administrators and resource specialists, conduct 

photo monitoring to document on site application of mitigation measures. Monitoring described above 

under Soil Conditions will determine the effectiveness of the project design in maintaining protective soil 

cover. The monitoring that occurs during implementation is funded as part of the project.

E. ALTERNATIVES AND ELEMENTS CONSIDERED BUT 

ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable 

alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in 

detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Interdisciplinary discussions and public comments received in response to the 

Proposed Action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the Purpose and Need. Some 

of these alternatives or alternative elements were determined to be outside the scope of the Purpose and 

Need, duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or determined to be components that would 

cause unnecessary environmental harm. Therefore, a number of alternatives or alternative elements were 

considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons summarized below.

Potentially, there are several forest management tools available that could successfully decrease the 

number of trees growing within overly dense stands. For example, instead of tree cutting or logging, 

there are other methods that could be used to reduce tree density within a stand. As a substitute for partial 

cutting with saws, two other practical methods could be used to eliminate some trees in a stand while 

leaving other trees free to grow. Instead of tree cutting, fire (a prescribed underburn) or herbicide 

application could be used to kill a portion of live trees within a stand. Treatments that would kill 

unwanted conifers, but not remove them from the site would create an additional and unacceptable fuel 

loading and associated fire risk. The use of herbicides would additionally introduce unacceptable social 

and resource effects, especially as associated with Riparian Reserves. 

While these methods have some desirable characteristics (such as leaving a stand with a more natural 

appearance), use of these methods certainly would entail distinctive risks related to lack of tree selectivity 

(in the case of fire use) or introduction of human-made chemicals into the environment (in the case of 

herbicide use). Moreover, some of the objectives identified for the Proposed Action would not be 

fulfilled, such as extraction of wood useful for lumber and other products or use of timber (stumpage) 

receipts to pay for the thinning operations. Therefore, the use of partial cut logging is the primary 

approach included in this environmental analysis to accomplish stand density reductions being considered 

as part of the analysis in this EIS. The other Action Alternatives are based on the Proposed Action, with 

modifications that reflect physical and biological resource concerns.

The following alternatives or component actions within alternatives identified through Scoping or during 

the DEIS Comment Period were considered but have been eliminated from detailed study for the reasons 

stated and/or because they did not meet the Purpose and Need for this project. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-73

Final Environmental Impact Statement

1. OPTIONAL SILVICULTURAL HARVEST SYSTEMS

As discussed in the 1989 SNF LRMP Appendix G, the selection of silvicultural systems is a key element 

in the management of the Forest. The systems used will strongly influence forest conditions and the 

ability to provide the outputs desired by society. This facet of forest management has received 

considerable public attention, particularly in the form of concern over clearcutting and the application of 

even-aged systems in general. This controversy escalated to a national issue, and Congress expressed that 

even-aged systems will be used only where determined to be appropriate to meet the Objectives and 

requirements of the relevant plan, and more specifically, that clearcutting will be used only where 

determined to be the optimum method (Public Law 94-588). 

No single silvicultural system is applicable throughout the mixed conifer forests (Minore and Kingsley, 

1983). In addition, adherence to the criteria for vegetative manipulation in the regulations (36 CFR 219 

27(b)) will lead to selection of different systems for specific combinations of management objectives, site 

characteristics, and stand conditions. In other words, the land itself often provides the best clues as to its 

appropriate management (LRMP 1989). 

Due to the particular combinations of environmental conditions and management objectives, even-aged 

systems will be the most commonly used, with clearcutting the most common method of regeneration in 

this group. 

The discussion presented in LRMP Appendix G provides much of the rationale for the frequent selection 

of clearcutting as the optimum method. Although many factors influence this decision, some have been 

overemphasized. "Economics often bears the brunt of arguments for conversion to clear-cut systems. In 

fact, these decisions originate in the practice of the art of forestry" (Brodie 1981). 

Silvicultural systems fall into two categories: even-aged and uneven-aged. With even-aged systems, all 

the trees in the stand are approximately the same age throughout most of the life of the stand. Stand 

development and management options are strongly influenced by regeneration cutting. 

The major silvicultural systems are known by the type of regeneration cutting employed; clearcutting, 

shelterwood, and seed tree are methods of regeneration within the even-aged system, single-tree selection 

and group selection are uneven-aged systems. Each of these systems includes regeneration cutting, 

establishment of new seedlings or sprouts, and intermediate cutting or stand improvement treatments 

(commercial and pre-commercial thinning) as needed to encourage the stand characteristics desired to 

achieve management objectives. The classification of silvicultural systems presented here is after Burns 

(1983) with additional descriptive information from Smith (1962).

Clearcutting involves harvesting of all the merchantable trees in a stand or large part of a stand to clear 

the way for the establishment of a new even-aged stand. The complete cycle of one generation from 

seedlings to final harvest is termed a rotation. Virtually all of the trees are removed except those 

designated to fulfill resource needs or those which are unmerchantable and deemed not a hindrance to the 

establishment and growth of the new stand. The new stand could be created by natural or artificial 

seeding, planting of seedlings, or sprouting from stumps or roots of cut trees. 

Uneven-aged systems produce stands with no beginning or end points in time, the trees within the stand 

are of distinctly different ages with at least three classes present.

Regeneration Harvest Systems

Clearcutting under the even age management system was considered for Eden Ridge Timber Sales. 

Clearcutting is a legitimate option under General Forest allocation under the LRMP. Although most 

stands with the Eden Ridge Planning Area are currently under 80 years of age, regeneration clearcutting is 

a viable option for this area considering its location, its climate and its growing site. It is extensively 

practiced on adjacent private forest lands.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-74

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Regeneration clearcutting at this time was not considered in detail for several reasons. 

1) The amount of new road construction needed for regeneration harvest would be greater than that 

proposed under the Action Alternatives. This is because of the increased amount of volume that would 

have to be yarded and hauled from the Planning Area, and increased use of the roads that would be 

needed. This increase in road density would likely add to an increased (and potentially unacceptable) 

risk of direct, indirect and cumulative effects considering hydrology and soils.

2) According to Siskiyou LRMP standard and guideline 6-5:

“Timber stands shall not be scheduled for final harvest before stand age has reached or surpassed the 

age of 95 percent of culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI) in cubic feet. Exceptions may be 

made where special resource considerations require earlier harvest, or where small inclusions of 

young stands in harvest units that otherwise meet this requirement will result in more logical 

management units allowing greater efficiency or less resource impacts. 

The age of 95 percent of culmination shall be taken from the managed yield table used in the planning 

analysis (Craig 1984) for the appropriate prescription and intensity unless site-specific yield 

projections are made as part of the silvicultural prescription; in which case the more specific data may 

be used for this determination.” 

While some stands are currently close to CMAI, most of the Planning Area has not reached this 

threshold according to current silvicultural projections.

3) The 1994 Northwest Forest Plan allocated the Planning Area primarily to the Matrix land allocation; 

however regeneration harvest as envisioned in the 1989 LRMP would not likely be supported under the 

management emphasis of today. Further, extensive clearcutting would not likely be supported by many 

factions of the general public.

4) The current levels of clear-cut regeneration harvest on adjacent private lands have already created a 

high road density and overall risk for adverse cumulative effects. Additional regeneration clear-cutting 

would add to this potential for adverse risk.

Uneven-aged Systems

According to direction in the LRMP, uneven-aged management may be used on specific sites where 

analysis indicates it would meet certain resource objectives. Examples of where this could be appropriate 

are: to meet objectives for streamside, visual management, or biological diversity to provide for slope 

stability, or for timber management where the natural stand has an uneven-aged structure.

Uneven-aged systems were not considered in detail for Eden Ridge because of the existing current 

condition of relatively stable even-aged stands having been created around the same time with 

regeneration harvests associated with historical railroad logging. Further, most of the Planning Area is 

allocated to General Forest and Matrix, where even-aged systems are anticipated to obtain scheduled 

commodity outputs.

The intermediate treatment of variable density thinning of stands 80 years of age and younger is the 

preferred course of action. This type of treatment would not preclude future additional density 

management treatments or regeneration harvest at some point in time.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-75

Final Environmental Impact Statement

2. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN AREAS

During the Proposed Action development process, there were portions of some stands that were 

considered, determined to be in need of density management treatments, but were later dropped because 

of the environmental or economic costs of accessing them. Examples include stands that would require 

high road building costs, potentially crossing streams to access relatively small areas (2-20 acres) of 

potential commercial thinning, areas that would require extremely long skyline cable spans (over 1,300 

feet) for thinning treatments, or downhill cable settings. While excluded from consideration with this 

Proposed Action, these uneconomical, impractical and/or unreachable areas may be a part of potential 

future management actions, e.g., for future regeneration harvests.

Consideration was given to total exclusion of Riparian Reserve treatments within one or more Action 

Alternatives. This option was not pursued in detail because based on current and desired conditions 

(Chapter I) most of the Riparian Reserve areas proposed for treatment would greatly benefit from

treatments. The need for tree harvest in Riparian Reserves is primarily for aquatic and wildlife habitat 

enhancement. Silvicultural practices would be applied to control stocking, reestablish and manage stands, 

and acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives. 

Total exclusion of this option was not considered a good management practice at this time. In addition, 

there has been support for this type of treatment with other proposals involving density management of 

younger stands.

Consideration was given to total exclusions of portions of the inner gorges associated with the large 

perennial streams. Total exclusion was not pursued because extensive field reconnaissance determined 

that some of these areas would benefit and treatments are needed to attain ACS Objectives. Treatments 

are proposed only where this benefit would occur. Further, total exclusion would not change the overall 

concern for hydrologic for peak flow (i.e., no gain).

Consideration was given to partial or total exclusion of proposed units within the Coal Creek subwatershed. Although the Coal Creek sub-watershed is rated as the highest risk, a majority of the project

is located within this watershed. Total exclusion would severely diminish the attainment of Purpose and 

Need, i.e., minimal acres would be treated to achieve forest vigor and resiliency. Further, the Proposed 

Action of density management thinning and associated connected actions is not anticipated to 

unacceptably increase the current risks. Therefore this exclusion was not considered in detail.

Partial exclusion of proposed treatment units within the Coal Creek sub-watershed is a key function of 

Alternative 3, considered in detail. 

3. OTHER CONNECTED OR ASSOCIATED ACTIONS

Consideration was given to pre-commercial thinning within stands in the Eden Ridge Planning Area. 

Pre-commercial thinning by definition usually occurs when stands are 15-25 yrs old. There are few stands 

of this age within the Planning Area, almost all having been clear-cut at approximately the same time, 60-

80 years ago. Therefore pre-commercial thinning, as associated with second growth stands is not being 

proposed. However, some young and overly dense stands were identified for various non-commercial 

treatments to improve forest health or to accelerate habitat development (refer to Section D, 2, h).

Consideration was given to the exclusive use of temporary roads, versus permanent Classified 

(system) roads. The important elements of what constitutes a “temporary road” are as follows:

“A temporary road is a road necessary for emergency operations or authorized by contract, permit,

lease or other written authorization that is not a Forest road and that is not included in a Forest 

transportation atlas (36 CFR 212.1). 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-76

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Forest Service and the purchaser must agree upon the location, resource protection requirements 

for road construction, clearing widths, and closure or rehabilitation requirements. Temporary roads 

are not constructed to serve long-term future uses and must be closed prior to closure of the timber 

sale (FSM 2432.34b).” 

Temporary roads are being proposed under Eden Ridge where it is likely that a one-time access is needed 

as part of a contract, for limited access to harvest units. They typically have a lower planning, design, and 

initial development cost than permanent system roads. Forest Service regulations (36 CFR 223.37) 

require temporary roads to be revegetated within ten years. These roads cannot be compared to 

engineered roads (permanent system roads) as they are not designed for multiple uses or long-term 

resource protection (e.g., all-weather maintenance).

Exclusive use of roads as “temporary” was not considered in detail because a permanent classified system 

road is managed by the Forest Service and can be designed to a higher standard for resource protection in 

the short and long term. Temporary road construction is managed by the timber sale contract, and 

typically to a lesser standard. When sensitive areas are involved and there is a need to be very 

prescriptive on what type of road is used and how it is constructed (e.g., sensitive stream crossings), it is 

recommended (by Forest Service resource specialists) they not be put in as a temporary crossing by the 

timber sale operator.

In addition, temporary roads are typically used in one season – constructed, used, and decommissioned, 

without needing to be over-wintered, as much as possible, particularly where stream crossings are 

involved. There would be more risk involved with multi-year temporary roads. There would be an 

unacceptable level of disturbance, risk of sediment, etc. with having to pull out and re-install stream 

crossings to overwinter temporary roads multiple years, and too much engineering design required to 

keep crossings installed year round as a temporary road.

All new proposed classified (system) roads would be created and managed as operational Maintenance 

Level 2 roads and Maintenance Level 1 when not in use for harvest activities. Under Maintenance Level 

1, basic custodial maintenance is performed to keep damage to adjacent resources to an acceptable level 

and to perpetuate the road to facilitate future management activities. While being maintained at level 1, 

roads are closed to public motorized access and use (in concert with the Forest’s Travel Management Plan 

and Motorized Vehicle Use Map).

All proposed new or classified road reconstruction would include design to minimal widths to minimize 

resource impacts, as well as to keep construction costs down. Upon consultation with the project 

hydrologist and soil scientist, in the Eden Ridge Planning Area, some locations in particular need to have 

engineered designs to assure an adequate amount of protection from erosion and to water quality and 

ability to appropriately handle the potential range in stream flows and bedload passage. Considering the 

overall amount of proposed new classified road and the amount of area (acres) they would access, it is 

also likely these roads would need to be used multiple years during implementation of Eden Ridge and for 

future treatment access on Matrix lands. Therefore access needs should be designed for that level of 

multi-year use. This requires a level of engineered design above what can be expected for a temporary 

road under a timber sale contract. 

Consideration was given to gap creation for the purpose of creating big game early seral habitat (e.g., 

forage). While some small gaps are being proposed, extensive gap treatment on Forest Service managed 

lands for the purpose of creating big game forage was not pursued. This is primarily because of the 

current condition of adjacent private lands, extensively already in early seral vegetative stages and 

providing big game forage.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-77

Final Environmental Impact Statement

F. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

This section compares the alternatives considered in detail, based on information presented in this 

Chapter, as well as environmental consequences presented in Chapter III. Table II-22 summarizes the 

alternatives; Table II-23 contains a comparison of some of the indicators relevant to the Significant Issues 

for the environmental consequences, and Table II-24 contains a comparison of the alternatives for the 

environmental consequences on Other Issues.

1. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

The following table summarizes the alternatives.

Table II-22. Alternative Comparison

Alternative 1

(No-Action)

Alternative 2

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Commercial Treatments

Number of Units 0 75 65 53

Total Acres 0 3,314 3,240 3,058

Matrix Acres 0 2,217 2,187 2,093

Riparian Reserve Acres 0 1,097 1,053 965

Total Est. Volume MMBF 0 53 52 49

Activity Fuels Treatment Acres 0 1,600 1,145 1,300

Predicted Harvest Method

Ground Based Acres 0 2,119 1,786 1,441

Skyline Acres 0 1,195 941 457

Helicopter Acres 0 0 513 1,160

Roads

New Classified (system) Road 

Construction Miles 0 10.81 4.45 0.25*

Temporary Road Construction & 

Decommissioning Miles 0 0.29 0.03 0

Classified Road Use Miles 0 31.03 31.03 31.03

Classified Road Use & 

Maintenance Miles 0 5.50 5.50 5.50

Classified Road Use w/ 

Reconstruction Miles 0 6.07 4.09 1.74

Similar and/or Related Actions

Non-Commercial Treatments None 363 Acres 363 Acres 363 Acres

None All Action Alternatives include: snag creation, meadow 

enhancement, stream enhancement, native grass/forb seeding, 

invasive plant treatments and wildlife nest boxes

* Reconstruction along 3 old rail grades includes new road construction where stream crossings replace rail 

trestle bridges
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-78

Final Environmental Impact Statement

2. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL IN TERMS OF SIGNIFICANT AND OTHER ISSUES

Table II-23. Comparison of Alternatives - Significant Issues

Significant Issue Indicator Alternative 1

(No-Action)

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

1 Hydrologic 

Conditions

(FEIS Chapter III, 

Section D, 1)

Thinning Acres by Subwatershed and 

Percent of Subwatershed Affected

Coal Creek (9,952 acres) 0 / 0 1,760 (18%) 1,615 (16%) 1,428 (14%)

Headwaters SF Coquille (40,233 acres) 0 / 0 585 (1.5%) 637 (1.6%) 642 (1.6%)

Mill Creek (13,935) 0 / 0 33 (<1%) 33 (<1%) 33 (<1%)

Myrtle Creek (20,028 acres) 0 / 0 172 (1%) 172 (1%) 172 (1%)

Lower Rock Creek (25,544 acres) 0 / 0 765 (3%) 783 (3%) 783 (3%)

Road Construction Miles by Subwatershed: 

Permanent System/Temporary

Coal Creek 0 / 0 6.61 0.29 1.87 0.03 0.25 0.0

Headwaters SF Coquille 0 / 0 2.27 0.0 1.31 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mill Creek 0 / 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Myrtle Creek 0 / 0 0.78 0.0 0.54 0.0 0.0 0.0

Lower Rock Creek 0 / 0 1.15 0.0 0.68 0.0 0.0 0.0

Road Density Increase by Subwatershed:

(mi/sq mi)

Existing Road 

Density

Coal Creek 4.19 0.43 0.12 0.00

Headwaters SF Coquille 4.25 0.04 0.02 0.00

Mill Creek 3.94 0.00 0.00 0.00

Myrtle Creek 4.12 0.02 0.02 0.00

Lower Rock Creek 4.68 0.03 0.02 0.00

Permanent System Roads Crossing Riparian 

Reserve (Miles) 0.00 1.58 1.5 0.25

Temporary Roads Crossing Riparian Reserve

(Miles) 0.00 0.17 0.03 0.00

Percent of Subwatershed Affected by Ground 

Based Yarding

Coal Creek N/A 12 % 9.5 % 6.5 %

Headwaters SF Coquille N/A 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.4 %

Mill Creek N/A <0.1 % <0.1 % <0.1 %

Myrtle Creek N/A 0.3 % 0.2 % 0.2 %

Lower Rock Creek N/A 2.5 % 2.3 % 2.3 %

Units (and roads) of Concern for Sediment 

Delivery and Peak Flow N/A

214 acres within Coal 

Creek; Units 301, 302, 

303, 304, 306, 307, 308, 

309, 312, 315, 321, 338; 

Road Q1, Q2, Q3 & Q4

149 acres within Coal 

Creek; Units 301, 302, 

303, 306, 309, 312, 315, 

321, 329; Road Q1, Q2 

& Q3

0 acres; Units 312 & 315 

are Helicopter
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-79

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Significant Issue Indicator Alternative 1

(No-Action)

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

1 Hydrologic 

Conditions

(continued)

Riparian Reserve Harvest by Logging System (Actual anticipated riparian harvest; does not include Primary Shade Zone or skips)

Ground Based (Acres) N/A 407 315 245

Skyline (Acres) N/A 317 258 137

Helicopter (Acres) N/A 0 122 255

Total Riparian Reserve Harvest Acres N/A 724 695 637

Riparian Reserve Harvest Acres –

Coal Creek Only N/A 379 347 290

2 Water 

Quality

(FEIS Chapter III, 

Section D, 2)

Water Temperature Increase No Change

 All road crossings are located on first and second order streams. These channels are 

only a few feet wide and have small discharges.

 Sun exposure would be 100% blocked as water flows through the culvert. Exposure 

upstream and downstream of the culvert would occur over a few linear feet and would 

be reduced by adjacent forest canopy; this limited exposure is not enough to cause a 

measureable change in water temperature. 

 The largest watershed area above these crossings totals approximately 60 acres. 

Others are 30 acres or less. This presents very little drainage area to collect surface 

water to these crossings. Stream discharge from such small drainage basins is low, 

especially during the summer when ground water levels are lowest.

 Skyline corridors would remove minor amounts of canopy in the Primary Shade Zone 

where the corridor crosses perennial streams. Skyline corridors that cross Riparian 

Reserves are required to be 12 feet or less in width, and no less than 150’ apart, and 

be utilized with full log suspension. Surrounding trees and understory would make 

shade loss resulting from these gaps in the canopy negligible. 

Sediment Production/Increase in Turbidity No Change

 Thinning would leave sufficient forest canopy to prevent large increases in storm 

runoff or snowmelt.

 Minimally disturbed soils and understory vegetation would recover and anchor surface 

soils.

 Thinning activities would occur in areas where streams and runoff amounts are both 

small. Units located along Coal Creek that are exceptions to these conditions have 

site specific mitigating measures designed to prevent or capture activity generated 

sediment.

 No cut buffers in the stream bank protection zone and Primary Shade Zone (50-85 ft.) 

would act as capture and retention areas between stream courses and activitygenerated, localized sediment sources.

 Wet weather conditions would preclude hauling as per design criteria; road-generated 

sediment during wet conditions is the primary source of logging activity-generated 

sediment. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-80

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Significant Issues Indicator Alternative 1

(No-Action)

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

3 Cumulative

Watershed 

Effects

(FEIS Chapter III, 

Section D, 3)

Overall Risk of Adverse Cumulative Effects Current Risk 

Rating (2009)

Headwaters SF Coquille Moderate The Action Alternatives would present no measureable increase in risk for adverse 

cumulative watershed effects in the Headwaters SF Coquille, Mill Creek, Myrtle Creek or 

Lower Rock Creek subwatersheds. This is due to: 

 The minor involvement of these subwatersheds in the Action Alternatives.

 The location of units/roads at or near ridges and watershed divides where 

effects would be minimal.

Mill Creek High

Myrtle Creek High

Lower Rock Creek High

Coal Creek

Risk of adverse 

cumulative 

watershed effects in 

the Coal Creek 

subwatershed is 

currently High since 

the main channel is 

already in a 

degraded condition. 

The addition of the proposed harvest acreage and road construction under the Action 

Alternatives within this degraded subwatershed may contribute to additional risk of adverse 

effects; however, limited stand management could be conducted without increasing risk 

because the impacts would be limited to the site scale. The following conditions would 

allow containment of impacts to the local or unit level (site-scale): 

 NFS lands contain hydrologically mature stands with large in-stream and upland 

wood present; this provides vegetative buffers that would counter increased runoff or 

sediment transport.

 NFS lands are located mainly in the uplands where streams are small and 

discharges are low; risk of hydrologic impact from this portion of watershed is low.

 The majority of the proposed units are located thousands of feet away from the main 

channel.

 Proposed thinning is designed to enhance the growth and vigor of the stand by 

removing intermediate and suppressed trees.

 Stream buffers and equipment limitations are designed to eliminate off-site impacts.

Some proposed units are located in areas that have a greater potential for hydrologic 

impacts (see above). Their combined acreage is relatively small; however these units 

would present more risk of measurable impact than the rest of the project. 

4 Soils, Geology 

& Site 

Productivity

(FEIS Chapter III, 

Section D, 4)

Risk of Slope Failure

Miles of New Classified and Temporary Road 

that Crosses Concern Areas

N/A 4.74 0.32 0.0

Soil Productivity

Acres Taken Out of Productivity (Range 

Based on Est. Road Widths) N/A 78 - 104 63 - 84 56 - 74

Long-Term Opportunity For Erosion: Miles of 

System Road (New Construct/Reconstruct) N/A 53.4 45.1 38.3

Detrimental Disturbance (Acres)

Ground-based harvest system (est. 15%) N/A 318 268 216

Skyline harvest system (est. 5%) N/A 60 47 23

Aerial harvest system (est. 2%) N/A 0 10 23

Helicopter Landings N/A 0 18 22

Pile & Burn (est. 2%) N/A 39 30 33

Totals N/A 417 373 317
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-81

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Significant Issues Indicator Alternative 1

(No-Action)

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

5 Economics

(FEIS Chapter III, 

Section D, 5)

Volume by Logging System (MBF)

Ground Based 0 33,933 28,718 23,170

Skyline 0 19,197 15,102 7,350

Helicopter 0 0 8,208 18,655

Total Yarding Costs (Dollars) 0 $11,925,200 $13,622,788 $15,377,775

Total Roading Costs (Dollars) $62,000 $4,268,291 $3,508,096 $1,616,479

Present Net Value (Dollars) $-62,000 $322,501 $-957,615 $-1,707,714

Benefit Cost Ratio N/A 1.02 0.94 0.90

Table II-24. Comparison of Alternatives - Other Issues

Other Issues Indicator Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

1 Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy

(FEIS Chapter III, Section 

E, 1)

Response to NWFP S&Gs for 

Riparian Reserves (TM-1) N/A

Purpose and Need is based on 

employment of silvicultural 

practices designed to control 

stocking, and acquire desired 

vegetation characteristics. 

Outside of the Primary Shade 

Zone, treatments would

expedite large tree 

development while maintaining 

50% canopy cover to restore 

and maintain ACS Objectives 

and expedite development of 

late seral conditions that were 

historically present in this area, 

and serve as recruitment 

sources for large wood.

Alternative 3 would treat 

Riparian Reserves in a similar 

manner as Alternative 2, on 

slightly less acres.

Alternative 4 would treat the 

fewest acres of Riparian 

Reserves. Stocking control 

would occur and desired 

vegetation characteristics 

would improve but not within 

untreated areas.

Response to NWFP S&Gs for 

Riparian Reserves (RF 2-7) N/A

Alternative 2 includes some 

new proposed roads within 

Riparian Reserve. Existing 

roads, skid roads and 

landings within Riparian 

Reserves may also be 

utilized if they would not 

deliver sediment to streams. 

Extensive Project Design 

Criteria would minimize 

disruption of hydrologic flow 

paths. This alternative has 

the most new road 

construction and has the 

greatest risk, based on 

location of certain roads.

Alternative 3 includes some 

new proposed roads within 

Riparian Reserve. Existing 

roads, skid roads and

landings within Riparian 

Reserves may also be utilized 

if they would not deliver 

sediment to streams. 

Extensive Project Design 

Criteria would minimize 

disruption of hydrologic flow 

paths. This alternative has 

less new road construction 

and has reduced risk, based 

on location of proposed 

roads.

Alternative 4 does not include 

new proposed roads within 

Riparian Reserve. Existing 

roads, skid roads and 

landings within Riparian 

Reserves may be utilized if 

they would not deliver 

sediment to streams. 

Extensive Project Design 

Criteria would minimize 

disruption of hydrologic flow 

paths. This alternative has 

the least risk, based on its 

design.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-82

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other Issues Indicator Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

1 Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy

(Continued)

Consistency with Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy Objectives N/A

All Action Alternatives would be consistent with the 9 Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

Objectives and would not prevent attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy at the site, 

watershed or landscape scales.

Response to Key Watershed S&G 

(NWFP B-19) South Fork Coquille 5th

Field

No Change

Alternative 2 would result no 

net increase in miles of 

roads within Key Watershed 

in compliance with this S&G 

due to the “road bank” of 

decommissioned road miles.

Alternative 3 has fewer new 

roads and would result in no 

net increase in the miles of 

roads within Key Watershed 

due to the “road bank” of 

decommissioned road miles.

Alternative 4 has no new 

roads and would result no 

change in the miles of roads 

within Key Watershed.

2 Fire/Fuels

(FEIS Chapter III, Section 

E, 2)

Change in Fuel Loading and Fire 

Hazard No Change

All Action Alternatives would generate a short-term increase in fuels loading and the 

associated fire hazard within the units as created from activity-generated slash for 

approximately 5 years from date of harvest. Fuels treatment methods would include hand 

piling fuels concentrations, yarding of tops, and piling and burning landing slash. The longterm effect would be a return to natural conditions and improvement of defensible space 

along system roads.

3 Air Quality

(FEIS Chapter III, Section 

E, 3)

Smoke Production N/A

The Action Alternatives could generate as much as 7.3 tons of PM, 5.4 tons of PM10, and 

4.6 tons of PM2.5 per year, well below the thresholds defined in the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. 

Impact on Coos Bay Area or 

Kalmiopsis Wilderness (Class 1 

Airshed)

N/A

Burning would not take place within 38 miles of the Coos Bay area or within 30 miles of the 

Kalmiopsis Wilderness (Class I Area). Burning would not take place during the visibility 

protection period of July 1 to September 15. There are no expected adverse effects to air 

quality in either the Coos Bay area or Class I Area.

4 Botanical 

Resources

(FEIS Chapter III, Section 

E,4)

Effects to Threatened or Endangered 

Species N/A There are no populations, nor is there any habitat for any federally listed Threatened or 

Endangered plant or fungi species within the Project Area. (No Effect) 

Effects on FS Sensitive Species: 

Oregon Bensonia No Change

For all Action Alternatives, avoidance of the bensonia populations is proposed so that direct 

and indirect effects are minimized to insignificant. (May impact individuals or habitat, but 

will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing, or cause a loss of viability to the

population or species)

Effects on FS Sensitive Fungi No Change

Based on existing data and the regional Interagency Special Status and Sensitive Species 

Program (ISSSSP), Sensitive fungi may be present within the Project Areas but according 

to protocol, surveys were deemed impractical. (May impact individuals or habitat of 

Sensitive fungi, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing, or cause a 

loss of viability to any population or species within its range)

5 Invasive Plants

(FEIS Chapter III, Section 

E, 5)

Potential for Spread No Change

Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures are developed to avoid or mitigate the 

introduction and/or spread of invasive species; effects would be minimized to insignificant

for all Action Alternatives.

6 Port-OrfordCedar Root Disease

(FEIS Chapter III, Section 

E, 6

Potential for Spread of 

Phytophthora lateralis No Change

In areas proposed for timber harvest and road building, management practices and 

mitigation measures would be required for all Action Alternatives as described in the POC 

Risk Key assessment (FEIS Appendix B2, Port-Orford-cedar Report), consistent with the

2004 SEIS analysis and Forest Plan Amendment.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-83

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other Issues Indicator Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

7 Threatened 

Terrestrial Wildlife 

Species and Critical 

Habitat

(FEIS Chapter III, Section 

E, 7)

Effects to Late-successional or OldGrowth Forest or Spotted Owl 

Nesting, Roosting, Foraging Habitat 

(NRF)

No change

There is an estimated 3,300 acres of proposed treatment acres that are best represented 

by the mature (21-32” dbh) forest habitat type, however these “mature” stands do not 

contain large diameter trees, high amounts of canopy cover, and decadence components 

such as broken-topped live trees, mistletoe, cavities, large snags, and fallen trees, and are 

not considered late-successional forest. Further, based on historical records and stand 

examination, these stands are currently less than 80 years old. Any stand with a potential 

suitable habitat (remnant late-successional tree) component would be further assessed and 

if a late successional component is confirmed, that portion of the stand (or the entire stand) 

would be excluded from treatments.

All Action Alternatives would not affect (or reduce) the current condition regarding latesuccessional or old-growth forest, in conformance with Standard and Guideline at 

Northwest Forest Plan C-44.

A primary spotted owl recovery goal of the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011) is to 

conserve older stands that are either occupied or contain high-value spotted owl habitat. 

Stands meeting the definition for Recovery Action 32, as well as suitable Nesting, Roosting, 

Foraging (NRF) habitat within the Planning Area have been excluded from treatments. 

Effects to Spotted Owl or Marbled 

Murrelet Critical Habitat Unit N/A

The Revised 2012 Critical Habitat for the NSO designation is the current statutory 

designation and countermands all other previous designations. There is no Northern 

Spotted Owl Critical Habitat designated within the Eden Ridge Planning/Analysis Area. 

The Planning Area is located outside any murrelet Critical Habitat Unit (CHU). The 

proposed haul route travels through marbled murrelet CHU (within the Analysis Area); 

however, hauling is not expected to have any disturbance impacts beyond those already 

occurring from public use of the roads. There would be no effects to murrelet critical 

habitat from Action Alternatives because there is no critical habitat designated within 

Project Areas; there would be no effects to primary constituent elements of murrelet habitat.

Effects to Spotted Owl Dispersal 

Habitat No Change

The Action Alternatives would commercially treat (variable density thinning) and maintain 

up to 3,314 acres of spotted owl dispersal habitat and non-commercially treat up to 363 

acres. The resultant canopy closure (40-50%) and residual tree structure (the larger tree 

component) would maintain the dispersal function of the treated stands. The reduced 

structural complexity, e.g., loss of some snags and vertical canopy diversity, is a 

degradation of habitat quality for late-successional associated species, but the effect from 

this degree of change is likely minimal and dispersal habitat is likely to be maintained. 

Over the long term, thinning under the Action Alternative should allow the remaining trees 

to reach a larger diameter and potentially develop larger branches. No snags or down 

woody material are proposed for removal during silvicultural treatments. There is potential 

for some existing snags to be felled (but not removed) as human safety hazards. 

Because of potential for disturbance to spotted owls, the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project 

is considered “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” for northern spotted owl (NLAA).
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-84

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other Issues Indicator Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

7 Threatened 

Terrestrial Wildlife 

Species and Critical 

Habitat

(Continued)

Effects to Marbled Murrelet No Change

Marbled murrelet habitat would not be removed or degraded by the proposed activities 

under all Action Alternatives. Project Design Criteria would assure that no habitat would be 

removed. Because of the potential for disturbance to nesting marbled murrelets from 

implementation activities to unknown sites, a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” 

determination is made for the marbled murrelet (NLAA).

8 Northwest Forest 

Plan Terrestrial 

Wildlife Species

(FEIS Chapter III, Section 

E, 8)

Survey and Manage No Change

The Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project meets 2006 Pechman Exemption a. because it 

entails no regeneration harvest and entails thinning only in stands less than 80 years old 

(USDI and USDA 2011) and do not require Survey and Manage surveys. The Eden Ridge 

Timber Sales Project applies the Survey and Manage species list in the 2001 ROD.

There are 46 known Del Norte Salamander locations within the proposed units and one 

within a proposed non-commercial unit. All historical locations would be identified and 

given a protection buffer. All Action Alternatives are considered M –may affect some 

individuals or some habitat but effect is minimal.

All Action Alternatives are considered M –may affect some individuals or some habitat but 

effect is minimal for Oregon red tree vole due to effects to potential red tree vole habitat. 

This project will have NI – No Impact to great gray owl because suitable nesting/foraging 

habitat does not occur within or near the Project or Planning Areas.

Other Northwest Forest Plan Species No Change

The 2001 ROD which amended the Northwest Forest Plan contains management 

recommendations for certain cavity nesting birds, Canada lynx, and some bat roost sites. 

The ROD requires additional protection for caves, mines, and abandoned wooden bridges 

and buildings that are used as roost sites by bats (which includes Townsend’s big-eared 

bat, a regionally Sensitive species). The project does not affect caves, mines, wooden 

bridges, or buildings, however a few large snags may be felled with this project (i.e., hazard 

trees). The remaining species were not considered because the Analysis Area is outside of 

their known ranges. Those species are: Canada lynx, white-headed woodpecker, blackbacked woodpecker, flammulated owl, and pygmy nuthatch.

9 Forest Service 

Sensitive Terrestrial 

Wildlife Species & 

Habitats

(FEIS Chapter III, Section 

E, 9)

Effects to Sensitive Species within 

Range of Analysis Area No Change

All Action Alternatives would have “No Impact” for bald eagle, harlequin duck, Lewis’ 

woodpecker, Townsend’s big-eared bat, northwestern pond turtle, foothill yellow-legged 

frog, mardon skipper, and coronis fritillary because although within the species range, 

suitable habitat does not exist or species would not be affected by proposed actions.

Effects to Sensitive Species from 

Project Actions No Change

All Action Alternatives “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of 

viability on the planning area (Siskiyou NF), nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of 

species viability range wide” for the American peregrine falcon due to the potential for 

disturbance to individuals and potential limited adverse effects to prey species from 

treatments; for Pacific fisher because it could result in a reduction of denning, resting and 

foraging habitat; for fringed myotis because there may be some impacts to existing snags 

or trees with cavities; and for Johnson’s hairstreak due to the potential removal of trees with

mistletoe.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-85

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other Issues Indicator Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

10 Management 

Indicator Species

(FEIS Chapter III, Section 

E, 10)

Effect to MIS Species & Habitats: 1989 

Forest Plan (pages IV-10 and 11) No Change

MIS and habitats include bald eagle (habitat along major rivers), osprey (habitat along large 

rivers), spotted owl (late-successional forest), pileated woodpecker and American marten 

(mature/interior forest), black-tailed deer and Roosevelt elk (early successional forest 

stages, and woodpeckers/cavity nesters (wildlife trees [snags]). Bald eagle is analyzed as 

Sensitive species and spotted owl is analyzed as Threatened species. 

Projects consistent with the NWFP are expected to maintain viability of mature forest and 

other habitats associated with species such as those identified as MIS. The Forest has 

developed the Siskiyou National Forest MIS Forest-Wide Environmental Baseline and 

Species Account (USDA Forest Service, 2012). Please refer to this document for a more 

exhaustive review of habitat use and ecology, distribution of the species, Forest-level 

habitat evaluations, and viability assessments.

For the Action Alternatives, it is unlikely that potential nest trees would be removed or 

impacted. Therefore, no impact to osprey is anticipated.

This project is expected to have minimal impacts to pileated woodpecker and the 

woodpecker group (acorn, black-backed, downy, hairy, Lewis’, and white-headed 

woodpeckers, as well as northern flickers and red-breasted sapsucker). There is the 

potential that an occasional existing snag or tree with cavities may be impacted. 

Remnant trees, snags and down wood suitable for denning & resting would be retained, 

however some may be felled and retained. The project may affect some individuals or 

some habitat but effect is minimal for American marten.

The Action Alternatives may affect some individuals or some habitat but effect is minimal 

for blacktail deer and Roosevelt elk because of loss of thermal cover and adverse effects 

due to potential increased harassment from new and temporary roads. The increase in 

available forage would provide a beneficial effect.

11 Neo-tropical 

Migratory Birds

(FEIS Chapter III, Section 

E, 11)

Effects to neo-tropical migratory 

birds/land bird focal species identified 

by Partners in Flight (PIF): 

Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in 

Coniferous Forest of Western Oregon 

and Washington

No Change

Effects to these species from the Action Alternatives are variable depending on the habitat 

associations of the individual species. Impacts to habitat for some species may occur from 

commercial thinning of mature and younger forests, hazard tree felling, landing 

clearing/temporary road construction. However, due to the limited amount of area affected 

by these actiions, relative to the availability of habitats within the watersheds and forest, 

effects to neo-tropical migratory birds is expected to be minimal. 

12 Aquatic Species & 

Habitats

(FEIS Chapter III, Section 

E, 12)

Effects to OC Coho and/or Critical 

Habitat (Essential Fish Habitat)

No Change

The indirect and cumulative effects from the Action Alternatives would result in an overall 

non-measureable adverse sediment effect to Oregon Coast (OC) coho salmon and its 

Critical Habitat and OC steelhead on the Powers Ranger District. Thus, a “May Affect, Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect” determination is rendered for OC coho salmon, “No Effect” 

determination to OC coho salmon critical habitat, “Will Not Adversely Affect Essential Fish 

Habitat” for coho salmon or Chinook salmon and “May Impact Individuals or Habitat, But 

Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to 

the Population or Species” for OC steelhead trout due to the non-measureable sediment 

delivery of the hauling and road maintenance activities.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-86

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other Issues Indicator Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

12 Aquatic Species & 

Habitats

(Continued)

Effects to Other Sensitive Aquatic 

Species No Change

The Action Alternative would have a No Impact to Southern DPS green sturgeon, Southern 

DPS Pacific eulachon (or their Critical Habitat), SONCC Chinook salmon, PC chum salmon, 

western ridged mussel, highcap lanx, scale lanx, robust walker, Pacific walker, Haddock’s 

Rhyacophilan caddisfly, or A caddisfly (Namamyia plutonis) because these species are not 

known to occur or have suitable habitat within proximity to any of the proposed activities.

Effects on Recruitment of Large 

Woody Material

(FEIS Chapter III, Section D, 1)

No Change

Under all Action Alternatives, Riparian Reserve thinning would increase tree growth and 

lessen the time needed to establish future large wood delivery. Thinning would result in a 

long-term beneficial effect to aquatic habitats, by promoting the growth of large trees that 

would provide stream shade and large wood that would create complex in-stream habitats. 

In the short-term, these treatments would remove smaller trees within Riparian Reserves; 

however, mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the potential effect on 

short-term LWM recruitment, and eliminate the risk of adverse effect to the existing stream 

temperature regime.

13 Thinning Shock & 

Windthrow

(FEIS Chapter III, Section 

E, 13)

Thinning Shock & Windthrow 

Potential N/A

Under all Action Alternatives, treatments include an overriding objective of leaving the 

larger residual stems within the entire stand; these trees would most likely be the healthiest 

and most wind-firm. Thinning shock and windthrow are not expected to be a substantial 

concern due to consideration for feathering and special treatments along the edges of 

stands, leaving all hardwoods where possible, and thinning to a higher relative density as 

necessary to allow residual trees to become more wind firm.

14 Potential 

Wilderness and Other 

Undeveloped Areas

(FEIS Chapter III, Section 

E, 14)

Effects to Potential Wilderness or 

Other Undeveloped Areas N/A

There are no lands designated as Wilderness or lands designated or inventoried as 

Roadless within or adjacent to the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Planning Area. Analysis 

determined that there would be no areas of 5,000 acres or greater without roads within the

6,515 acres, and could not be effectively managed as a unit of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. Areas that contained less than 5,000 acres were determined to not 

meet one or more of the criteria stated above (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 71). 

Analysis for other undeveloped areas determined there were no areas located of any 

reasonable size for any one individual area, non-contiguous to any other area. Existing 

roads, grades or skid trails were found to bisect even the larger areas. Many of the old 

railroad grades have evolved or have been turned into vehicle access roads. Within the 

entire Planning Area, only a few areas (200 contiguous acres or less) were found to have 

not been affected by historical clear-cut railroad logging; only 25 acres were determined to 

currently be at or near to late seral or late-successional habitat conditions. Almost all of the 

Planning Area was clear-cut during the 1920s through 1940s for it large old-growth timber, 

and railroad logging activities are still readily apparent today Since there are no Potential 

Wilderness Areas or undeveloped areas (of any substantial size), there is no cause/effect 

relationship that can occur regarding this issue. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-87

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other Issues Indicator Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

15 Heritage

(FEIS Chapter III, Section 

E, 15)

Effects to Historic Properties No Change

The Action Alternatives all propose to convert some of the railroad grades to classified 

roads, an adverse effect to an eligible historic property. Alternative 2 would have the 

greatest effect, converting 4.4 miles of railroad grade; Alternative 3 has the next 

greatest effect converting 3 miles, and Alternative 4 converts one mile of railroad 

grade. Mitigation measures specific to conversion of the contributing railroad grades 

roads include:

 Limiting road-building impacts to a single-lane road with designated turnouts;

 Avoiding railroad construction features such as fill, cut and borrows;

 Archaeological monitoring of road-construction activities and documentation of 

any additional findings; and

 Development of products interpreting the history of the Smith-Powers Logging 

Railroad at Eden Ridge including a Passport in Time (PIT) volunteer 

opportunity, a popular article, and a traveling exhibit.

In addition, Mitigation Measures specific to sites include:

 Avoiding contributing features such as skid trails, day-use activity areas and 

camps; and

 Limiting crossings of linear features such as skid trails.

All mitigation measures for project impacts to contributing features have been 

developed in consultation with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. A 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) has been developed between the Forest and 

SHPO describing the mitigation provisions. 

The Forest has consulted with SHPO under the R6 PA Stipulation III (B)6: Historic 

Properties Adversely Affected which requires case-by-case review of the project under 

the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.5). The Forest has developed 

measures with SHPO to mitigate the adverse effects of the project on the Smith-Powers 

Logging Railroad at Eden Ridge. These measures have been incorporated into a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with SHPO that documents these measures. 

A Notification of Adverse Effect has been submitted to the Advisory Council of Historic 

Preservation (ACHP) with no response received. The Forest consulted with the Coquille 

Indian Tribe to solicit their concerns regarding the Planning Area with no response 

received.

16 Recreation/Human 

Safety

(FEIS Chapter III, Section 

E, 16)

Effects to Human Safety No Change

All Action Alternatives may affect recreationists during the short-term implementation phase 

from temporary road closures (for safety reasons), noise (chain saws, heavy equipment, 

and/or helicopters), smoke, and increased vehicle traffic. These effects would be mitigated 

and managed, and would not result in any long-term adverse effects.

Effects From Increased OHV Use No Change

OHV use has traditionally been limited to specific areas due to the nature of favorable 

conditions. New roads would not have the potential to develop a “loop system” as the 

roads would be constructed to access landing locations. These roads would be closed and 

rehabilitated after use (Maintenance Level 1 status); this status would not allow for OHV 

access or use. Mitigation measures would include: construction of water bars, scarification, 

scattering of slash and debris within disturbed areas, seeding and barricading/closing the 

road entrance with native materials.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-88

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other Issues Indicator Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

16 Recreation/Human 

Safety

(Continued)

Attainment of Visual Quality 

Objectives No Change

The primary effect to recreationists in the long-term after project activities would be a slight 

change in the visual character along many roads. Currently, many of these areas are 

bordered by dense tree stands and downed woody material that tend to enclose or envelop 

the road. Under the Action Alternatives, these stands would be opened up through cutting 

and removal of generally small diameter trees resulting in a more open forest. It is 

anticipated that many would welcome a more open forest with greater vistas and the 

opportunity to see more of what they are surrounded by. Others may prefer the more 

closed feeling of dense stands associated with the current condition. 

All vegetative treatments and connected actions would be in compliance with Forest 

Plan Visual Quality Objectives (1989 SNF LRMP) for the allocation affected

(Modification and Maximum Modification). Density management would not reduce 

canopy cover to less than 50%. Any new roads would be minimal width and managed as 

Maintenance Level 1 (closed to motorized use). Activities of vegetative and landform 

alternation would be designed to borrow from naturally established form, line, color, and 

texture, and at such a scale that its visual characteristics are those of natural occurrence 

within the surrounding character type. Resulting management activities may visually 

dominate the immediate characteristic landscape, yet would borrow from existing and 

adjacent densely stocked forest, occasional openings and existing land patterns.

17 Climate Change

(FEIS Chapter III, 

Section D, 3)

(FEIS Chapter III, Section 

E, 17)

Effect on Climate Change from 

Project N/A

All Action alternatives were identified to have minor cause-effect relationships to 

greenhouse gas emissions or the carbon cycle, and were determined to be of such a minor 

scale at the global or even regional scale, that the effects would be meaningless to a 

reasoned choice among alternatives. 

Effect on Project from Climate 

Change N/A

No specific forest management recommendations have been published regarding global 

climate change and the impacts climate change may have on the desired outcomes of, and 

the potential impacts from, this project. 

********************************************************************************************************************************
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page II-89

Final Environmental Impact Statement

This page is intentionally left blank
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-1

Final Environmental Impact Statement

III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

A. INTRODUCTION

This Chapter describes current conditions, (the affected environment), consequences and environmental 

effects linked with implementing the alternatives considered and analyzed in detail. This section includes 

an introduction to the scales and definitions of effects, effects analysis, and their assumptions. 

Cumulative effects analysis is further explained. Section B highlights the changes between the Draft EIS 

(DEIS) and the Final EIS (FEIS). Section C includes a discussion on the consequences regarding 

attainment of the Purpose and Need. Section D discusses and is organized by the Significant Issues and 

Section E discusses and is organized by the Other Issues identified in Chapter I. Also included are 

discussions on Other Effects, Laws, Regulations and Executive Orders (Section F).

The following sections portray affected environments and outcomes for each alternative in terms of

predicted physical, biological, economic, and social direct, indirect and cumulative effects on the 

environment. Within each subsection, the affected environment (Background) is described first, followed 

by the effects of the No-Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the 

Action Alternatives. The terms Project Area and analysis areas are used throughout this chapter. The 

following defines each term: 

The terms Project Area(s), or treatment area(s), are used interchangeably to describe where action 

would occur, such as units where forest thinning is proposed and where road use, road construction 

and/or road improvements are proposed or where Similar and/or Related Actions would occur.

Analysis areas vary by resource or issue and include those areas that could potentially be affected by 

the alternatives. In some cases the analysis area is confined to the Project Area(s) and in others, the 

analysis area extends to the Planning Area, affected watersheds, or beyond.

The term Planning Area was introduced in Chapter I and is used to describe the overall area of 

consideration that was reviewed for the development of treatment opportunities. Project Areas vary by 

Action Alternative and are a portion of the larger Planning Area (where actions are proposed).

Standards and Guidelines for all ground disturbing activities are required by the Forest Plan. Additional 

site-specific design elements (Project Design Criteria) and Mitigation Measures developed for Eden 

Ridge Timber Sales are described in Chapter II. The following assessment of effects assumes the 

application of these elements and measures. It provides the decision maker with information needed to 

compare alternatives and select an appropriate course of action.

It should be noted the depiction of effects varies, based on the context in which they were analyzed. 

Therefore, if pertinent, environmental consequences are presented in context of multiple scales, over 

various timeframes. In presenting consequence discussions, the following terms are used to describe 

relevant spatial and temporal effects:

Short-term effects address environmental, social or economic consequences, which could occur 

during operations, and/or that arise within two-years post operations.

Long-term effects address environmental, social or economic consequences, which are delayed, 

periodic, and/or arise two-years after operations are completed.

Direct effects refer to consequences caused by the activities themselves, occurring concurrently and 

in the same location.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-2

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Indirect effects include consequences, occurring later in time or are farther removed in distance 

from the point of contact, but are still reasonably foreseeable.

Cumulative effects address incremental environmental consequences resultant of multiple, past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of land ownership, or which agency, 

or person initiated the action (40 CFR 1508.7).

This analysis of environmental effects for each alternative is based on the recognition of Federal laws, 

National policies, and compliance with the 1989 Siskiyou National Forest LRMP, as amended by the 

Northwest Forest Plan, as well as other plan amendments (Chapter I). A Forest Service Interdisciplinary 

Team has conducted analyses and has disclosed environmental consequences for all alternatives 

considered in detail.

1. CONSIDERATION OF PAST, ONGOING, & REASONABLY FORESEEABLE 

ACTIONS IN EFFECTS ANALYSIS

The current condition of the lands affected by the Proposed Action is the result from a multitude of 

natural processes and human actions that have taken place over many decades. Cumulative effects 

analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by adding up all prior actions on an 

action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking this approach. First, a catalog and 

analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and costly to obtain at the scale of the entire 

affected fifth-field watersheds (or larger). Current conditions have been impacted by many actions over 

the last century (and beyond), and trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have residual 

impacts would be nearly impossible. Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis 

would not be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the Proposed Action or alternatives. In fact, 

focusing on individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, because there is 

limited information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions, and one cannot reasonably 

identify each action over the last century that has contributed to current conditions. By looking at current 

conditions, the residual effects of past human actions and natural events can be recognized, regardless of 

which particular action or event contributed those effects. 

Cumulative effects are analyzed in accordance with 40 CFR 1508.7 and relevant guidance issued by the 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Cumulative effects analysis is also consistent with Forest 

Service NEPA Regulations (36 CFR 220.4, July 24, 2008). As the CEQ, in guidance issued on June 24, 

2005, points out, the “environmental analysis required under NEPA is forward-looking,” and review of 

past 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 of past 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 of past 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 of 

past actions.” The importance of “past actions” is to set the context for understanding the incremental 

effects of the proposed action. This context is determined by combining the current conditions with 

available information on the expected effects of other present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

Watershed Analysis, a component of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy developed under the Northwest 

Forest Plan and amended into the Siskiyou National Forest LRMP, is a useful analysis for gaining an 

understanding of ecological processes and how those processes are functioning within a given watershed.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-3

Final Environmental Impact Statement

A Watershed Analysis characterizes the human, aquatic, riparian and terrestrial features, conditions, 

processes, and interactions within a watershed including the effects of past and ongoing actions. 

Knowledge gained through Watershed Analysis enhances the agency’s ability to estimate direct, indirect, 

and cumulative effects of management activities (Federal Agency Guide to Watershed Analysis p. 1). 

The analysis of the effects of other present and reasonably foreseeable actions relevant to the effects of 

the Proposed Action is necessary. How each resource analysis uses information concerning other 

ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities is, however, dependent on the geographic scale of concern, 

spatial and temporal boundaries, and the attributes considered for each resource analysis. 

B. CHANGES BETWEEN DRAFT AND FINAL

Minor edits were completed throughout this Chapter to provide clarification of information previously 

presented. Many of these edits were based on comments received during the Comment Period for the 

Draft EIS (DEIS). 

The Attainment of Purpose and Need section has been clarified and expanded to include specific 

consequences regarding need for treatments within Riparian Reserves (Section C).

As noted in Chapter II, changes were made to the Riparian Reserve Project Design Criteria (PDCs) 

(Chapter II, Section D, 3) which affected analysis and discussion. Notably, the width for the Primary 

Shade Zone was increased, based on utilization of the 2011 Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL 

Implementation Strategies. Reference is now made to new National Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

for Water Quality Management (April 2012). 

Edits were made in the hydrology sections (Hydrologic Conditions, Water Quality, and Cumulative 

Watershed Effects, Sections D, 1, 2 and 3) for improved organization and clarity.

In Soils, Geology, and Site Productivity (Section D 4), minor corrections were made to road miles 

affecting site productivity and to acres of detrimental soil conditions affected by helicopter landings, 

piling and burning, by alternative.

Discussion regarding SF Coquille Key Watershed and compliance with the Standard and Guideline for no 

net increase in miles of road at the fifth-field level (Section E, 1) has been clarified and expanded (based 

on public and internal comment). Compliance with Standards and Guidelines for MA 11 (Riparian) from 

the 1989 LRMP is now included.

The discussion on Port-Orford-cedar (POC) and Phytophthora lateralis (PL) root disease (Section E, 6) 

has been expanded, based on a revised Port-Orford-cedar Report and Risk Key (FEIS Appendix B2).

Botanical Resources (Section E, 4) and Northwest Forest Plan Terrestrial Wildlife Species, (Section E, 8) 

were updated regarding the latest court ruling on Survey and Manage species (refer to Pechman 

Exemptions).

The Threatened Terrestrial Wildlife section was updated to reflect latest information regarding northern 

spotted owls and the new 2012 Fish and Wildlife Critical Habitat Units (Section E, 7). Minor edits 

occurred throughout other wildlife sections (Section E, 8, 9 & 10).

The consequences to Aquatic Species and Habitats (Section E, 12) were updated to reflect the change in 

width for the Primary Shade Zone, based on utilization of the 2011 Northwest Forest Plan Temperature 

TMDL Implementation Strategies. The results of consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service are

now disclosed.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-4

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Section E, 14, regarding Potential Wilderness and Other Undeveloped Areas was expanded for 

organizational clarity and conformance with Regional direction.

Heritage resources (Section E, 15) was revised; The Forest has consulted with State Historic Preservation

Office under the R6 PA Stipulation III (B)6: Historic Properties Adversely Affected, which requires caseby-case review of the project under the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.5). The Forest 

has developed measures with SHPO to mitigate the adverse effects of the project on the Smith-Powers 

Logging Railroad at Eden Ridge. 

C. ATTAINMENT OF PURPOSE AND NEED

This Section provides a discussion of the consequences for the alternatives considered in detail regarding 

attainment of the Purpose and Need, as stated in FEIS Chapter I. Consequences regarding the Significant 

and Other Issues (as presented in FEIS Chapter I) are discussed in detail in the next Sections of this 

Chapter. 

The overall Purpose of this project is to implement direction from the 1989 Land and Resource 

Management Plan for the Siskiyou National Forest, as amended. The Proposed Action and the Action 

Alternatives (described in detail in FEIS Chapter II) are designed to attain the Desired Conditions, the 

Purpose and Need, and the associated Project Design Objectives (Chapter I). The No-Action Alternative

is not designed to attain the Desired Conditions, Purpose and Need, or associated Objectives.

1. ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO-ACTION

The No-Action Alternative is required by Council of Environmental Quality regulations (4O CFR 

1502.14(d)). The No-Action Alternative forms the basis for a comparison between meeting the project 

needs and not meeting the project needs. This alternative provides benchmark information for 

understanding changes associated with the Proposed Action and expected environmental responses as a 

result of past management actions. 

Alternative 1 - No-Action would not authorize variable density management and other connected actions 

to obtain the Purpose and Need for the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project. The specific Desired 

Conditions (Chapter I) would not be achieved. This alternative would not implement programmatic 

Forest Plan direction under the 1989 LRMP (as amended).

The No-Action alternative should not be confused with a baseline. Whereas a baseline is essentially a 

description of the affected environment at a fixed point in time, the No-Action Alternative for this 

analysis assumes that other things would happen to the affected environment, particularly in a dynamic, 

changing forest ecosystem over time. How this ecosystem could change over time without the proposed 

management actions is discussed more fully (below) in those sections of this FEIS that describe potential 

consequences based on the identified issues under No-Action.

a. Forest Vigor and Resiliency and Contribution of Commercial Timber to PSQ

Within the Matrix, if no action is taken, tree growth rates would continue to decline and natural processes 

that affect tree vigor and changes in stand structure would continue. Tree mortality occurring within 

known root rot pockets would continue. Many stands are currently overstocked; site resources are being

fully utilized and tree competition is apparent. 

Without thinning, dense stands would remain at current stocking levels. Overly dense stands result in 

lower growth rates, smaller individual tree size, or both. High tree densities also increase competition 

which results in stressed conditions decreasing the overall health and vigor of a stand. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-5

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Stressed and overstocked conditions increase the occurrence and impacts of most tree pathogens. NoAction would not promote sustainable, cost-efficient timber production within Matrix, (within LRMP 

Standards and Guidelines) to support current and future economies while managing tree stocking levels 

and species composition to improve forest health and resiliency. Specifically;

 Dense stands would rely on natural succession to control stocking and develop mature forests;

 This alternative would not contribute to a predictable and sustainable level of timber commodities;

This alternative would not minimize or reduce the potential for high severity, stand replacement 

wildfires;

 Candidate stands would not be thinned to sustain or improve tree growth and contribute 

commercial timber commodities to the Forest’s assigned Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ);

 Areas infected with forest pathogens would continue to infect susceptible host trees and expand in 

size decreasing forest health (vigor and resiliency) from current conditions; and 

 Existing access and transportation systems would be retained with minimal changes to current 

conditions (e.g., from road maintenance on Forest system roads only).

Within the Matrix land allocation, tree growth rates would continue to decrease and natural processes that 

affect tree vigor and stand structure would occur. Without stocking level control, dense stands would 

remain above stocking levels conducive to sustainable stand growth and yield. Overstocked conditions 

result in lower tree growth rates, smaller diameters and more tree mortality from inter-tree competition for 

site resources, decreasing overall stand health and vigor. 

Stands would continue to grow over time and inter-tree competition would increase for limited resources, 

especially light. Trees would grow taller as they strive to obtain sufficient sunlight, but diameter growth 

would slow in response to loss of live tree crowns and growing space. Trees would become less stable as 

they become more dependent on neighboring trees for support, increasing tree height to diameter ratios. 

Small diameter down woody material would increase from stand self-thinning. Correlations between 

living tree biomass and deadwood biomass emerge when stands exceed 75% RD (Woodall 2009). 

Stressed forest stands predispose trees to adverse impacts from forest pathogens. 

Stand acres infected with laminated root disease pockets (Phellinus weirii) would expand larger with 

increasing tree mortality of Douglas-fir host trees. Untreated candidate stands infected with laminated 

root rot are predisposed to increased infection due to high percentages of Douglas-fir growing in these 

stands. Laminated root rot extensively decays roots and causes mortality by destroying the tree’s ability 

to receive water and nutrients (Hadfield et al., 1986). Laminated root rot spreads by root contact with 

uninfected host trees. In pole-sized and larger trees, the root disease can spread outwards an average rate 

of one foot per year. This pathogen can live saprophytically in infected dead roots for fifty years or more. 

Windthrow is also more common with laminated root rot than other root pathogens.

An opportunity would be lost with the No-Action Alternative to harvest susceptible trees for contribution 

to Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ) and subsequently plant less susceptible Port-Orford-cedar seedlings, for 

future PSQ contribution, that are also resistant to POC root disease, Phythophthora lateralis (PL).

The exotic pathogen PL is present on Eden Ridge and surrounding areas. Dead and dying POC seedlings 

and saplings, likely attributed to PL infection, are present in roadside drainages on surrounding private 

land. Healthy POC distribution is declining at the landscape-scale since private timber company land is 

being managed for Douglas-fir. Restoration planting of disease resistant POC seedlings in areas less 

susceptible to PL infection (i.e., low risk) would also not occur under the No-Action Alternative. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-6

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Although timber volume losses caused by laminated root rot are most conspicuous as tree mortality or 

windthrow, tree growth may also be reduced for several years before death (Bloomberg and Reynolds 

1985; Thies 1983). For commercial forest land in Oregon, reduction in wood volume is estimated to be 

40-70% on areas affected (Goheen and Hansen, 1993).

b. Meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives

The No-Action Alternative would not allow conditions to actively maintain and trend toward restoration 

of Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives. Specifically in Riparian Reserves, riparian area functions 

would not be improved, restoration of riparian conditions for aquatic habitat, associated with Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy Objectives 1, 8, and 9, lost by historical clear-cut logging, would not occur through 

active management. Vegetative, structural and species diversity, maintenance or improvement of shading 

capability of streams; improvement of large wood retention and large wood recruitment, and suitable 

amounts of snags and/or replacement habitat for dependent species would not be maintained or improved 

over current conditions.

Dense stand conditions, present in the upland portions of Riparian Reserves, would not receive density 

management treatments. Field work identified Riparian Reserve widths ranging from 175 to 350 feet 

(one or two site potential trees) overlapping into upland forest types. Subsequent stand exam data taken 

in Riparian Reserves shows tree species composition to be dominantly Douglas-fir (91%) with 3.2% 

western hemlock, 3% Port-Orford-cedar, 2.3% tanoak, 0.2% chinquapin. This tree species and species 

composition is concurrent with adjacent upland forest types on Eden Ridge. Additionally, 83% of plots 

have a relative density exceeding 50%, the threshold where competition-related tree mortality begins to 

occur. 

As with Matrix, tree growth rates would continue to decrease along with natural processes that reduce tree 

vigor. Tree mortality from self-thinning typically occurs in the intermediate and suppressed crown 

classes that would create small diameter snags that are not as desirable as larger trees that could be 

developed through thinning treatments and serve as future large snags, natural or created, and down wood 

for meeting ACS Objectives.

The No-Action Alternatives would not implement planting of resistant POC seedlings, Wide-Thin Gap 

and roadside sanitation treatments designed to meet ACS Objectives of maintaining and restoring species 

composition, structural diversity and well-distributed populations of native plants.

2. ACTION ALTERNATIVES - MATRIX

The majority (over approximately 70%) of the Eden Ridge Timber Sales proposal is on lands allocated to 

Matrix which emphasizes obtaining a full yield of timber within the capability of the land. Most 

scheduled timber harvest and other silvicultural activities are conducted in that portion of the Matrix with 

suitable forest lands (NW Forest Plan, page C-39). 

Accelerating the growth and sustainability of candidate stands through density management and forest 

health treatments to meet LRMP goals for lands allocated to Matrix is the primary objective for Eden 

Ridge Timber Sales. The primary silvicultural treatment objective for Eden Ridge is to control existing 

dense tree stocking conditions within commercial stands to develop more sustainable, full yield timber 

production on suitable lands while harvesting projected density and disease-related tree mortality in 

support of the Forest’s Probable Sale Quantity. 

A secondary objective is to treat subordinate amounts of root disease infection to improve forest health 

and sustain or increase tree growth and vigor by retaining or planting non-host tree species. 

The Needs associated with Matrix within the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project are discussed below.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-7

Final Environmental Impact Statement

a. Improvement of Overall Forest Vigor and Resiliency

As stated in Chapter I, there is a need for tree stocking level control that would reduce stand densities 

through intermediate harvest thinning treatments to sustain or increase tree growth and improve forest 

vigor and resiliency. Density management would release retained trees from inter-tree competition for 

sunlight, water and soil nutrients. Minor portions of the Planning Area infected with root diseases would 

be managed to harvest trees predisposed to pathogen infection and retain or plant resistant tree species to 

improve forest health.

Candidate stands within Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project have been altered by historical railroad 

logging, tree regeneration, planting, and fire suppression. Proposed silvicultural treatments under the 

Action Alternatives would focus on stands with the greatest potential for treatment response and 

sustainable growth while avoiding lower site class and unsuitable areas, hardwood patches, and any sites 

functioning as late-successional habitat.

Tree stocking level control was not implemented during the early stages of stand development on 

candidate stands in the Eden Ridge Planning Area. Tree growth and associated vegetative competition 

between trees has steadily increased since the stands were regenerated in the late 1930s and 1940s.

Silvicultural Treatments

In order to produce sustained full yield timber from these stands, intermediate harvest treatments using 

variable density thinning (VDT) techniques are proposed. VDT uses a combination of low and crown 

thinning to release larger dominant and co-dominant trees. Spacing between trees is variable depending 

on tree diameter distribution on the ground and thinning intensity. Individual stand characteristics would 

be heterogeneous and post-harvest tree spacing would not have a rigid, grid-like appearance. 

Intensity of density management treatments ranges from Light (150-225 trees per acre [tpa]), Medium 

(90-150 tpa) or Heavy (50-90 tpa) thinning with a target relative density (RD) of approximately 35-50%. 

Tree species composition would be maintained or enhanced by favoring a diverse mixture of conifers and 

hardwoods. 

Stocking level control to reduce stand density to a RD of 35-50% would allow stand vigor and growth to 

be maximized (Ellen 1984) by creating more growing space for retained trees and controlling inter-tree 

competition for site resources. Retained trees would ideally have 40% live crown ratios following 

treatment to respond to increased availability of site resources. A live crown ratio of 40% represents a 

generally acceptable level of individual tree vigor (Daniel et al., 1979). 

Although maximum gross volume production in coastal Douglas-fir is obtained when RD exceed 40%, 

thinning to relative densities below this optimum may produce less growth per unit area but this would be 

offset by greater growth per tree (Drew and Flewelling, 1979). Reducing treated stands to this target 35-

50% RD range would achieve the desired condition of sustainable, cost-efficient timber production while 

treating candidate stands to improve forest health and resiliency. 

Older legacy (remnant) trees, minor conifer tree species (in portions of stands uninfected with root 

disease), hardwoods, existing snags and coarse woody material would be retained where feasible to 

maintain or improve forest diversity. 

Site-specific integrated silvicultural treatments would be designed to facilitate sustainable tree growth, 

live crown development, resilience to disease and disturbance, enhance stand variability and species 

diversity. The following treatment strategies would provide a range of vegetative conditions across the 

Project Areas associated with candidate stands:
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-8

Final Environmental Impact Statement

 Thinning prescriptions would emphasize variable density thinning to achieve stand growth and 

stocking objectives. Clumping trees, leaving untreated areas (skips), wide spacing around 

desirable trees (wide-thin gaps), and creating openings to treat root disease (gaps) would be 

designed in combination with site-specific silvicultural prescriptions. Retention of minor conifer 

species, hardwood species, unique trees having desirable characteristics (e.g., large branches, etc.) 

existing snags and down wood would also be incorporated. 

 Portions of almost every candidate stand would not be thinned and harvested. Areas within the 

stands that would not be thinned and harvested would be identified on the ground during the 

implementation process. The majority of the areas not treated would be stream buffers in 

accordance with Riparian Reserve Project Design Criteria, any area of geologic instability, 

inaccessible stands, and those portions of stands where the current health, vigor, and variable 

spacing of the conifer and hardwood vegetation is on a suitable trajectory toward attaining overall 

forest vigor and resiliency without the need for treatment (e.g., not overly dense).

 Post-harvest stand variability may be enhanced through the creation of snags and large woody 

material, and Port-Orford-cedar tree planting. Tree planting in created openings and underneath 

tree canopies of candidate stands would restore healthy, disease-resistant Port-Orford-cedar into 

the landscape and enhance structural and species diversity over the long term.

Simulated Treatments Discussion

Stand growth attributes were projected with Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) (USDA FS: Dixon 2002; 

Keyser 2008 (revised October 4, 2011) on existing vegetation polygons within candidate stands proposed 

for commercial thinning treatments. Stand #199 (ER Units 2/201), Stand #604 (ER Units 320/324), and 

Stand #802 (ER Units 307) are presented in FEIS Appendix B (Preliminary Silvicultural 

Diagnosis)(incorporated by reference) as examples of the outputs of this model. 

The model calculates stand data for trees >= 6” dbh from simulations for no treatment and thinning from 

treatments to 35% and 45% RD respectively. Stand Visualization System (McGaughey, 1997) was used 

to visually display (see Appendix B) no harvest and harvest treatments (i.e., no treatment and 35% RD 

treatment).

FVS simulated treatments display higher tree mortality, lower tree diameter (QMD) growth and slower 

basal area growth projected over the next 50 years for the no treatment scenarios compared to thinning 

treatments to control stocking density. Tree mortality from dense stand conditions could otherwise be 

captured as timber harvest volume during thinning treatments that would release growing space to 

retained trees to grow into larger trees more quickly as displayed in the 50 year stand parameters. 

Relatively stable stocking with low tree mortality after thinning treatments over the simulated timeframe 

meets the primary objective of sustainable harvest on lands allocated to Matrix. Modeling for Stand #199

(see FEIS Appendix B) is cited as an example. Modeling shows that RD stays within the target 35-50% 

RD range for the thinning treatment to 35% RD, and ranges 45-62% RD for the 45% RD treatment. A 

second thinning treatment opportunity is projected in 20 years for the 45% RD treatment when the stand 

again exceeds 50% RD. 

Most residual tree stocking from active treatments would fall within the “Heavy” thin category (50-90 

tpa). Treatments to Medium or Light thin tree stocking conditions to retain more trees may be done in 

Riparian Reserves, stands with high height to diameter ratios (particularly plantations) or on landform 

positions susceptible to windthrow. Retained trees would be managed for future harvests, seed source, 

stand structure and creation of large diameter snags/down wood to meet habitat and soil productivity 

standards and guidelines. These stands are projected to produce a high quality timber product while 

providing for multiple-resource benefits. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-9

Final Environmental Impact Statement

A precautionary note, FVS simulated treatments generate numbers that should not be considered absolute 

values for stand parameters. These simulations are more valuable for displaying the relative differences 

between treatment scenarios. More refined numbers would be determined during collection of more 

extensive stand exam information and during the development of site-specific silvicultural prescriptions 

to determine precise thinning intensity.

Comparison of Action Alternatives

A positive trend toward the Desired Conditions of a sustainable forest resilient to drought, wind, insects, 

disease, fire and other natural disturbances would be obtained under any of the Action Alternatives 

(Alternatives 2, 3 and 4). Based on the treatment scenarios above, and by design, the Action Alternatives 

would all have similar attainment of the stated Purpose and Need; the difference between these 

alternatives is the amount of area treated. 

The underlying objective of the Proposed Action and the other Actions Alternatives is to maximize 

attainment of Purpose and Need. This is done through density management and other forest health 

treatments. The primary reason for the differences in the design and function of the Action Alternatives 

(see FEIS Chapter II for details) is in regard to the consequences associated with the Significant Issues 

(primarily hydrology and soils; see FEIS Chapter I). Therefore, the Action Alternatives attempt by design 

to treat as many acres as possible to attain the Purpose and Need, being reduced where the concerns for 

connected actions of harvest systems and access (roads) changes or limits the amount of acres that could 

be treated.

By design, Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action) would treat the most acres (3,314). Alternative 3 would 

treat 3,240 acres (a reduction of 74 acres), and Alternative 4 would treat the least acres (3,058; a 

reduction of 256 acres). On a Planning Area basis, Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action) would treat 

approximately 51% of all acres; Alternative 3 would treat approximately 50%; and Alternative 4 would 

treat approximately 47%.

b. Contribution of Commercial Timber to PSQ

Proposed candidate stands are primarily allocated to Matrix and are programmed to contribute to the 

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ). PSQ is the estimated output of 

commercial timber and other commodities assigned to the Forest under the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan. 

As noted above, by design, the Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3 and 4), all would have similar 

contribution to PSQ; the difference between these alternatives is also relative to the amount of area 

treated. The Action Alternatives attempt to treat as many acres as operationally possible to attain the 

Purpose and Need, being reduced where the concerns for connected actions of harvest systems and access 

(roads) changes or limits the amount of acres that could be treated. This situation also limits the amount 

of commercial volume contribution to PSQ. It should be noted that volume output is not a primary goal 

or objective.

By design, Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action) would contribute the most commercial volume and 

contribution to PSQ (potentially 53 MMBF (million board feet). Alternative 3 would contribute 

potentially 52 MMBF (a reduction of 1 MMBF), and Alternative 4 would contribute the least 

commercial volume (49 MMBF; a reduction of 4 MMBF).

3. ACTION ALTERNATIVES - RIPARIAN RESERVE

For the Eden Ridge Planning Area, there is an initial need to restore (improve) riparian conditions for 

late-successional forest habitat, lost by historical clear-cut logging. The Need associated with Riparian 

Reserve within the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project is discussed below.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-10

Final Environmental Impact Statement

a. Maintain and Restore Riparian Reserves- Meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives

The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Standards and Guidelines for Timber Management within Riparian 

Reserves provide direction to:

“Apply silvicultural practices for Riparian Reserves to control stocking, reestablish and manage stands, 

and acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

objectives.” (1994 USDI Bureau of Land Management & USDA Forest Service, page C-31; TM-1, c.)

Under the Action Alternatives, NWFP direction would be implemented through Eden Ridge Timber Sales 

treatments, where the primary objective in Riparian Reserves is to benefit riparian area functions, 

including future recruitment of large woody debris into streams. This objective ties closely with Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy Objective (ACSO) 1; Maintain and restore complexity of watershed and landscape 

features, ACSO 8; Maintain and restore riparian plant communities and distribution of coarse woody 

debris, and ACSO 9; Maintain and restore habitat for riparian dependent species. 

As described in Chapter I, there is a need to:

 accelerate development of late-successional stand conditions;

 increase conifer growth rates and provide for larger remnant conifers and hardwoods;

 restore riparian conditions for aquatic habitat, lost by historical railroad clear-cut logging;

 restore riparian conditions for aquatic habitat in areas harvested in the past where there is a 

shortage of large wood for recruitment into streams; and

 enhance aquatic conditions to trend toward the natural range of variability and meet the intent of 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives in the long term.

Tree heights measured within Riparian Reserves during 2012 stand exams ranged 67 to 145 feet and 

indicate the Primary Shade Zones for Eden Ridge Timber Sales would range 50 to 85 feet on both side of 

perennial streams. These untreated areas would allow for suppression processes to occur and produce 

snags (Lutz 2006, Pabst 2003) that would be available for future recruitment of down woody material into 

the stream channel, in concert with Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. 

Silvicultural Treatments

Field work and subsequent stand exams noted Riparian Reserve buffers overlapping into upland forest 

types. FVS modeling of untreated upland stands on Eden Ridge projected higher tree mortality, smaller 

tree diameters and slower basal area growth compared to thinning treatments. Thinning is most beneficial 

in dense young stands less than 80 years old and has the greatest potential ecological benefits to 

accelerate development of older forest structure (Spies et al., 2013). Larger green trees would be 

available to other natural processes (debris torrents, wind storms, etc.) for potential live delivery to the 

riparian system or as candidate trees for snag creation for future achievement of ACS objectives. 

Outside the Primary Shade Zone, as specified in Riparian Reserve Project Design Criteria, is where 

riparian thinning would occur to expedite large tree development while maintaining 50% canopy cover as 

a Riparian Reserve thinning objective (generally a Light to Medium intensity thin, 90-225 trees per acre, 

depending on site-specific conditions). Action Alternatives would better address restoring structural 

diversity goals stated in the ACS objectives and expedite development of late seral conditions that were 

historically present in this area and served as recruitment sources for large wood (USDA 1995). 

Riparian Reserve thinning would increase tree growth and lessen the time needed to establish future large 

wood delivery. Thinning would result in a long-term beneficial effect to fish habitat, by promoting the 

growth of large trees that would provide stream shade and large wood that creates complex instream 

habitats, thereby promoting vigorous fish populations. In the short-term, these treatments would remove 

smaller trees within Riparian Reserves; though, mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the 

risk of effect on the existing stream temperature regime and near-term large woody material recruitment. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-11

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Action Alternatives would implement ‘Wide-Thin Gaps’ to treat areas infected with Port-Orford-cedar 

(POC) root disease (PL) in Riparian Reserves to meet ACS objectives of maintaining and restoring 

species composition, structural diversity and well-distributed populations of native plants. All live POC 

within 2 to 3 crown radii of infected trees would be thinned along the perimeter of infection sites to 

separate healthy POC from potential root contact with infected POC. Non-host tree species would be 

retained. This treatment is designed to complement upland forest treatments in laminated root rot pockets 

where planting POC seedlings resistant to PL would improve occurrence of healthy POC in these 

watersheds at the landscape-scale. Additionally, roadside sanitation would occur to manage high risk 

areas for non-host tree species.

Proposed Riparian Reserve treatments and connected actions would be designed to avoid or minimize 

conditions that increase:

 hydrologic connectivity; 

 drainage from roads into streams; 

 interception and concentration of subsurface slope flow by road cuts; 

 runoff from impervious surfaces or concentrated areas of compaction (landings, roads); and

 activity generated sediment, especially in high risk areas.

Action Alternative treatments within Riparian Reserve would improve habitat conditions for wildlife and 

fish by increasing vegetative, species and structural diversity over current conditions; maintain or improve 

shading capability of streams; maintain or improve large wood retention and recruitment, and provide 

suitable amounts of snags and/or replacement habitat for dependent species.

Comparison of Action Alternatives

A positive trend toward the Desired Conditions and attainment of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy for 

Riparian Reserves would be obtained under all of the Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3 and 4). 

Based on the treatment scenarios above, and by design, the Action Alternatives all would have similar 

amount of area treated (see above discussion). 

By design, Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action) would include the most Riparian Reserve acres 

(approximately 1,097 total acres of treatments within Riparian Reserves that overlap into overstocked 

drier upland forests. The actual area that would be treated within these acres would be less, based on 

application of Project Design Criteria (see FEIS Chapter II) and likely conditions to be found that would 

not need treatment (also see Chapter III, Section D, 1 regarding actual treated area).

Alternative 3 would include 1,053 total acres, and Alternative 4 would include the least Riparian 

Reserve acres (965). On a Planning Area basis, Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action) would include and 

partially treat approximately 42% of all Riparian Reserves (Alternative 3 and 4 would include less).

4. ACTION ALTERNATIVES - PROJECT DESIGN OBJECTIVES

As stated in FEIS Chapter I, in enacting treatments to meet the above stated needs, the project and/or its 

activities under the Action Alternatives should be designed to address or attain several overall Project 

Design Objectives. These objectives are listed below, with discussion regarding attainment and/or 

reference to other sections of this Chapter or FEIS regarding attainment.

 Minimize soil impacts (erosion, compaction and/or displacement)

All Action Alternatives are designed to minimize soils and hydrologic impacts, to be within applicable 

Standards and Guidelines. Actual effects vary by alternative and are discussed in greater detail in FEIS 

Chapter III, Sections D, 1, 2 and 4.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-12

Final Environmental Impact Statement

 Minimize damage to residual trees during treatment

All Action Alternatives are designed to minimize damage to residual trees. Project Design Criteria and 

Mitigation Measures are presented in detail in FEIS Chapter II. Also see FEIS Appendix B, Preliminary 

Silvicultural Diagnosis.

 Reduce the risk of effects from insects and disease infestations

All Action Alternatives are designed to reduce the risk of effects from insect and disease infestations and 

spread of POC disease; see discussion above, this Section, FEIS Chapter II, Section D, 2, c; and D, 10, f;

also see FEIS Appendix B, Preliminary Silvicultural Diagnosis.

 Minimize or reduce the potential for high severity, stand replacement wildfires

All Action Alternatives would minimize or reduce the potential for high severity, stand replacement 

wildfires, due to density management and activity fuels treatments; see FEIS Chapter III, Section E, 2.

 Maintain and restore (improve) aquatic conditions in terms of attainment of Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy Objectives

All Action Alternatives are designed to maintain and restore (improve) aquatic conditions in terms of 

attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives. All Action Alternatives include treatments 

within portions of Riparian Reserves designed to result in a positive trend toward attainment of the 

Desired Conditions for Riparian Reserves; see above in subsection 3, and FEIS Chapter III, Section E, 1.

 Minimize adverse effects, including cumulative effects, on all other resources

All Action Alternatives are designed to minimize adverse effects, to result in compliance with all

applicable Standards and Guidelines. Actual effects vary by alternative and are discussed in greater detail 

throughout FEIS Chapter III, Sections D, and E. Each Significant and Other Issue includes a discussion 

of potential cumulative effects. The overall risk of adverse cumulative watershed effects is discussed in 

FEIS Chapter III, Section D, 3.

 Contribute to a predictable and sustainable level of timber commodities for local and 

regional markets (including firewood)

All Action Alternatives are designed contribute to a predictable and sustainable level of timber 

commodities for local and regional markets; outputs vary by alternative, see discussion above in 

subsection 2, b.

 Be an operational and economically sustainable project for this and future entries

All Action Alternatives are designed to be an operational and economically sustainable project for this 

entry. Consequences vary by alternative, see discussion above in subsection 2, b, and FEIS Chapter III, 

Section D, 5 (Economics).
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-13

Final Environmental Impact Statement

D. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES: SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

Significant Issues were used to design specific elements of the alternatives and proposals, mitigation 

measures, and/or facilitate the display of important (and/or variable) environmental consequences. NEPA 

requires Federal agencies to focus analysis and documentation on the Significant Issues related to an 

action. 

These issues (introduced in Chapter I) have been determined to be significant because of the extent of 

their geographic distribution, the context of associated consequences, the duration of the effects, or the 

intensity of interest or resource conflict. Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no change 

from the current conditions (unless otherwise noted).

1. HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on 

hydrologic conditions, including channel morphology, large woody material, sediment delivery, or peak 

flows. 

This subsection of FEIS Chapter III provides a summary of conditions and effects on the subwatersheds 

that have been analyzed for this project. These subwatersheds are analyzed because they represent those 

watersheds where actions are being proposed to occur that would potentially affect current or future 

conditions. FEIS Appendix C, Hydrology Report (incorporated by reference) includes more detail on 

current watershed conditions, characteristics, and risks for adverse effects.

This hydrologic condition issue focuses on potential changes to channel morphology, large woody 

material, sediment delivery, and peak flows. Effects on water quality (i.e., temperature, turbidity, and 

water quality (303(d) listed waterbodies) is discussed within the next Issue (subsection 2). The overall 

contribution to the risk for adverse cumulative watershed effects is discussed in subsection 3.

Strongly associated resources are described and analyzed in the geology and soils issue (Geology and 

Soils Report, FEIS Appendix D), and the aquatic species and habitats issue (Aquatic Biota Report and 

Biological Evaluation, FEIS Appendix H); both incorporated by reference.

a. Introduction

The Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project focuses on forest stands clear-cut harvested in the 1920s and 1930s 

utilizing a railroad access system that is now overgrown (railroad grades) or in ruins (trestle stream 

crossings). This system has been largely replaced on both private and public timber lands by roaded 

access. Some National Forest System lands within the Planning Area that were previously harvested by 

railroad systems remain inaccessible by roads.

The Planning Area is located within a block of National Forest System lands that are surrounded by 

intensively managed, privately owned, timber production lands. The Forest Plan designates the majority 

of the Planning Area as “Matrix”, where timber production is an expected use. The Powers Ranger 

District is proposing timber harvest and road construction that would result in commercial harvesting in 

the area over the next 5 years.

The Planning Area falls within the South Fork Coquille River and the Middle Fork Coquille River 5thField watersheds (see MAP I-2 and/or Map C-1, FEIS Appendix C). Two watershed analyses have been 

completed that cover the Planning Area and contain a synthesis of scientific knowledge about watershed 

trends and conditions at watershed scales as well as by smaller subwatersheds. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-14

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The South Fork Coquille River is listed by the State as impaired for summer water temperature 

exceedences. Solar load allocation for water temperature increases from human sources has been 

completed for the South Fork of the Coquille River by the State of Oregon. The Forest Service has also 

completed a plan for aquatic restoration specific to the South Fork Coquille River. These documents are 

listed below along with the subwatersheds that contain the Planning Area:

 Myrtlewood Resource Area, Coos Bay District, Bureau of Land Management, 1994. Middle 

Fork Coquille Analytical Watershed.

(Lower) Rock Creek and Myrtle Creek subwatersheds

 Powers Ranger District, Siskiyou National Forest, USDA Forest Service, 1995. South Fork 

Coquille Watershed Analysis.

Coal Creek, Headwaters South Fork Coquille (aka Wooden Rock Creek), and Mill Creek subwatersheds

 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2001. South Fork Coquille River Total 

Maximum Daily Load Allocation and Water Quality Management Plan.

 Powers Ranger District, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, USDA Forest Service, 2007. 

Aquatic Restoration Plan, South Fork Coquille Watershed. This document includes summary 

information from both the SF Coquille Watershed Analysis and the Water Quality Management 

Plan.

b. Background

The Coquille River, formed by the confluence of its north and south forks, begins at the town of Myrtle 

Point. The South Fork, 62.8 miles (101.1 km) long, rises in southern Coos County, and flows generally 

north. It receives the Middle Fork, 40.3 miles (64.9 km) long, then joins the North Fork from the south at 

Myrtle Point. The combined river meanders generally west, past Coquille. It enters the Pacific Ocean at 

Bandon, about 20 miles (32 km) north of Cape Blanco (Wikipedia web site).

The nearest weather data collection station is located in Powers at an elevation of 286 feet. Weather in 

the coast range is moderated by the Pacific Ocean, especially in the summer when temperatures regularly 

drop to the 45 to 55 degree range. Average annual rainfall at Powers is about 61 inches with only a 

couple of these arriving as snow (Wikipedia Website). The Planning Area occurs along the ridgeline of 

mountains south of Powers at elevations ranging from 2,580 to 3,540 feet above sea level. The Planning 

Area receives annual precipitation ranging from 100-150” dominantly as rain (Oregon Climate Service, 

PRISM; Oregon Dept. of Forestry LocatOR website).

Although snow is common in the Planning Area, a persistent snowpack is unusual. The Planning Area is 

generally in a weather zone referred to as the “transient snow zone” (TSZ), characterized by both rain and 

snow. Rain-on-snow events are common during the winter and early spring and can result in sudden 

spikes in stream flow as rain and melting snow combine into runoff.

Management Direction

The Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Plan (LRMP) provides standards and guidelines for soil 

and water resources on pages IV-44 through VI-48. Management prescriptions for Riparian areas are 

provided on pages IV-124 through IV-128. LRMP riparian areas extend at least 100 feet to either side of 

perennial channels; 150 feet is recommended for Class I and II streams. This would be less than the 

buffer widths (Riparian Reserves) provided by the Northwest Forest Plan of one to two site potential tree 

heights (175 feet and 350 feet, respectively) and its additional buffer of one site potential tree height for 

ephemeral channels.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-15

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Northwest Forest Plan – Aquatic Conservation Strategy

The Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) was designed to facilitate the management and restoration of 

aquatic ecosystems within lands covered by the Northwest Forest Plan (1994). Specifically, the strategy 

is intended to protect anadromous fish habitat on federal lands within the range of Pacific Ocean 

anadromy. 

According to the Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, the ACS was developed to improve 

and maintain the ecological health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems contained within them on public 

lands. The four primary components of the ACS are designed to operate together to maintain and restore 

the productivity and resiliency of riparian and aquatic ecosystems; they include: 1) Riparian Reserves; 2) 

Key Watersheds; 3) Watershed Analysis; and 4) Watershed Restoration. 

Riparian Reserves are established as a component of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, designed 

primarily to restore and maintain the health of aquatic systems and their dependent species. Riparian 

Reserves also help to maintain riparian structures and functions and conserve habitat for organisms 

dependent on the transition zone between riparian and upland areas. 

The Siskiyou National Forest typically utilizes a standard site potential tree height of 175 feet for analysis 

purposes and describing Riparian Reserves. For this Planning Area, a stream network was generated 

from a digital elevation model. A mapped perennial channel is initiated when a collection area reaches 25 

acres. Field work verifying the presence of ephemeral or perennial channels was used to confirm the 

model was accurate. Mapping used for analysis of the alternatives displays the following Riparian 

Reserve widths (each side of stream):

Class I Streams: perennial, fish habitat 350 feet

Class II Streams: perennial, non-fish bearing 175 feet

Class III Streams: ephemeral or intermittent 175 feet

A portion of the Planning Area is within a Key Watershed (South Fork Coquille River); under the 

Northwest Forest Plan, Basis for Standards and Guidelines (NWFP page B-19), there is to be no net 

increase in the amount of roads; “The amount of existing system and nonsystem roads within Key 

Watersheds should be reduced through decommissioning of roads.” 

The basis for this Standard and Guidelines is “amount of existing system and non-system roads” and not 

road density (usually expressed in miles/sq. mi.). This Standard and Guideline is applicable at the fifthfield scale (the area designated as Tier 1 Key Watershed (and not to any of the smaller subwatersheds that 

comprise the larger fifth-field Key Watershed). This topic is discussed in more detail under FEIS Chapter 

III, Section E, 1; Aquatic Conservation Strategy.

The Siskiyou LRMP prescribes that vegetation on lands in the SF Coquille River Basin be managed to 

maintain water temperature. Oregon state Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) allocations require 

streams to meet state temperature standards. Since the South Fork Coquille River exceeds temperature 

standards, the state has determined that no water temperature increases from anthropogenic sources is 

allowable (refer to Water Quality subsection, below).

c. Current Channel Conditions & Morphology

Detailed descriptions of existing condition of the Planning Area may be found in watershed and water 

quality analyses cited above. Stream surveys were also conducted for Coal and Wooden Rock Creeks in 

1991 and 1992, and are cited by the watershed analyses and the restoration plan. An additional stream 

survey was completed for Coal Creek in 2010. Information relevant to current condition in the Planning 

Area has been extracted and/or paraphrased from these documents (below) and is presented in more detail 

in FEIS Appendix C. Notable conditions are summarized below in descriptions of existing condition.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-16

Final Environmental Impact Statement

South Fork Coquille River

The Coal Creek and Wooden Rock Creek subwatersheds of the South Fork of the Coquille River 

contain about 75% of the Planning Area. They are underlain by the Tyee sandstone and contain 

topography that is formed by the even, sloping surface of sedimentary bedrock. Streams are typically 

deeply incised with substrates that vary from sand and gravel to sandstone bedrock. These channels 

steeply join the prominent canyon confining the lower half of Coal Creek. This canyon cuts the Tyee 

formation deeply; canyon walls extend up to 700 vertical feet, and contain numerous bedrock nick points 

and waterfalls. 

Stream morphology along Coal Creek is dictated primarily by the bedrock of the canyon walls and 

bottom. The 2010 Stream Survey reports Coal Creek is steep and dominated by coarse gravel, boulders 

and bedrock in confined reaches. Also reported are two old log jams composed of large but decayed 

wood. Watershed Analysis (1995) documents a powerful debris flow that scoured lower Coal Creek of 

sediment, wood, and vegetation. Log jams composed of large wood are capable of resisting the high 

flows of Coal Creek, as is evidenced by the remaining structures. It is likely that Coal Creek contained a 

series of such jams when “old growth” trees were the dominant vegetation. 

Three proposed units are located in the headwater area of the Mill Creek subwatershed. Field 

examination revealed first and second order streams that are ephemeral and well vegetated. Channels 

have a steep to moderate gradient, are V-shaped with low sinuosity, and colluvial slopes. Substrates are 

dominated by sand, silt, and small gravel. Drainage from these units continues onto private lands where 

channels are also ephemeral. 

Aquatic Restoration Plan - South Fork Coquille

The South Fork Coquille (SFC) is a Tier 1 Key Watershed as defined by the Northwest Forest Plan 

(1994) and is approximately 108,300 acres (169 sq. miles) in size. In 2005, the Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest engaged in an Integrated Work Planning process. As part of that process, fifth-field 

watersheds across the Forest were prioritized for resource value and restoration potential. The South Fork 

Coquille ranked as number 1 on the Forest for fisheries, water, and wildlife values. Past management 

activities on NFS land have increased upstream sediment delivery and depleted large wood recruitment 

into the streams. The primary limiting factors within the South Fork Coquille Watershed are:

 loss of mature forest within the Riparian Reserve;

 higher than optimum stream temperatures;

 in-stream fish habitat below potential condition;

 excessive fine sediment in stream channels; and

 obstructions at road crossings that inhibit upstream movement of fish and movement of large 

woody material to fish-bearing stream reaches. 

Excess bedload is most evident where it is stored in unconstrained reaches. Aerial photo interpretation 

illustrates aggradation has buried large boulders and created wide gravel bars, literally filling pools and 

covering riparian vegetation. Fish habitat in all subwatersheds within the South Fork Coquille Basin were 

identified as being adversely impacted by high stream temperatures and lack of large woody debris. 

Bankfull width-depth measures in several streams are indicative of channel widening. Channel widening 

increases solar radiation on surface waters and decreases depths available for fish. (Restoration Plan -

Executive Summary)

Change in late seral successional stage in Riparian Reserves from 100 years ago was found to be 

substantial in all subwatersheds. For Wooden Rock Creek drainage (upper portion of Headwaters SF 

Coquille subwatershed), late seral successional stage has declined from 89% 100 years ago to a present 

level of 1%. Coal Creek subwatershed is similar with a decline from 85% to 1%. (Original data from 

South Fork Coquille Watershed Analysis, Iteration 1.1, September 1995)
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-17

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Wooden Rock Creek flows over both Tyee and Flounoy Formations that are dominated by sandstones. 

Weathering and erosion of these formations yields sand and gravel-sized substrate to the channel. The 

low gradient channel provides the best existing resident trout habitat above the Coquille River falls. 

Summer flows at its mouth have been determined to be roughly twice the volume as the mainstem South 

Fork Coquille, which makes Wooden Rock a significant tributary. The lower 2.5 miles flows into a wide 

valley floor located on the gently dipping bedrock surface. 

Wooden Rock has the highest densities of both trout and large wood in the upper basin (Chen 1991). 

Three large wood jams exist in the lower 2.5 miles of habitat. One jam has been estimated to contain over 

50,000 cubic feet of wood. Increased trout densities appear to be related to increased amounts of cover. 

Three distinct reaches are separated by a series of barrier falls (at the 2.5-mile and 4.0-mile marks) in a 

stair step formation that prohibits upstream migration (Stream Survey, Summer 1992). 

Coal Creek is a key cold water contributor to the South Fork Coquille River. A dual-pipe culvert just 

upstream of the confluence with the South Fork Coquille River creates a partial barrier to anadromous 

adult salmonids and a full barrier to lamprey. A project is currently planned to remove the two culverts 

and replace them with a bridge. The design has been completed with partial funding available. Grants 

are being explored for the remaining funding needed to implement the project. 

There are no other proposed aquatic restoration projects identified anywhere within Coal Creek or the rest 

of the Eden Ridge Planning Area. The Aquatic Restoration Plan focused on National Forest lands and 

states (Page 20) that little timber harvest had occurred in Wooden Rock, Coal, or Hayes Creek (Mill 

Creek) subwatersheds (i.e., within the Eden Ridge Planning Area), therefore that plan concentrated 

recommendations on other areas within the South Fork of the Coquille River. 

South Fork Coquille Watershed Analysis (1995)

The Upper South Fork Coquille Watershed straddles the Klamath/Siskiyou province which is separated 

by the Coquille River Fault Zone (Dott 1971) from the Coast Range province. Both geologies weather 

rapidly and produce fine grain sediments that are transported to stream channels. Therefore, sediment 

inputs are naturally high (Page 9).

Soils on the steep Tyee sandstones have a tendency to fail as debris flows which scour streams to bedrock 

and deposit sediment and large wood at tributary junctions. Rockfall is common where Tyee bluffs 

overlie softer formations. 

Turbidity, or water clarity, affects fish habitat and recreational uses such as fishing and sightseeing 

making it a critical component of the river value. Water samples in the analysis area were rated as first, 

second and third lowest in turbidity (highest quality) of all samples (DEQ, 1993) from Coquille (River 

Mile [RM] 24.5) to above Rock Creek (RM 81.0).

The water of the South Fork is clear most of the year except during winter storms when sediment from 

banks and slides can cloud the water for short periods. During these higher flows, it has been observed 

that streams flowing through the Klamath Province rocks (Sucker, Johnson, and Rock Creeks) are less 

turbid than streams on the Coast Range rocks (Yager 1995). 

An exception to this tendency is the turbidity contributed by slides and surface erosion from road 

construction, timber harvest, and natural landslides. Without historical turbidity measurements, water 

clarity changes can only be pieced together by anecdotal accounts from long-time residents and historical 

sediment delivery estimates. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-18

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Coal Creek flows westward into the mainstem of the South Fork Coquille approximately one mile 

upstream of the Forest Boundary. Coal Creek derives its name from short-lived coal mining operations 

that existed there. It is unknown what effect these activities may have had on the stream channel. The 

relatively steep, confined character of the channel has high energy and debris transport capabilities and is 

very stable. Its sensitivity to disturbance is considered very low and recovery potential excellent. This 

accounts for fairly quick recovery from repeated past large disturbances. 

The Coal Creek watershed has a broad upper flat and is steeply incised into the Tyee sandstones. A series 

of falls at the 1.4 RM mark create an anadromous barrier for salmonids (Stream Surveys, 1989, 1992). 

Resident cutthroat and rainbow are present above this barrier. 

The lower reach flows through a narrow confined canyon with substrates dominated by bedrock with 

boulders. The gradient for the most part is steep exceeding 4 percent. Deep plunge pools, cascades, and 

high gradient riffles are abundant. Cover for fish is provided in the way of depth, surface turbulence, and 

bed roughness elements (Chen 1991). A few large wood accumulations are present, but average only two 

pieces of large wood per mile. The remaining wood is composed of smaller pieces resulting from logging 

(Stream Survey1992). 

In the upper portion of the surveyed reach, Coal Creek enters a wider valley floor which changes the 

gradient, wood accumulations, and habitat composition. There are deep pools created by large wood, 

cascades, low gradient glides, slower riffle habitat, and complex side channels (Chen 1991). Streambed 

substrate changes from dominantly bedrock, to gravel and cobble. The channel is no longer confined and 

floodplains appear. The channel sensitivity to disturbance increases and its recovery potential decreases 

in this area. The lower gradient, variety of habitat types, density of juveniles, and deep holding pools 

indicate this section is key spawning and rearing area for winter steelhead.

Summer temperatures are 55oto 62 oF., which are cooler than the mainstem. When the mainstem's 

summer temperatures approach 70 oF., juvenile salmonids congregate in Coal Creek. Debris flows from 

Coal Creek have deposited a large fan in the South Fork Coquille. Numerous juvenile steelhead were 

observed in summer 1994 in the pools just below the culverts on Forest Road #33 (USDA, 1994).

Over the years, many wood jams were removed for merchantable timber and firewood, or to aid fish 

passage. A debris flow that swept down the channel from a debris avalanche in the gorge was triggered 

by a 1974 storm, a 25-year storm event. The channel was scoured down to bedrock in many places. This 

event destroyed riparian vegetation up to 200 feet laterally along the channel, allowing alder to become 

established and dominate the riparian area. The absence of historical stream survey records make it 

difficult to determine how the channel has changed as the result of the debris flow; however, the channel 

appears to have recovered from both the natural and human disturbances. The debris flow may have 

altered the channel shape and substrate composition by creating more bedrock reaches.

Coal Creek differs somewhat from the other tributary watersheds in having extensive harvest in sensitive 

areas (lower stream reaches and below the Eden Ridge Planning Area) which contributed to sediment and 

loss of large wood. Coal Creek is the highest at 17% (amount of subwatershed harvested in sensitive 

areas), Wooden Rock Creek is second highest at 10% within a range of 4 to17%.

Coal Creek Level II Stream Survey, August 2010

Geomorphology of the Coal Creek watershed ranges from broad gently sloped mountain tops (Eden 

Ridge) to steeply sloped and incised canyons and inner gorges. Also observed were small sections of 

unconfined flat-bottomed alluviated channels featuring mild stream gradients, wood jams, stored 

sediments, elevated terraces, side channels, and minor floodplain development. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-19

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The stream survey extended 6.14 river miles from the mouth of Coal Creek and describes four reaches 

based on changes in stream flow and canyon morphology (see Map C-2, FEIS Appendix C, Hydrology 

Report). The majority of the survey is located on private lands with the exception of Reach 4. Tributary 

streams were generally moderate to high gradient, V-notched, and incised. Generally canyon widths were 

narrow and vary between 40 feet in Reach 4 to 80 feet in Reach 3. Channel sinuosity was low (1.02 –

1.09).

The following discussion is extracted/paraphrased from the Coal Creek Level II Stream Survey, August 

2010. This portion of the Stream Survey describes channel habitat and condition on Reach 4 of Coal 

Creek. Reach 4 occurs entirely within NFS land and is similar to other tributaries within the Planning 

Area, with one exception: many of the smaller upland streams visited during field examination contained 

large wood cull logs that were left by railroad era logging.

Reach 4 is located in a narrow V-shaped colluvial canyon. There is very little channel sinuosity in 

Reach 4 and stream gradient is steep (9.2%), however, gravel dominated ‘flats’ occur upstream of wood 

jams and waterfall sills. Estimated average canyon width is 40 feet. The high percent of channel 

substrate identified as sand and gravel is the result of small sediment being collected and stored behind 

wood jams and bedrock outcrops.

The riparian habitat in Reach 4 consists of a small and large tree class conifer forest of Douglas-fir and 

western hemlock. The riparian habitat, and conifer forest growing on adjacent hillslopes, is in a mid 

seral stage having regenerated from railroad logging that occurred in the 1940s. The riparian vegetation 

is currently characterized by a relatively even-aged stand with a high degree of canopy closure. No 

roads or old skid trails were noted in the surveyed section of Reach 4. The mid seral riparian forest 

appeared to have matured to the point of being capable of providing instream small class woody 

material.

Reach 4 contains a moderately abundant amount of small class woody material but lacks material in the 

medium and large size classes. Wood counts totaled 59 pieces of woody material (nearly all small 

class) for a reach density of 79.7 pieces/mile. Specifically, 57 pieces of small class woody material and 

2 pieces of medium class material. No large class woody material was observed in Reach 4. A mid 

seral riparian forest regenerating from past logging combined with stream cleanout operations would 

explain the absence of medium and large class LWM.

No fish were detected in Reach 4. Reach 4 contained several waterfalls ranging in height from 9 feet to 

55 feet. The last fish seen were at the end of Reach 3 and in Tributary 11.

Stream Survey conclusions regarding large wood recruitment are as follows: large woody material, 

particularly medium and large class pieces are not common in Coal Creek, almost certainly as a result of 

past logging of the riparian forest and instream salvage logging. Large woody material (LWM) densities 

increase on the portions of Coal Creek that flow across Forest Service land. On portions flowing across 

private timberland, instream LWM is not common. Likewise, the riparian forest on publicly managed 

land is generally in a mid seral stage, regenerating from past logging but in most areas had matured to the 

point of providing small class LWM. Conversely, the riparian forest on private corporate land is in an 

early and pioneer seral stage and incapable of providing instream LWM. 

Middle Fork Coquille

About 25% of the Planning Area lies within the Middle Fork Coquille watershed (197,215 total acres), 

along the watershed divide. Streams in this portion of the Planning Area flow northward and are first and 

second order streams, non-fish bearing, and dominantly ephemeral. Topography along the divide 

includes broad gentle slopes that give way abruptly to steep, often raveling, slopes and benches that 

dominate the upper Myrtle Creek subwatershed. This reflects the structural control of the Tyee 

sandstones (see Figure C-1, FEIS Appendix C, Hydrology Report). 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-20

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Cliffs formed where the bedding is exposed readily erode into steep ravines that bottom in a bench 

formed by a more resistant sedimentary layer. Most of this rugged topography is outside the Forest

boundary. Channel substrate is generally fine grained sediment generated by eroding Tyee Formation 

sandstones or exposed weathered bedrock. Benched topography supports shallow ponds or swampy 

areas, but true floodplains are scarce. Channels would be classified as Rosgen type A or B with substrates 

ranging from fine to small gravel, or bedrock where durable outcrops are exposed. 

In the Lower Rock Creek subwatershed, the watershed divide is broader and cliff-forming elements of 

the Tyee are more subtle. Streams in this area also drain a steep headwater area, but do not cut through 

nick points formed by prominent topographic benches (Figure C-2, Hydrology Report). Channel 

morphology is similar to that described above, with the exception of a single third order stream (Shields 

Creek).

d. Channel Morphology & Large Wood

Watershed Analysis (1995) documents a powerful debris flow that scoured lower Coal Creek of 

sediment, wood, and vegetation. Log jams composed of large wood are capable of resisting the high 

flows of Coal Creek, as is evidenced by the remaining structures. It is likely that Coal Creek contained a 

series of such jams when “old-growth” trees were the dominant vegetation. 

Large wood is a common structural component in the Pacific Northwest that dissipates the energy of high 

flows and increases the retention time and quantity of sediment deposits. Large wood resulting from 

recruitment from late seral forests into streams forms a structural network that can trap sediment to depths 

of many feet (May and Gresswell, 2003) . Removal of the structural wood results in erosion of the gravel 

deposits to bedrock. This was likely the case for confined reaches of Coal Creek. Older log jams are 

likely to eventually fail as a result of decay; any sediment retained by these structures would be 

transported to the South Fork Coquille. 

There is no large wood data available from private timber lands; NFS lands currently supply small size 

class woody material; however most of these lands are not in close proximity to Coal Creek. Little or no 

source of medium and large class woody material are currently available, therefore confined portions of 

Coal Creek will remain high gradient, bedrock channels that transport sediment and small wood to the SF 

Coquille. The alluvial fan at the mouth of Coal Creek bears witness to this mode of sediment transport 

and deposition. Functionally, Coal Creek would be considered in degraded condition since its ability to 

trap and retain sediment has been compromised by the loss of both in-stream and recruitable large wood. 

The current decayed condition of existing wood jams suggests that these structures will eventually fail 

and be transported downstream. Regeneration harvest activity on private land along Coal Creek is 

ongoing. Opportunities for recruitment of large wood into Coal Creek are expected to remain low for the 

foreseeable future.

The Planning Area includes approximately four miles of Wooden Rock Creek along its eastern edge. 

The headwaters of Wooden Rock Creek are located on rounded, gently to steeply sloping topography. 

The main channel has a low gradient and a sinuous pattern with well-developed floodplains. No stream 

survey information is available for this portion of the channel. Field examination of tributary channels 

near proposed units reveal that they are confined in V- or U-shaped valleys with low gradients allowing 

for the formation of small floodplains in some locations. Channel substrates include sand and gravel. 

Tributaries near proposed units wind through heavy vegetation and remnant large wood from historical 

logging. Large wood is present both as slope cover and as buried structural elements in the stream. 

Existing trees are large enough and in sufficient quantities to provide continued recruitment to the 

tributary channel.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-21

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Within the upper Myrtle Creek subwatershed, field examinations on NFS lands found well developed 

understory vegetation and woody material sufficient to provide structural elements to small channels 

characteristic of the area. Large, well decayed wood is present as cull wood left by historical logging.

e. Hydrologic Effects Mechanisms & Analysis Framework

Hydrologic condition issues are examined by describing the mechanisms for environmental effects as 

they relate to the Proposed Action and alternatives; followed by a description of the effect at the local and 

subwatershed scales. This provides a context for effects by documenting levels of existing disturbance, 

discussing thresholds for watershed disturbance, and describing cumulative impacts that are based on the 

Action Alternatives in combination with reasonably foreseeable actions.

Channel Morphology and Large Wood

Streams where treatments are proposed under the Eden Ridge Timber Sales are located on steep hillslopes 

and on more gentle uplands adjacent to subwatershed ridges. Field examination revealed channel 

substrates with exposures of resistant bedrock strata, or sand and gravel weathering products of less 

durable layers of the formation. The Planning Area contains numerous small streams (only a few feet 

wide) that are first and second order channels, are intermittent or ephemeral, and may include boggy areas 

and seeps. Stream valleys are often V-shaped and the active channel less than ten feet wide. Small wood 

and vegetation are sufficient to provide channel and slope stability. Wood falling into the channel cannot 

travel downstream due to the lack of streamflow and topographic confinement. 

Sediment transport in these small channels is moderated by the presence of heavy vegetation in the form 

of both trees and shrubs, and by wood present in the channel and on adjacent steep slopes. Wood falling 

directly into small channels contributes to their sediment capture and holding capacity. The role of LWM 

as a structural element is critical in the larger channels of Wooden Rock Creek and Coal Creek. Both 

these channels transport large amounts of sand and gravel since these are the weathering products of the 

surrounding sandstone. Wooden Rock Creek is dominated by low gradient reaches with floodplains that 

can easily store fine sediment with moderate amounts of instream wood. Debris dams composed of 

smaller wood also provides for effective sediment trapping and retention. Such is not the case for Coal 

Creek, a steep, confined, bedrock channel with low sinuousity and no floodplain. Coal Creek is 

dependent on large wood distributed throughout the mainstem channel to dissipate the force of storm 

events and to provide durable wood material for large log jams that can form sediment dams. 

Project activities could destabilize slopes and receiving streams by generating runoff from compacted 

roads and trails, and by intercepting and concentrating surface and subsurface water into erosive flows. 

Changes in flow and sediment load over time are primary forces in alteration of channel morphology. 

Road construction in subwatersheds that exceed generally accepted thresholds for road density is a 

concern, particularly if it occurs in mid- or lower slope positions where water is naturally more 

concentrated. New road construction or reconstruction on previously forested alignments (such as 

railroad grades) needs to be evaluated in terms of its ability to intercept and channel water both on upland 

slopes and at channel crossings.

Sediment Delivery

Reduced canopy cover following timber harvest can allow more direct raindrop impact on the soil 

surface, increase the amount of rain reaching the soil, and change the accumulation and melting pattern of 

snow. Thinning activities can induce changes in soil properties that can accelerate natural rates of erosion 

and sediment delivery to streams. 

Fine sediment-- especially clays that remain suspended except in very still water-- reduces water clarity, 

thus affecting water quality. Coarser sediment may bury stream gravels and pools or change channel 

shape and flow in cases of high sediment input, such as debris flows. Sediment delivery to the South 

Fork Coquille is a concern since this channel is critical habitat for coho salmon (below the town of 

Powers). 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-22

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Coal Creek and Wooden Rock Creek drain the Planning Area and are two major tributaries of the SF 

Coquille that provide cooler water. Debris flow activity has been documented in Coal Creek Canyon, and 

an alluvial fan at the mouth is a display of debris deposits. Watershed Analysis documents a severe 

debris flow in 1974 that resulted from a 25 year recurrence level storm event. The Powers Ranger 

District has had to clear the 33 Road of debris delivered at the mouth of Coal Creek repeatedly, in spite of 

two nine foot diameter culverts.

A reduced canopy cover could contribute to quicker runoff, which could increase sheet and rill and gully 

erosion as well as increase the erosive power of receiving streams. Compacted soils resulting from 

road/trail construction and the use of heavy equipment also contribute to increased runoff. Rapid regrowth of the understory after thinning typically balances removal of the canopy except where soil 

compaction discourages moisture infiltration and new growth. Harvest operations may trigger accelerated 

erosion in unstable areas if the combination of canopy removal, road reconstruction, and new road 

construction generates enough cumulative impact to result in increased or concentrated runoff. High risk 

areas include steep slopes associated with riparian reserves of higher order channels (3rd order and higher) 

within the transient snow zone. 

Roads intercept runoff from upslope areas, so both existing and increased road density is a concern. The 

intercepted runoff and rain falling directly on the surface of the road is collected in a drainage ditch on the 

uphill side of the road. Roads also intercept near-surface groundwater flowing through the slope. The 

flow in the drainage ditch is periodically discharged underneath the road through a culvert to prevent 

excessive road erosion and flooding. This effectively concentrates flow on the hillside at the point the 

flow discharges from underneath the road. This concentrated flow often causes a channel to form which, 

during storm events, transports flow to streams more rapidly than prior to road construction. This has the 

effect of increasing the drainage network, thereby increasing peak flow and runoff speed. Roads, by 

increasing the drainage network, have the potential to increase peak flows through concentration of runoff 

and more rapid routing to stream channels (Wemple 1996). Roads create unprotected ditches, cut slopes 

and fills that can contribute sediment to streams. Elevated sediment is either stored or transported 

downstream and may contribute to morphological changes (filling of pools, channel widening) and/or 

degraded water quality. 

Road densities that are less than 2 miles per square mile are considered low; over 3 miles per square mile 

suggest a concern for sediment. Subwatersheds containing the Planning Area have road densities well 

over 4 miles per square mile (Watershed Analysis). 

Existing and proposed roads can have long term adverse effects on water and sediment transport that must 

be considered and mitigated during thinning treatment. Roads can also increase sedimentation through 

structural failure. Road structural failure is most commonly caused by culvert embankment failure and 

slope failure. 

Models can be useful to estimate erosion and sediment delivery from fires, timber harvest and roads. The 

Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) Model is a physically based erosion simulation model. 

WEPP:Road is an interface to the WEPP model and is used to describe numerous road erosion conditions. 

The predicted values are, at best, within plus or minus 50 percent of the true value (Elliot et al., 1999). 

For Eden Ridge Timber Sales, it was decided not to utilize modeling to attempt to predict erosion and 

sedimentation values from proposed road segments since not all necessary input data are known, at the 

scale needed to provide any kind of meaningful estimated values; see FEIS Appendix C, Hydrology 

Report for additional discussion on erosion modeling.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-23

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Water Yield (Peak Flows)

Stream response to storms and runoff is generally measured in terms of increased water flow volume and 

velocity. Precipitation and snowmelt increase stream flow until a peak is reached and stream flow 

declines toward ground-water supported levels. The speed and duration of stream response is a function 

of the size and drainage network configuration of the watershed, topographic and vegetative watershed 

characteristics, and storm/runoff event size and duration. 

Peak flows are categorized in terms of their return interval, that is, the estimated time interval between 

specified flood events. The two year return interval generally determines basic stream morphology since 

it occurs regularly over the long term and thus distributes the bulk of the long term sediment load (Rosgen 

1994). Data for this interval is also more readily available than for longer intervals. Uncertainty 

regarding peak flow behavior increases with increasing recurrence interval because data is lacking for 

larger more infrequent storm events. 

Uncertainty also increases with size of the drainage basin because of increasing variability, especially 

from human induced watershed effects (i.e., reservoirs, urban development, and water use) (Grant et al., 

2008). In forest management, peak flow increases are considered a primary contributor to increased risk 

of cumulative watershed effects (CWE). If project analysis demonstrates that no peak flow increases 

would be generated, or reasonably anticipated, direction to avoid CWE contained in the LRMP and 

NWFP are satisfied.

For the past several decades, watershed response to forest harvest has been studied quantitatively through 

paired watershed studies in small drainages. Streamflow response to primarily clear-cut harvest and road 

construction has been measured and reported over a wide range of forested landscapes with an equally 

wide range of results (Moore and Wondzell, 2005). In a recent State-of-the-Science review (2008) 

Gordon Grant of Oregon State University presented conclusions based on a review of paired watershed 

studies. Grant selected studies that occurred primarily in the Pacific Northwest region and within the 

rain-on-snow hydrologic regime. Of particular interest is the stated goal of Grant’s study to anticipate 

impacts resulting from current thinning forest practices based on results from past forest regeneration 

harvest practices. Grant’s (2008) analysis presents the following generally accepted conclusions 

regarding the change in peak flows resulting from forest harvest in small basins: 

Canopy removal increases peak flow as follows: 

• During the fall season, through reduced evapotranspiration 

• During the winter and spring through increased snow accumulation and melt 

• During all seasons through reduced rain/snow interception 

Canopy removal decreases peak flow:

• During all seasons by reducing fog drip.

Grant et al. (2008) observed that flows altering stream morphology are those with recurrence intervals 

greater than one year. Rosgen (1996) has shown that floodplain morphology is shaped by bankfull flows 

that correspond to the one to two year recurrence interval. Grant et al. (2008) places the upper limit of 

detection for changes in peak flow at the six year recurrence interval. Study data consistently shows that 

as storm events become larger, the increase in peak flow change decreases and the significance of the 

change becomes undetectable. 

Storm events become increasingly rare as magnitude increases; there are practical limits to the length of 

time stream flow has been recorded and to the accuracy of measurement of very large events. All of these 

factors contribute to the six year detection limit. With these limitations in mind, Grant et al. displayed 

how peak flow change measured within the rain-on-snow regime changes with the percent of area 

harvested. There is a general trend for peak flow increases to decline as harvest area drops. Once harvest 

acreage drops below the 15% level (for transient snow zone), peak flow changes are undetectable. For 

the rain dominated areas the harvest level generating detectable peak flow increases is about 29%. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-24

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Grant proposed two classes of stream channel that are most susceptible to peak flow changes resulting 

from flows in the one to five year range of recurrence interval: gravel bed channels and sand bed 

channels. These are generally higher order streams (3rd order and up). In the Planning Area these would 

be Coal Creek and Wooden Rock Creek. First and second order mountain streams typically are shaped by 

storm events with 10+ year recurrence intervals.

Grant (2008) provides a general guideline for assessing harvest peak flow effects in the Figure III-1 

reproduced below. Roads may play a role in the generation of increased peak flows at the small basin 

scale. This is due to their ability to intercept and concentrate subsurface and surface water. Road 

networks combine with stream networks to accelerate water drainage from the land. Note also that 

thinning would be expected to generate a low risk of increased peak flows as compared to equivalent 

timber removal in large patches.

Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE) analysis for the alternatives was performed by comparing the 

percent of (sixth field) subwatersheds affected by proposed activities with the thresholds provided by 

Grant et al. (2008)(see Section E, 3, below). Comparisons included consideration of existing watershed 

condition, road density, and reduced hydrologic recovery in managed stands harvested less than 30 years 

previously. This study is based on regeneration harvest that changes the age class of a stand. Thinning 

does not change the age class of a stand.

Figure III-1. Potential Considerations for Peak Flow Increases

From Grant (2008)

f. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives

No Action Alternative

Under this alternative, no direct effects from harvest or thinning activities under the Eden Ridge Project 

would occur on National Forest System lands within the Planning Area. There would be no potential for 

changes to channel morphology, large woody material, sediment delivery, and peak flows as a result of 

NFS land management activities in the Planning Area. Other ongoing actions would continue and would 

continue to affect channel morphology, large woody material, sediment delivery, and peak flows at the 

watershed scales; see Cumulative Watershed Effects, subsection 3, below. 

Action Alternatives - Direct and Indirect Effects of Road Construction on Sediment Delivery

Alternative 2

The Proposed Action includes almost 11 miles of new permanent road construction and a third of a mile 

of temporary road. Road density is used as an indicator for increased risk of cumulative watershed effects 

(see Cumulative Watershed Effects, Section E, 3, below.) Under Alternative 2, road density increases 

would be minor in all subwatersheds except for Coal Creek where density would increase by 

approximately 0.43 miles/square mile to a total of 4.62 mi./sq. mi. (refer to Cumulative Watershed Effects 

subsection). This number suggests that road density is a concern for sediment and that road placement 

and design should avoid or mitigate high risk areas.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-25

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Proposed new Classified (system) roads would cross approximately 1.6 miles of Riparian Reserve (see 

Table H-7, FEIS Appendix H, Aquatic Biota Biological Evaluation for details). Proposed temporary 

roads would cross approximately 0.25 miles of Riparian Reserve. These disturbances would cause

localized impacts associated with vegetation removal and surface disturbance within the road construction 

zone. For proposed system roads, this loss of vegetation would be permanent, as would the routing of 

streams through culverts and modification of both surface and subsurface slope runoff water flow. 

Field examinations along the railroad grade proposed for conversion (Road 5000299) indicate that 

subsurface slope flows in the area are minimal. The grade has cuts that expose up to 15 vertical feet of

cut bank. Few seeps were observed and the grade retains water at only a few locations within its 3.5 mile 

length. Proposed system road construction would occur primarily along watershed divides and secondary 

ridgelines. Perennial channels are less than 10 feet wide (three feet or less of active channel is typical). 

There is an unnamed tributary bordering Unit 338 that contains a channel with a relatively wide and 

saturated valley bottom of about 40 feet in the proposed crossing location. 

Proposed roads located in tractor Units 303, 307, 308 and 309 are also exceptions to the description above 

in that they are located at the midpoint of the Coal Creek watershed near the main channel utilizing 

ground based systems supported by construction of Roads Q1 through Q4). Road Q1 crosses 

approximately 0.11 mile of private land and would require a steep gradient (estimated at about 20%) for 

approximately 500 feet. Units 303, 307, 308, and 309 are located in an area that is considered sensitive to 

hydrologic impacts; slope position and distance to Coal Creek are low. Sediment and runoff generated by 

road construction on these units could reach Coal Creek. The temporary road (Q4) and its two crossings 

present surface disturbance that could shed sediment both during construction and during crossing 

removal and rehabilitation. The following adjustments and mitigating measures (see Soils Mitigation 

Measures, FEIS Chapter II for details) are recommended for these units:

 Unit 309: Harvest treatment should be excluded from the zone between the south bank of Coal 

Creek and the slope break. This would avoid disturbance of oversteepened slopes that would 

shed sediment directly into Coal Creek.

 Units 303, 307, 308 and 309: Sediment transport should be monitored by the Forest Service. 

Any visible sediment input to Coal Creek originating from these units would require 

implementation of mitigating measures that would capture/prevent sediment transport 

recommended by a soil scientist, hydrologist, or engineer (see FEIS Chapter II, Section D, 10, b, 

c, and h).

The haul routes for the proposed project would utilize existing NFS and private system roads. Hauling to 

support the proposed sales would occur only during the dry season and during dry conditions. Haul roads 

would all be engineered for effective drainage and armored with rock to provide an all-weather surface. 

Based on the design and experienced effectiveness of mitigation measures, it is unlikely that sediment 

generated from use of haul roads under these conditions would exceed background levels. Field 

examination of the haul route indicates that fine sand and silt originate mainly from road cuts and ditches. 

Slope failures, visible rills and gullies are rare, occurring sporadically on oversteepened colluvial slopes 

or fills. Best Management Practices for road maintenance would be sufficient to capture sediment that 

may be generated by proposed hauling. 

The following tables (III-1 and II-2) show new road construction in relation to the affected subwatersheds 

and road density increased by affected subwatersheds; all Action Alternatives are included in these table 

and are referenced below in the discussion of Alternative 3 and 4.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-26

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table III-1. Proposed Road Construction by Subwatersheds

Subwatershed

New Road Construction

(miles)

Temp Road construction

(miles)

Alt.2 Alt 3 Alt.4* Alt.2 Alt.3 Alt. 4

Coal Creek 6.61 1.87 0.25 0.29 .03 0

Headwaters SF Coquille 2.27 1.31 0 0 0 0

Mill Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0

Myrtle Creek 0.78 0.54 0 0 0 0

Lower Rock Creek 1.15 0.68 0 0 0 0

Total 10.81 4.4 0.25 0.29 0.03 0

*Reconstruction along 3 old rail grades includes new road construction where stream crossings replace rail 

trestle bridges

Table III-2. Road Density Increase by Subwatershed

Subwatershed

(Square Miles) 

Existing Road 

Density 

(miles/sq. mi.)

New Road Construction Density 

Increase (mi/sq. mi) Temporary Road Density Increase 

Proposed

ActionAlt.2

Alt. 3 

Reduced 

Roads

Alt. 4 No 

New 

Roads

Proposed

ActionAlt.2

Alt. 3 Low 

Risk Units 

& Roads

Alt. 4 No 

New

Roads

Coal Creek (15.55) 4.19 0.43 0.12 0 0.02 <0.01 0

Headwaters SF 

Coquille (62.86) 4.25 0.04 0.02 0 0 0 0

Mill Creek (21.77) 3.94 0 0 0 0 0 0

Myrtle Creek (31.29) 4.12 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 0

Lower Rock Creek

(39.91) 4.68 0.03 0.02 0 0 0 0

Action Alternatives - Direct and Indirect Effects of Yarding Activities and Landing Construction

Alternative 2

Proposed yarding activities include those conducted by ground based heavy equipment (“tractors”) and 

those conducted by skyline cable equipment operating from a landing. Surface disturbance resulting from 

ground-based equipment utilizing limited skid trails can be limited to approximately 15% of the area. 

Skyline yarding typically disturbs approximately 5% of the surface area; helicopter operations are 

estimated at 2%. Direct surface impacts are discussed in the Soils Report for this project (Appendix D). 

Hydrologic impacts resulting from tractor use would be low due to the design constraints of the project. 

Tractor units are limited to areas where slopes are 35% or less and equipment would not travel closer than 

100’ to any stream channel. This effectively limits heavy equipment use to upland areas. Under the 

Proposed Action, tractor units account for approximately 2,119 acres (64%) of the total harvest acreage; 

all Action Alternatives are included in Table II-3 (below) and are referenced below in the discussion of 

Alternative 3 and 4. Under LRMP standards and guidelines, under Alternative 2, a maximum of 15% or 

318 acres would incur direct surface disturbance from heavy equipment use. This number includes past 

disturbances within an activity area.

Table III-3. Project Acreages by Logging System for Action Alternatives

Logging System

Proposed 

Action 

Alternative 2

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Ground Based 2,119 1,786 1,441

Skyline 1,195 941 457

Helicopter 0 513 1160

Total Acres 3,314 3,240 3,058
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-27

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table II-4 shows acres and percent of subwatersheds that would be affected by ground based equipment 

during thinning operations; all Action Alternatives are included in this table and is referenced below in 

the discussion of Alternative 3 and 4.

Table III-4. Percent of Subwatershed Affected by Ground Based Equipment

Subwatershed Subwatershed 

Acreage

Acres of Proposed Ground 

Based Commercial Thin 

Harvest

 Alt.2 Alt.3 Alt.4

% of Subwatershed 

Affected By Ground Based 

Commercial Thinning

Alt.2 Alt.3 Alt.4

Coal Creek 9,952 1,189 947 654 12% 9.5% 6.5%

Headwaters SF 

Coquille 40,233 225 209 170 5% .5% .4%

Mill Creek 13,935 8 8 8 <.1% <.1% <.1%

Myrtle Creek 20,028 65 46 33 3% .2% .2%

Lower Rock Creek 25,544 632 576 576 2.5% 2.3% 2.3%

Skyline units have the same 15% LRMP soil disturbance limitation. Skyline yarding is capable of 

accomplishing harvest with surface disturbance of 5% of the activity area; equivalent to roughly 60 acres 

out of the 1,195 acres of skyline units. 

Action Alternatives - Direct and Indirect Effects of Harvest Thinning on Peak Flow

Alternative 2

Table III-4 displays acres proposed for commercial thinning and the percent of the subwatershed they 

would affect; all Action Alternatives are included in this table and is referenced below in the discussion of 

Alternative 3 and 4. Figures are low for all of the subwatersheds except Coal Creek. As shown in Table 

III-13 (Section D, 3, below), 41% of the subwatershed has been regeneration harvested in the last 30 

years. Proposed commercial thinning presents stand impacts that are less severe than regeneration 

harvest. Grant et al. (2008, Figure III-1) provide a generalized guide to impact levels on peak flows. 

Watershed impacts tend to be low for both rain-dominated and transient snow zone regimes up to about 

40% harvest levels. Impacts rise to moderate for the 40 to 80% harvested range and jump to high at 

100% harvest levels. Moore and Wondzell (2005) found that harvest effects on peak flows generally 

recover within 10 to 20 years. Figures from these studies are for regeneration harvest not for partial cut 

thinning. 

Based on these guidelines, the proposed commercial thinning would introduce no detectable risk in the 

affected project subwatersheds, other than Coal Creek. Based on the discussion below, it is likely that the 

proposed thinning would have a low risk of increasing peak flows in Coal Creek.

The Action Alternatives contains elements that lower the potential risk of peak flow increases as follows:

 Harvest treatment would be a variable density thin. This would leave an intact and growing 

forest canopy to attenuate storm events. 

 Limitation on canopy removal in Riparian Reserve of 50% helps to maintain the microclimate.

 Limitation of equipment use in Riparian Reserve—prevents compaction that may reduce water 

infiltration within 100’ of stream channels.

 Limitation of skid trail impacts—reduces potential for compaction that may cause increased 

runoff from storm events/snowmelt.

 Wet weather/seasonal use restrictions—prevents compaction of wet/saturated materials and 

displacement that could result in concentrated surface runoff.

 Harvest is concentrated in upper portions of watersheds where stream discharges are low.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-28

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table III-5. Harvest Thinning by Subwatershed

Subwatershed Subwatershed 

Acreage

Acres of Proposed Commercial 

Thin Harvest % of Subwatershed Affected by 

Proposed Commercial Thinning

Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

Coal Creek 9,952 1,760 1,615 1,428 18% 16% 14%

Headwaters SF 

Coquille 40,233 585 637 642 1.5% 1.6% 1.6%

Mill Creek 13,935 33 33 33 <1% <1% <1%

Myrtle Creek 20,028 172 172 172 1% 1% 1%

Lower Rock Creek 25,544 765 783 783 3% 3% 3%

Action Alternatives - Direct and Indirect Effects of Activities within Riparian Reserves

Alterative 2

Proposed ground based units under Alternative 2 contain approximately 407 acres of Riparian Reserve

(Table III-6). Harvest would occur within the Riparian Treatment Zone which for analysis purposes, is 

approximately 2/3 of the total defined Riparian Reserve (one site potential tree height from the stream 

channel, each side), and excluding the Primary Shade Zone. This would occur mainly along first and 

second order channels. Under Alternative 2, Units 307, 308 and 309 are the only exceptions in that they 

border the main channel of Coal Creek. These units are located in a hydrologically sensitive area due to 

their proximity to Coal Creek. Refer to mitigating measures recommended under the Direct and Indirect 

Effects of Road Construction discussion, above.

Project design eliminates most equipment use near Riparian Reserves. Skyline corridors that cross 

Riparian Reserves are required to be 12 feet or less in width, and no less than 150’ apart, and be utilized 

with full log suspension. Thinning near perennial streams would stop at the Primary Shade Zone. 

Riparian Reserve within skyline units is estimated to total 317 acres (Table III-6). Hydrologic impacts 

from skyline yarding are expected to be low since the overwhelming majority of the activity occurs in the 

uplands where stream widths are narrow. Total actual harvest within the Riparian Reserve under 

Alternative 2 would be approximately 724 acres (refer to Table III-7). 

Table III-6. Project-wide Riparian Logging System Comparison by Action Alternative

Alternative Ground Based Yarding Skyline Yarding Helicopter Yarding Total 

Riparian

Harvest* 

Acres

Coal Creek

Subwatershed 

Only

Total 

Acres

Riparian 

Harvest 

Acres*

Total 

Acres

Riparian 

Harvest 

Acres*

Total 

Acres

Riparian 

Harvest 

Acres*

Proposed

Action - Alt. 2 2,119 407 1,195 317 0 0 724 379

Alt. 3 1,786 315 941 258 513 122 695 347

Alt. 4 1,441 245 457 137 1,160 255 637 290

*Actual anticipated riparian harvest; does not include Primary Shade Zone or skips

Under the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), some proposed units are located in areas that have a greater 

potential for hydrologic impacts (sediment delivery and/or peak flow). These units are listed in Table III7. Their combined acreage is relatively small; however, these units would present more risk of 

measurable impact than the rest of the project.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-29

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table III-7. Units Located in Sensitive Watershed Areas – Proposed Action

Unit Number Logging System Acres Concern for Elevated Resource Damage

301, 302, 304, 305, 306 Skyline 49 Proximity to Coal Creek; location within Coal Creek 

303, 307, 308, 309 Tractor 63 canyon on steep slopes; requires new road construction 

312, 315, 321, 338 Skyline 104 Steep slopes adjacent to major tributaries of Coal Creek

Total Acres 214

Alternative 3

The direct effects of Alternative 3 are similar to those described for the Proposed Action except for those 

areas where harvest and/or road construction has been eliminated, or where the logging system has been 

changed to helicopter. 

Tables III-1 and III-5 (above) shows the change in road construction and harvest acreage under all Action

Alternatives. Under Alternative 3, approximately 1.5 miles of new system road would be constructed 

within the defined Riparian Reserve; temporary road would be about 0.03 mile. Harvested acreage would 

not change except within the Coal Creek and Headwaters SF Coquille subwatersheds. The only 

substantial change is for the Coal Creek subwatershed where about 145 acres would be eliminated from 

proposed harvest; and about 122 acres would be harvested by helicopter.

Under Alternative 3, ground based units contain approximately 315 acres of Riparian Reserve. Harvest 

would occur within the Riparian Treatment Zone which for analysis purposes, is approximately 2/3 of the 

total defined Riparian Reserve (one site potential tree height from the stream channel, each side), and 

excluding the Primary Shade Zone. Actual total Riparian Reserve harvest would occur on about 695 

acres, mainly along first and second order channels. Units 307, 308 and 309 are the only exceptions in 

that they border the main channel of Coal Creek. Mitigation for units located along Coal Creek is the 

same as that recommended for the Proposed Action.

Alternative 3 includes 258 acres within skyline units, and 122 acres within helicopter units of actual 

harvest within Riparian Reserve. Total actual harvest within the Riparian Reserve under Alternative 3 

would be approximately 695 acres (refer to Table III-6). There is minimal change in the acres of Riparian

Reserve harvest between the Proposed Action and Alternative 3; however, the logging system utilized 

shifts more toward skyline and helicopter systems as shown in Table III-6.

Helicopter logging eliminates the ground disturbance associated with ground based logging and 

eliminates yarding corridors resulting from skyline yarding. Helicopter landings require larger areas (one 

or more acres) than log decks to accommodate landing clearances, fueling, and support vehicle parking. 

Most of the units converted to helicopter logging under this alternative are in the upland areas that would 

be logged with ground based systems under the Proposed Action. These areas would sustain direct 

effects of the logging system used but are not considered “sensitive” to disturbance.

Some of the units located in sensitive areas of the subwatershed described under the Proposed Action 

(Table III-7) are eliminated, or the logging system changed, under this alternative. Units 304 and 338 are 

eliminated; Units 307 and 308 would be harvested by helicopter instead of utilizing ground based systems 

supported by construction of Roads Q1 through Q3 (1.4 mi.). Table III-7 information has been modified 

to reflect these changes and is presented in Table III-8 below.

Table III-8. Units Located in Sensitive Watershed Areas – Alternative 3

Unit Number Logging

System Acres Concern for Elevated Resource Damage

301, 302, 305, 306 Skyline 43 Proximity to Coal Creek; location within Coal Creek canyon on 

303, 309 Tractor 26 steep slopes

312, 315, 321 Skyline 80 Steep slopes adjacent to major tributaries of Coal Creek

Total Acres 149 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-30

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Road construction/reconstruction mileage is substantially reduced under this alternative (the primary 

theme of this alternative). Most of the reductions are to roads located in areas with low hydrologic impact 

sensitivity: upland areas near the watershed divide and along ridgelines. Road Q4, as identified above, is 

an exception. Under Alternative 3 this road construction would be excluded, removing the most likely 

project-generated sediment source into Coal Creek.

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 would eliminate new Classified system road construction and reduce road reconstruction to 

1.3 miles. Reconstruction includes 0.7 miles on an existing railroad grade; therefore, new road segments 

may need to be constructed at up to three first or second order streams that had previously been crossed 

with rail trestle bridges. This would result in loss of approximately one acre of the Riparian Reserve to 

permanent stream crossings. 

These crossings account for approximately 0.25 miles of new construction in the Coal Creek 

subwatershed, but would not substantially add to the existing road density (Table III-2). In the other

project subwatersheds there would be no increase in road density over existing levels. Site-scale surface 

disturbance and indirect effects resulting from road construction or reconstruction (refer to discussion 

under the Proposed Action) would be eliminated except at the three stream crossings discussed above; 

and, except for road surfacing and removal of trees/vegetation on the existing road/rail templates. 

Another change is for the Coal Creek subwatershed where about 332 acres would be eliminated from 

proposed harvest; and about 255 acres would be harvested by helicopter.

Many upland units would be harvested using helicopter methods and some would be eliminated (refer to 

project alternative maps in FEIS Chapter II). All of the units identified as being located in areas with high 

hydrologic resource sensitivity under Alternatives 2 and 3 would be eliminated from the harvest except 

for Units 312 and 315. Both of these units would be harvested by helicopters under this alternative, 

removing harvest disturbance associated with skyline logging on these units under Alternatives 2 and 3.

In the upland units, direct disturbance would be avoided, except for landings, on 1,160 acres that would 

be helicopter harvested. Helicopter landings would account for approximately 22 acres, with each 

landing being one or more acres in size. Landings would not be located in the Riparian Reserve and are 

generally on ridgelines or divides; they represent a minor, scattered surface disturbance that would have 

little to no hydrologic impact. 

Alternative 4 contains the least Riparian Reserve harvest and utilizes skyline and helicopter loggings 

systems the most (refer to Table III-6). The remaining ground-based harvest of 1,441 acres would be 

limited by the LRMP standard and guide to 15% of the activity area subject to detrimental soil condition 

(refer to Soils Report, FEIS Appendix D for additional detail). 

Action Alternatives - Direct and Indirect Effects of Activities on Large Woody Material

NFS lands in the Planning Area have little opportunity to provide large wood to the main stems of Coal 

Creek or Wooden Rock Creek since the majority is located in the uplands away from the channel. 

Proposed Units 308, 309 and 315 are close enough to provide wood to Coal Creek. Units 202, 209, 212, 

213, and 214 are close enough to provide wood to Wooden Rock Creek. The remaining project units are 

too far away from large or mainstem channels to be an instream wood source, and/or are not drained by 

streams large enough to transport large wood. 

All proposed units have been clear-cut harvested in the past; the largest diameter trees commonly 

observed in Riparian Reserves associated with proposed units was approximately 24”; the majority are 6” 

to 18” diameter. In-channel large woody material in Region 6 is defined as a minimum of 50 feet long 

with a dbh of 36 inches at the large end (2012 Stream Inventory Handbook v.2.12). Currently, none of 

the trees within Riparian Reserves of the Planning Area meet this criterion, with the exception of downed 

cull logs left by historical harvest activity. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-31

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for Timber Management within Riparian Reserves 

provides direction to “Apply silvicultural practices for Riparian Reserves to control stocking, reestablish 

and manage stands, and acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy objectives.” (USDI Bureau of Land Management & USDA Forest Service, page C-31; TM-1, c.)

Under the Action Alternatives, this direction would be implemented through Eden Ridge Timber Sales, 

where the primary treatment objective in Riparian Reserves is to benefit riparian area functions, including 

future recruitment of large woody material into streams. This objective ties in closely with Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy Objective (ACSO) 1; Maintain and restore complexity of watershed and landscape 

features, ACSO 8; Maintain and restore riparian plant communities and distribution of coarse woody 

debris, and ACSO 9; Maintain and restore habitat for riparian dependent species. 

For the Eden Ridge Planning Area, there is an overall need to restore riparian conditions for aquatic 

habitat, lost by historical railroad clear-cut logging. There is an initial need to restore riparian conditions 

for aquatic habitat in areas harvested in the past where there is a shortage of large wood for recruitment 

into streams. Riparian Reserve thinning would increase tree growth and lessen the time needed to 

establish future large wood delivery. Thinning would result in a long-term beneficial effect by promoting 

the growth of large trees that would provide stream shade and large wood that creates complex instream 

habitats. In the short-term, these treatments would remove smaller trees within Riparian Reserves; 

though, mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the potential effect on short-term large 

woody material recruitment, and eliminate the risk of adverse effect to the existing stream temperature 

regime.

Only Unit 309 is adjacent a fish bearing perennial stream channel in the Coal Creek Drainage. All the 

other units are upstream of the fish bearing perennial stream or they are located on non-fish bearing 

ephemeral or intermittent stream channels. Harvesting that would occur within the Riparian Reserve 

would be at least providing a 25-foot Stream Channel Protection Zone for all channels, and an additional 

50-85 foot Primary Shade Zone for perennial stream channels. These zones would not allow any removal 

of vegetation for timber harvest. The proposed timber harvest would not impact shade producing trees, 

nor would it be impacting future large wood recruitment. The stream channels within the Planning Area 

are on average 3 feet wide for ephemeral and intermittent channels and 8-feet wide for perennial stream 

channels. 

Restoration Projects

Similar and/or Related Actions are included under the Proposed Action and the Action Alternatives; they 

are designed as resource enhancement, restoration, or improvements, and are described in detail in FEIS 

Chapter II, Section D, 2, h. These actions would occur in proximity to commercial and silvicultural stand 

treatments. Included are Non-Commercial Treatments proposed for 363 acres within the ER Planning 

Area (see Table II-6 and MAP II-2), Snag/Down Wood Creation, Meadow Enhancement, Stream 

Enhancement, Native Grass/Forb Seeding, Invasive Plant Treatments, and Other Wildlife Opportunities.

The Eden Ridge Project proposes to place 150 large trees in stream channels and adjacent floodplains to 

increase channel stability, rearing habitat, pool formation, spawning gravel deposition, channel 

complexity, hiding cover, low velocity areas, and floodplain function. Live and dead trees may be 

removed from riparian areas to provide wood for enhancement projects, under special conditions 

described in the Project Design Criteria. These actions would involve the use of log trucks and dump 

trucks for transport and excavator-type machinery, spyders, cable yarders, draft horses, or helicopters for 

placement. Environmental effects, plans and designs would be consistent with Forest Plan direction, 

funding opportunities, and watershed restoration plans (e.g., USDA FS 2006). 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-32

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Approximately 1 Mile of upper Coal Creek tributaries within Units 905 and 906 would have trees felled 

toward the channel and approximately 1 mile of Wooden Rock would have stream enhancement. 

Approximately 50 trees per mile would be placed within approximately 3 miles of stream (150 trees total, 

22,650 cubic feet). The proposed enhancement is located in resident fish habitat ranging from ten miles 

to twenty seven miles upstream of critical coho habitat and three to eight miles for essential fish habitat 

(see FEIS Appendix H).

Stream Enhancement activities would include the placement of large wood into stream channels to alter 

channel morphology by increasing channel stability, pool formation, capture and deposition of in-channel 

gravels, development of low velocity areas, and improvement of floodplain function to improve fish 

habitat. Log placement could involve the use of cable, ground based equipment, horses, or helicopters, or 

felled directly into the stream (see Appendix H, Aquatic Biological Evaluation). Log placement activities 

could involve the localized disturbance, particularly when logs are buried into the stream bank, and where 

access is needed by ground based equipment. Disturbed areas would be minimized and restored through 

the application of Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures for operating in Riparian Reserves. 

Other Wildlife Opportunities involves the installation of nest/roost boxes for cavity nesting species, and 

would have no direct or indirect effects to hydrologic resources. 

g. Cumulative Effects

As noted above, this hydrologic condition issue focuses on potential changes (direct and indirect effects) 

to channel morphology, large woody material, sediment delivery, and peak flows. Direct and indirect 

effects on water quality (i.e., temperature, turbidity, and water quality (303(d) listed waterbodies) is 

discussed within the next Issue (subsection 2). The overall contribution to the risk for adverse cumulative 

watershed effects is discussed in subsection 3, which includes and focuses on elements regarding channel 

morphology, large woody material, sediment delivery, and peak flows.

2. WATER QUALITY

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on water 

quality; stream temperature, turbidity, or water quality (303(d) listed waterbodies).

This hydrologic issue focuses on potential effects on water quality (i.e., temperature, turbidity, and water 

quality (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) listed waterbodies). Potential changes to channel morphology, 

large woody material, sediment delivery, and peak flows are discussed within the previous Issue 

(subsection 1). 

The overall contribution to the risk for adverse cumulative watershed effects is discussed in subsection 3. 

FEIS Appendix C (Hydrology Report, incorporated by reference) includes more detail on current 

watershed and water quality conditions, characteristics, and risks for adverse effects.

Changes in water quality and the effect on listed waterbodies are potential issues because these changes 

can affect the beneficial uses of water, and are controlled by State and Federal regulations pursuant to the 

Clean Water Act of 1972 (as amended 1977 and 1987). Changes in erosional processes, hillslope 

vegetation, hillslope soil properties, condition, type, and amount of roads and, riparian shade are the 

primary factors affecting temperature and turbidity. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-33

Final Environmental Impact Statement

a. Background

Water quality in Oregon is managed in compliance with Section 303(d) of the 1972 Federal Clean Water 

Act by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) and the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). ODEQ is responsible for designating streams and water bodies that require effluent 

limitations, and, for developing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) allocations that will ensure water 

quality standards are met. The most recent listing of impaired waters is available on a DEQ website as 

“Oregon’s 2010 Integrated Report” http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/assessment.htm

The Coquille Subbasin has a completed TMDL that covers most of the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

occurring in that Subbasin. In order to implement the State’s waste load allocations, federal land 

management agencies develop Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP) in cooperation with DEQ. A 

WQMP for the South Fork Coquille River above the Forest Boundary was completed in the year 2000; it 

addresses lands of all ownerships in this part of the watershed. On National Forest System lands, water 

temperature is the water quality parameter of most concern in this area.

Water quality standards are established to protect beneficial uses of the State’s waters. Beneficial uses 

are assigned by basin in the Oregon Administrative Rules for water quality. The Planning Area occurs in 

the South Coast Basin which has beneficial uses listed below (Oregon Administrative Rule 340-041-

0300; adopted by the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission, 2003).

Public Domestic Water Supply Private Domestic Water Supply Industrial Water Supply

Irrigation Livestock Watering Fish and Aquatic Life

Wildlife and Hunting Fishing Boating, Water Contact Recreation

Aesthetic Quality Hydro Power

The state adopted new stream temperature standards in 2004 (OAR 340-041-0028). For stream 

temperature, the state has defined the following categories:

 Core cold water habitat: streams where temperatures are maintained within the range considered 

optimal for salmon and steelhead rearing. Temperature in these waters should maintain a seven-day 

average maximum no higher than 16oC (60.8oF).

 Salmon and trout rearing and migration: These waters are expected to maintain a seven-day 

average maximum no higher than 18oC (64.8oF), except during times & places of salmonid spawning.

 Migration corridors: Some major rivers in Oregon are designated as being migration corridors only, 

and the seven-day average maximum temperature should be no higher than 20oC (68oF). 

 Spawning: During places and times of spawning, the seven day average maximum temperatures are 

expected to be no greater than 13oC (55.4oF).

All streams in the South Fork Coquille drainage above the Forest boundary are designated “Core ColdWater Habitat.” Streams that drain northward from the Planning Area into the Middle Fork Coquille 

River are designated “Salmon and Trout Rearing and Migration.” No additional criteria for spawning 

have been applied to streams within the Planning Area. This information is available to the public on 

DEQ’s website (refer to Fish Use Maps, figures 300a and 300b). Information regarding streams listed by 

the State as impaired is provided in Table III-9 with updated water quality standards for temperature.

The Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality and its partners prepared a Total Maximum Daily Load

assessment and Water Quality Management Plan (TMDL/WQMP) for the Upper South Fork Coquille 

watershed in 2001. The assessment addressed temperature exceedences in 303(d) listed streams and 

many of their tributaries, and concluded that “no thermal loads are available for allocation to 

anthropogenic sources in this system.” For the purposes of the Planning Area, this means that any 

increases in stream water temperature resulting from land management activities would be a violation of 

state water quality standards.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-34

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Middle Fork Coquille River is listed as impaired for both dissolved oxygen (river mile 0 to 11.2) and 

temperature (river mile 0 to 39.6) and a TMDL is needed. None has been prepared as of this time.

Table III-9. Status of TMDL Impaired Stream Listings

Stream Name 

and River Miles

Parameter for 

listing

Season Water Quality Standard Beneficial Use 

protected by 

Standard

Status

South Fork Coquille Watershed

Coal Creek

0 to 6.5 miles

Temperature Summer Rearing temperature 17.8 C (64.0 F) Anadromous fish 

passage; Salmonid 

fish rearing

Attaining: some 

pollutant standards are 

met

Wooden Rock 

Creek

0 to 7.9

Temperature Summer Rearing temperature 17.8 C (64.0 F) Anadromous fish 

passage; Salmonid 

fish rearing

Attaining: some 

pollutant standards are 

met

Hayes Creek

0 to 3.2

Temperature Summer Rearing temperature 17.8 C (64.0 F) Anadromous fish 

passage; Salmsonid 

fish rearing

Attaining: some 

pollutant standards are 

met

Middle Fork Coquille Watershed

Myrtle Creek 

0 to 17

Sedimentation Undefined The formation of appreciable bottom or 

sludge deposits or the formation of any 

organic or inorganic deposits deleterious 

to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to 

public health, recreation, or industry may 

not be allowed.

Resident fish and 

aquatic life; 

Salmonid fish 

rearing; Salmonid 

fish spawning

Insufficient data to 

determine whether a 

standard is met.

Myrtle Creek 

0 to 17

Biological 

Criteria

Year 

Around

Biocriteria: Waters of the State must be of 

sufficient quality to support aquatic 

species without detrimental changes in the 

resident biological communities

Aquatic life Cat 5: Water quality 

limited, 303(d) list, 

needed

Rock Creek

0 to 14.8 miles.

Phosphate

Phosphorus

Summer Total phosphates as phosphorus (P): 

Benchmark 50 ug/L in streams to control 

excessive aquatic growths

Aquatic Life Insufficient data

Rock Creek

0 to 14.8 miles.

Sedimentation Undefined The formation of appreciable bottom or 

sludge deposits or the formation of any 

organic or inorganic deposits deleterious 

to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to 

public health, recreation, or industry may 

not be allowed.

Resident fish and 

aquatic life; 

Salmonid fish 

rearing’ Salmonid 

fish spawning

Insufficient data

Table III-10, extracted from the WQMP, shows that stream temperatures in the mainstem South Fork 

Coquille exceed state standards and increase dramatically after flowing out of the Forest. Table III-10 

indicates that none of the measured tributaries meet the current water quality standard for temperature. A 

stream survey of Coal Creek completed in August of 2010 reported stream temperatures ranging from 

10oC to 16oC. The data provides confirmation that summer water temperature near the mouth of Coal 

creek hovers near the temperature standard; however, water in the most upstream reach of the survey is 

cooler than the temperature standard. The 2010 stream survey also measured the temperature of 11 

tributaries to Coal Creek. Temperatures of these tributaries ranged from 11oto 16oC with all but one 

tributary cooler than 16oC.

Many factors can affect water temperature, and it is difficult to relate forest management activities 

directly to water temperature changes. It has become standard practice in the Pacific Northwest to utilize 

stream shading as a surrogate measure and predictor of long term water temperature changes (USDA, 

USDI, and ODEQ 2005). Effective shade from the forest canopy screens the water’s surface from direct 

rays of the sun. Highly shaded streams typically have cooler stream temperatures due to reduced input of 

solar energy (Brown 1972; Beschta et al., 1987). ODEQ has assigned limits to solar radiation reaching 

streams by utilizing effective shade as a surrogate target for solar loading. For the South Fork Coquille 

Subbasin, ODEQ has adopted a target of at least 82% effective shade. 

Percent effective shade can be linked to specific areas and, thus, to management actions needed to solve 

problems that cause water temperature increases (Park 1993). Table III-11 lists existing and potential

stream shade values, as well as other beneficial management goals contained in the WQMP (DEQ, 2001).
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-35

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table III-10. Average Seven-day-Maximum Temperature Measurements

Table III-11. Average Existing and Potential Shade by Subwatershed

*Private timber companies own land in these drainages
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-36

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Stream shade provided by forest canopy is generally sufficient on small streams on NFS land within the 

Planning Area. Maps C-3 and C-4 in FEIS Appendix C display existing shade values for the Planning 

Area generated by the RAPID model. National Forest System land riparian zones in the Planning Area 

are dominated by shade in the 85-100% category with scattered areas in the 65-84% shade category. 

Occasional spots in lower categories appear; many of these are adjacent to the Forest Boundary and 

probably reflect map/photo boundary location errors. Regeneration harvests present in 1996 are readily 

detected in Maps C-3 and C-4 as abrupt changes in existing shade from green to red/orange at the Forest 

Boundary. Existing vegetation was derived from aerial photography from 1996; therefore it does not 

reflect more recent regeneration harvests that have occurred on private timber lands adjacent to the 

Planning Area. For a more recent assessment of harvest activity and road density, refer to the discussion 

in the Cumulative Watershed Effects Section D, 3, below.

b. Effects Mechanisms and Analysis Framework

Temperature

Stream temperature is an expression of heat energy per unit volume, which in turn is an indication of the 

rate of heat exchange between a stream and its environment. The heat transfer processes that control 

stream temperature include solar radiation, longwave radiation, convection, evaporation and bed 

conduction (Wunderlich, 1972; Beschta and Weatherred, 1984; Sinokrot and Stefan, 1993; Boyd, 1997; 

Moore et al., 2005; Johnson 2011). With the exception of solar radiation, which only delivers heat 

energy, these processes are capable of both introducing and removing heat from a stream. 

Anthropogenic increase in heat energy is derived from solar radiation as increased levels of sunlight reach 

the stream surface and raises water temperature. The pollutant (solar heat energy) is a source of stream 

temperature increase that is within management measures and is targeted in the TMDL.

Table III-12. Factors that Influence Stream Surface Shade

Description Measure

Season Date

Stream characteristics Aspect, Bankfull Width

Geographic Position Latitude, Longitude

Vegetative Characteristics Buffer Height, Buffer width, buffer Density

Solar Position Solar Altitude, Solar Azimuth

Over the years, the term shade has been used in several contexts, including its components such as shade 

angle or shade density. For purposes of this TMDL, shade is defined as the percent reduction of potential 

solar radiation load delivered to the water surface. Thus, the role of effective shade in this TMDL is to 

prevent or reduce heating by solar radiation and serve as a linear translator to the solar loading capacities. 

The percent effective shade is perhaps one of the easiest and straightforward stream parameters to 

monitor/calculate and is most helpful in directing water quality management and recovery efforts. Using 

solar tables or mathematical simulations, the potential daily solar load can be quantified. The measured 

solar load at the streams surface can easily be measured with a Solar Pathfinder or estimated using 

mathematical shade simulation computer programs (Boyd, 1997 and USFS, 1993).

Changes in water temperature are most likely to be caused by changes in riparian vegetation and sediment 

delivery processes. Though much less likely to be significant under current forest practices, changes in 

runoff timing and water yield can also affect water temperature. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-37

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Effects of Thinning on Stream Shade and Temperature

1 Mile of Stream

280 220 180 110 80

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

.8 % Shade

Temperature (F)

Temperature increase (F) % Shade loss

Basal Area

Stream temperature is affected by many variables. Energy exchange may involve solar radiation, long 

wave radiation, evaporative heat transfer, convective heat transfer, conduction, and advection (Beschta 

1984). With the exception of solar radiation, which only delivers heat energy, these processes are capable 

of both introducing and removing heat from a stream. Solar radiation is the most important radiant 

energy source for the stream heating during the daytime (Brown, 1983; Beschta et al., 1987). Reduced 

riparian vegetation can increase solar radiation, and stream temperature. 

Density management and connected actions associated with timber harvest can affect stream temperatures 

through increased summer stream exposure. When a stream is exposed to solar radiation, heat is 

delivered to the stream system (Beschta et al., 1987). Some solar radiation would reflect off the stream 

surface, depending on the sun’s elevation. All solar radiation outside the visible spectrum (0.36 to 0.76)

is absorbed within the first meter of stream depth; only visible light penetrates deeper (Wunderlich 1972). 

Sellers (1965) reported that 50% of solar energy passing through the stream surface is absorbed in the 

first 10 cm of the water column. 

Removal of riparian vegetation, and the shade it provides, contributes to elevated stream temperatures 

(Rishel et al, 1982; Brown 1983; Beschta et al., 1987). Exposure to direct solar radiation will often cause 

a dramatic increase in stream temperatures. When shaded throughout the entire day, far less heat energy 

would be transferred to the stream. The ability of riparian vegetation to shade the stream depends on 

vegetation height, density, stream width and position relative to the stream. 

Thinning can affect stream temperature by removing shade trees. The amount of shade lost depends on 

stream width, tree height and stream orientation. The following figure displays effects of thinning for one 

mile of stream.

Figure III-2. Effects of Thinning on Stream Shade and Temperature
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-38

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Most daily solar radiation occurs between 10 am and 2 pm. Trees that provide stream shade during this 

time are considered “primary shade trees.” Trees should not be removed in this “Primary Shade Zone” if 

stream shade is a priority. Adoption and implementation of the 2011 Northwest Forest Plan Temperature 

TMDL Implementation Strategies with the FEIS will increase the Primary Shade Zone width (over the 

DEIS) based on slope and tree height. Tree heights measured in Riparian Reserves during the 2012 stand 

exams indicate the Primary Shade Zones for Eden Ridge Timber Sales would range 50 to 85 feet on both 

sides of a stream course. 

Buffer width is a function of angular canopy density for mature trees. At some point, the shade density 

increases very little as the sun’s angle decreases or the sun gets lower in the sky. This is the secondary 

shade zone. Very little additional shade is gained when the sun is low enough to intercept the secondary 

shade trees. Therefore, in dense stands such as being proposed for treatment, trees outside the “Primary 

Shade Zone” can be thinned with no effect on stream shade. 

Turbidity

Changes in hillslope soil properties can affect water quality and channel morphology by changing runoff 

timing and hillslope sediment delivery rates. Turbidity results from increased suspended sediment that 

reduces water clarity. Coarse materials such as gravels, cobbles and coarse sands, settle out and do not 

contribute to turbidity. Material finer than 0.4 mm can become suspended in the water and reduce clarity. 

Slope failures in riparian areas can introduce fine sediment into the stream and increase turbidity. Also 

see sediment delivery discussion in the Hydrologic Condition issue, above.

c. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives

Temperature

No Action Alternative

Under this alternative, no direct effects from harvest or thinning activities under the Eden Ridge Project 

would occur on National Forest System lands within the Planning Area. There would be no potential for 

changes to stream shading (temperature) or turbidity as a result of NFS land management activities in the 

Planning Area. Other ongoing actions would continue and would continue to affect stream temperatures 

at the watershed scales; see Cumulative Watershed Effects, Section D, 3, below. 

Proposed Action/Action Alternatives

Under the Proposed Action and Action Alternatives, thinning treatments utilizing the specially designed 

Riparian Reserve Project Design Criteria, would not adversely affect downstream water temperatures 

during critical periods. Density management thinning is designed to improve stand health with treatments 

and/or commercial extraction while allowing attainment of or restoration of Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy (ACS) Objectives under the Northwest Forest Plan. 

Trees in the Primary Shade Zone would not be affected except where skyline corridors cross perennial 

channels and where road/stream crossings are constructed or reconstructed. Trees felled for skyline 

corridors would not be removed.

Project Design Criteria would ensure that water temperatures in these areas would not be affected in 

stream reaches. Much of the streams in the Project Area are small systems that are heavily vegetated, and 

have a large groundwater influence on water temperature. Proposed treatments would not impact shade 

producing trees, nor would it be impacting future large wood recruitment to fish habitat. The stream 

channels within the Project Areas are on average 3 feet wide for ephemeral and intermittent channels and 

8-feet wide for perennial stream channels (see FEIS Chapter III, Section E, 12).
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-39

Final Environmental Impact Statement

New road construction occurs mainly in the uppermost areas of the watershed where streams are first and 

second order. Most of these streams are ephemeral or intermittent and are dry during the summer months. 

Constructed stream crossings would occur on proposed new permanent roads and on existing railroad 

grades proposed for conversion to permanent (Classified, system) road. These roads and crossings would 

not be anticipated to result in measureable increases to water temperature for the following reasons:

 All of the crossings are located on first and second order streams. These channels are only a few 

feet wide and have small discharges.

 Sun exposure would be 100% blocked as the water flows through the culvert. Exposure upstream 

and downstream of the culvert would occur over a few linear feet and would be reduced by 

adjacent forest canopy; this limited exposure is not enough to cause a measureable change in 

water temperature. 

 The largest watershed area above these crossings totals approximately 60 acres. Others are 30 

acres or less. This presents very little drainage area to collect surface water to these crossings. 

Stream discharge from such small drainage basins is low, especially during the summer when 

ground water levels are lowest.

 Skyline corridors would change minor amounts of canopy in the Primary Shade Zone where the 

corridor crosses perennial streams. Skyline corridors that cross Riparian Reserves are required to 

be 12 feet or less in width, and no less than 150’ apart, and be utilized with full log suspension. 

Surrounding trees and understory would make shade loss resulting from these gaps in the canopy 

negligible. The open area would be occupied by the growth of neighboring trees within a few 

years. No measureable increase in water temperature is anticipated at corridor locations.

Turbidity

No Action Alternative

Under this alternative, no direct effects from harvest or thinning activities under the Eden Ridge Project 

would occur on National Forest System lands within the Planning Area. There would be no potential for 

effect on turbidity as a result of NFS land management activities in the Planning Area. Other ongoing 

actions would continue and would continue to affect turbidity at the watershed scales; see Cumulative 

Watershed Effects, Section E, 3, below. 

Proposed Action/Action Alternatives

Application of special Project Design Criteria as part of the Action Alternatives and Mitigating Measures 

would prevent the generation of sediment that could create turbidity that could reach perennial streams. 

NFS land within the Planning Area is dominantly gently sloping with mature forest and well developed 

understory. Steeper areas with slopes greater than 35% would be thinned by either skyline or helicopter 

methods. Sediment production resulting from thinning activities is expected to be minimal and localized 

for the following reasons:

 Thinning would leave sufficient forest canopy to prevent large increases in storm runoff or 

snowmelt.

 Minimally disturbed soils and understory vegetation would recover and anchor surface soils.

 Thinning activities would occur in areas where streams and runoff amounts are both small. 

Units located along Coal Creek that are exceptions to these conditions have site specific 

mitigating measures designed to prevent or capture activity generated sediment.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-40

Final Environmental Impact Statement

 No cut buffers in the stream bank protection zone and Primary Shade Zone would act as capture 

and retention areas between stream courses and activity-generated, localized sediment sources.

 Wet weather conditions would preclude hauling as per design criteria; road-generated sediment 

during wet conditions is the primary source of logging activity-generated sediment. 

d. Cumulative Effects

The water quality cumulative effects analysis is primarily discussed under the Cumulative Watershed 

Effects subsection 3, below. 

Treatments under the Proposed Action would likely not occur within a given watershed all in one year, 

treatments would likely be spread over a 5 year period. This would reduce the risk of adverse effects by 

spreading surface disturbance over time. It is also highly likely that the total extent of acres within 

candidate stands would not be treated, because of the potential for areas to be excluded with application 

of the Project Design Criteria, as well as the fact that some stands or portions thereof may not be overly 

dense and not in need of density management at this time. 

The Proposed Action and Action Alternatives would not create adverse effects on water quality detectable 

at the sixth field scale, even though the acreage and subwatershed existing condition suggest that risk of 

cumulative watershed effects would increase. Action alternatives are designed to avoid or mitigate 

impacts in sensitive watershed areas and could be implemented without increasing sediment loads that 

could cumulatively contribute to existing degraded watershed condition.

3. CUMULATIVE WATERSHED EFFECTS

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on the risk 

for adverse cumulative watershed impacts.

Past activities are considered part of the existing condition. To understand the contribution of past actions 

to the cumulative effects of the Proposed Action, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions 

as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact 

of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment, and might contribute to 

future cumulative effects. FEIS Appendix C (Hydrology Report, incorporated by reference) includes

more detail on current watershed and water quality conditions, characteristics, and risks for adverse 

cumulative watershed effects.

Cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by adding up 

all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking this approach. 

First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and costly to obtain at the 

scale of the entire Forest. Current conditions have been impacted by many actions over the last century 

(and beyond), and trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would be 

nearly impossible. Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be 

useful to predict the cumulative effects of the Proposed Action. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-41

Final Environmental Impact Statement

In fact, focusing on individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, because 

there is limited information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions, and one cannot 

reasonably identify each action over the last century that has contributed to current conditions. By 

looking at current conditions, the residual effects of past human actions and natural events can be 

recognized, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects. 

On BLM-managed lands and private lands, current harvest practices would be expected to continue. On 

BLM lands there would continue to be a focus on thinning and prescribed fire. Thus, no new young 

stands would be created. On private lands, harvest levels are expected to be maintained at the current 

intensity and rotation. In general, if private lands are harvested on a 40-50 year rotation, there would 

continue to be young stands on private land about half of the time.

a. Background and Analysis Framework

The project Planning Area is surrounded by private timber production lands that have been, and continue 

to be, harvested by regeneration methods. Existing watershed disturbance as of 2009 was analyzed for 

both private and NFS lands in project subwatersheds in order to provide a realistic context for the 

contributions of the Action Alternatives to cumulative watershed effects. 

Plum Creek Timber owns most of the private lands within the surrounding watershed; these private lands 

are generally on a 40-50 year harvest rotation. Some of the surrounding acres are managed by the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM). BLM also manages under the Northwest Forest Plan; therefore effects 

from actions are comparable to the Forest Service.

Present and foreseeable future federal actions that could affect Threatened wildlife species in the area 

include: fuels treatments, developed and dispersed recreation, timber harvest and vegetation treatments, 

reforestation, restoration, road management, and special uses. All of these activities would be designed to 

meet the objectives in agency management plans and the Northwest Forest Plan (including the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy; NWFP 1994). 

Density management effects from the activities proposed under the Eden Ridge FEIS could combine with 

effects from other Forest Service activities; such as, pre-commercial thinning, commercial thinning, 

meadow restoration, and danger tree felling. There are approximately 300 acres currently being thinned 

under the Silver Doe Timber Sale within the Planning Area. There are approximately 675 acres of 

plantation commercial thinning identified under the Coastal Healthy Forest Treatment (CHFT) Project 

within the Planning Area. 

For most of the Planning Area, the current risk for adverse cumulative watershed effects (CWE) is at the 

moderate/high threshold level. Risk analysis utilized a process developed for the Pacific Northwest in 

response to a request from the National Marine Fisheries Service regarding determination of the 

cumulative effects to fish populations protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The process 

is documented as Determining the Risk of Cumulative Watershed Effects Resulting from Multiple 

Activities (USDA, Forest Service, 1993). This process was developed by Forest Service fish biologists 

and hydrologists from Regions 1, 4 and 6, and reviewed by forest industry, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, and tribal representatives.

Evaluation of peak flow data in Oregon and Washington was conducted by Grant et al. (2008) in a 

publication titled Effects of Forest Practices on Peak Flows and Consequent Channel Response: A Stateof- Science Report for Western Oregon and Washington. Discussions and conclusions in the Grant et al. 

report are relevant to, and update, the analysis process developed in 1993 because peak flow changes are 

an indicator of watershed response to management actions and represent a host of indirect effects. Grant 

et al. states:
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-42

Final Environmental Impact Statement

“In general, the magnitude of channel morphologic changes because of peak flow increases alone are 

likely to be much less significant than other impacts associated with forest harvest activities. Effects of 

deforestation on landslides, debris flows, and surface erosion are well documented (e.g., Reid 1993, 

Sakals et al. 2006, Sidle et al. 1985) and these are likely to have far more direct effects on channel 

structure than peak flows alone, as these processes typically involve direct introduction of sediment into 

stream channels. In particular, accelerated geomorphic processes associated with forest roads are likely to 

have some of the most pronounced effects on forest streams (e.g., Wemple et al., 2001).” 

This subsection describes the indicators used for the assessment of existing watershed condition as of 

2009, including modifications based on information provided in Grant et al. (2008) and based on the 

project hydrologist’s professional judgment.

The 1993 USDA/USFS protocol provides a means of assessing the relative risk of incurring adverse 

cumulative effects from actions which, individually, would be “not likely to adversely affect” fish 

production. For the Planning Area, this protocol is used to assess the existing condition resulting from 

past and recent timber management on both National Forest System and privately owned lands. 

Grant et al. (2008) concluded that watershed studies at the scale of larger drainage areas (more than 

approximately four square miles) are rare, and that variables specific to a particular watershed could 

influence study results more than timber harvest (for example basin condition and vegetation types). For 

this reason, 6th field subwatershed boundaries were used for analysis rather than the 5th field watershed 

boundary. In this case, the subwatersheds involved have a similar management history, geology, and soil 

characteristics (refer to Watershed Analyses, USFS 1995 and BLM, 1994). The Planning Area is 

contained in five subwatersheds that experience rain, fog and transient snow associated with a marine 

influenced climate (USFS Watershed Analysis, 1995). The Planning Area is dominantly in a 

precipitation regime dominated by rain, with rain-on-snow occurring at the highest elevations. 

Watershed condition and channel condition rating factors used for this analysis are described below:

 Hydrologic Maturity (forest canopy recovery) -- A coarse filter for “immature vegetation” that 

is often used is the percent of clear-cut (regeneration harvest) forested stands less than 30 years 

old. Watersheds with more than 30% of such stands are at High risk (USDA 1993). Likewise, 

Grant et al. (2008) predicted peak flow changes would become detectable when stands less than 

30 years old occupy more than 29% of the area in rain-dominated zones, and more than 15% in 

the transient snow zone.

 Road Density -- areas that exceed 3.6 mi/sq.mi. in high relief watersheds, and that exceed 4.6 

mi/sq.mi. in low relief watersheds are considered to be at High risk of adversely impacting water 

quality and water yield (USDA 1993). 

 Temperature -- used as an indicator of habitat and channel condition (USDA 1993); stream 

temperature should not exceed fish tolerance or state thresholds. 

 Large Woody Material -- used as an indicator of habitat and channel condition (USDA 1993). 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-43

Final Environmental Impact Statement

b. Hydrologic Maturity Assessment for Planning Area

Forest canopy cover was assessed by inventorying stands less than 30 years old in the affected 

subwatersheds up to the year 2009 (see Attachment 1 of FEIS Hydrology Report, Appendix C for 

methodology). This assessment captures private timber land harvest activity as well as that on BLM and 

NFS lands. Table III-13 summarizes this assessment as percent of each subwatershed harvested and 

provides a risk rating. Harvest from 2005 to 2009 is provided to show where the most recent activity has 

occurred.

Table III-13. Regeneration Harvest as Percent of Subwatershed

Subwatershed Total 

Regeneration 

Harvest 1977-2009

Regeneration 

Harvest 

2005-2009

Regeneration

Risk Rating 

(USDA, 1993)

Coal Creek 41% 11% High

Headwaters SF Coquille 10% 2% Low

Mill Creek 23% 2% Moderate

Myrtle Creek 32% 8% High

Lower Rock Creek 40% 12% High

c. Road Density Assessment for Planning Area

Subwatersheds in the Planning Area would be classified as “low relief” for the purposes of road density 

threshold comparison. Table III-2 (above in subsection 1) shows that except for Lower Rock Creek 

subwatershed, existing road density for the project subwatersheds is at the Moderate risk levels for low 

relief watersheds (below 4.6 mi./sq. mi). Lower Rock Creek subwatershed is in the “High Risk” 

category.

Road density, expressed as miles/square mile is an easily calculated index of watershed disturbance and a 

useful coarse filter for determining current watershed condition as a basis for risk of cumulative 

watershed effects (USDA, 1993). Road density information has been updated to 2009 specifically for the 

subwatersheds in the Planning Area (see Attachment 1 of FEIS Hydrology Report, Appendix C for 

methodology).

MAP III-1 depicts road densities that include state/county and classified (BLM/FS) roads, but do not 

include temporary roads or skid trails (no data). High risk ratings begin at 4.6 miles/sq. mi. (USDA, 

1993). The map below shows that most National Forest System lands in the Planning Area have densities 

less than 3.8 miles/sq. mile. NFS lands along the edges of the Forest/private land boundary have road 

densities higher than 3.8 miles/sq. mile. Subwatersheds that include the Planning Area would be rated 

“Moderate” or “High Risk” for watershed effects associated with roads.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-44

Final Environmental Impact Statement

MAP III-1. Subwatershed Road Density

d. Large Woody Material Assessment for Planning Area

Coal Creek subwatershed forms the core of the Action Alternatives in that it contains the majority of the 

harvest units, proposed road construction, and haul routes. Other subwatersheds are peripherally involved 

along subwatershed divides. The 2010 Stream Survey for Coal Creek found little or no medium or large 

size class woody material and little potential for future recruitment (refer to more detailed information 

under Hydrologic Conditions issue, above). Coal Creek would be rated “Poor” for large woody material, 

as an indicator of habitat and channel condition (USDA 1993) based on the condition of the main channel. 

According to watershed analyses and stream surveys, quantities of large woody material in stream 

channels, and quantities available for recruitment to stream channels, are low throughout the affected 

watersheds. 

Watershed Analysis for the Middle Fork Coquille River states that within the last 100 years, standing and 

downed conifers were removed from, and roads were built along, the majority of riparian areas in the 

Middle Fork Coquille River basin. Since red alder responds to heavy disturbance activities such as 

logging and road building, the riparian areas were converted from mixed conifer stands with a hardwood 

understory to red alder-dominated stands with a shrub understory.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-45

Final Environmental Impact Statement

“The entire length of the Middle Fork Coquille River and portions of nearly every tributary stream are 

constrained by roads. In general, the drainage has a deficit of in-stream structure (large woody debris) 

and channel complexity, with the exception of a few isolated stretches on some tributaries.” (2010 

Stream survey)

e. Overall Current Risk of Adverse Cumulative Watershed Effects 

Table III-14 summarizes the existing condition information as of 2009 and provides an overall risk rating 

for detectable watershed effects for each subwatershed in the Planning Area. Note that for all but the 

Headwaters SF Coquille subwatershed, the risk is currently “High”. 

Table III-14. Summary of Current Risk of Adverse Watershed Effects

Subwatershed Hydrologic 

Maturity Risk 

Factor

Road Density 

Risk Factor

Temperature

Effective Stream 

Shade Increase 

Needed

Large 

Woody 

Material

Overall Risk of 

Adverse 

Watershed 

Effects

Coal Creek High Moderate 18% Poor High

Headwaters SF Coquille Low Moderate 16% Fair Moderate

Mill Creek Moderate Moderate (no data) Poor* High

Myrtle Creek High Moderate (no data) Poor* High

Lower Rock Creek High High (no data) Poor* High

*Condition based on generalized description/history from Watershed Analysis

Table III-15 shows that private land holdings dominate each of the project subwatersheds, except for the 

Headwaters SF Coquille. Ongoing regeneration harvest on private lands is expected to continue. The risk 

for adverse cumulative watershed impacts (i.e., peak flow increases, sediment delivery), as assessed 

above, would remain at or somewhat above current levels. Based on recent harvest activity levels, it 

would be reasonable to assume that the risk of adverse watershed effects in the Headwaters SF Coquille 

subwatershed would remain at moderate levels when averaged over the entire subwatershed. Within the 

Headwaters subwatershed, private timber production land dominates the Wooden Rock Creek drainage.

The SF Coquille Watershed Analysis identifies Wooden Rock Creek as an important tributary to the SF 

Coquille within the Headwaters subwatershed. Wooden Rock Creek discharge is twice that of the main 

stem at the confluence and provides low temperature water into the temperature-sensitive SF Coquille. 

Increasing risk of adverse watershed effects resulting from continuing regeneration harvest on private 

lands is anticipated for the Wooden Rock Creek drainage (refer to Existing Shade Maps, showing low 

stream canopy along Wooden Rock Creek, and Oblique Views showing regeneration harvests; in FEIS 

Appendix C, Hydrology Report). For this portion of the Headwaters subwatershed, risk of stream water 

temperature increases and risk of peak flow increases would be high.

Table III-15. Private Ownership by Subwatershed

Subwatershed Acres in 

Private 

Ownership

% of 

Subwatershed

% of 

Subwatershed 

Harvested in the 

Last 30 Years

% of Private 

Subwatershed 

Acreage 

Estimated to be 

Available for 

Future Harvest

Coal Creek 6,000 60 41 19

Headwaters SF Coquille 9,904 25 10 15

Mill Creek 10,966 79 23 56

Myrtle Creek 17,918 89 32 57

Lower Rock Creek 21,481 84 40 44
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-46

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Risk of adverse watershed effects in the remaining subwatersheds are at high levels and are likely to 

remain at high risk levels as a result of continuing regeneration harvest on private lands. Table III-15

indicates that large portions of the project subwatersheds have been regeneration harvested over the last 

30 years, and much is still available. All but a few percent of the harvested acreage over the last 30 years 

have occurred on private timberlands. Private lands still available for harvest could maintain the risk for 

adverse watershed effect at a high level for decades. The mainstem of Coal Creek has lost structural 

elements and is currently degraded in its ability to trap and store sediment. No substantial recovery of 

this condition is anticipated. Likewise, substantial improvements in water temperature in the SF Coquille 

River downstream of the Forest Boundary are unlikely given the lack of existing shade along the river and 

the current harvest trends on the private uplands.

f. Risk Of Adverse Cumulative Watershed Effects - Action Alternatives

Cumulative Effects Risk for Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

The Proposed Action would present no measureable increase in risk for adverse cumulative watershed 

effects in the Headwaters SF Coquille, Mill Creek, Myrtle Creek or Lower Rock Creek 

subwatersheds. This is due to: 

 The minor involvement of these subwatersheds in the Proposed Action (see Table III-4, above).

 The location of units/roads at or near ridges and watershed divides where effects would be 

minimal.

Risk of adverse cumulative watershed effects in the Coal Creek subwatershed is currently high since the 

main channel is already in a degraded condition. Road density would be elevated slightly over existing 

levels and would be in the “High” range for this risk factor. The addition of the proposed harvest acreage 

and road construction within this degraded subwatershed may contribute to additional risk of adverse 

effects; however, limited stand management could be conducted without increasing risk if the impacts 

could be limited to the site scale. The following conditions would allow containment of impacts to the 

local or unit level (site scale): 

 NFS lands contain hydrologically mature stands with large in-stream and upland wood present; 

this provides vegetative buffers that would counter increased runoff or sediment transport.

 NFS lands are located mainly in the uplands where streams are small and discharges are low; risk 

of hydrologic impact from this portion of watershed is low.

 The majority of the proposed units are located thousands of feet away from the main channel.

 Proposed thinning is designed to enhance the growth and vigor of the stand by removing 

intermediate and suppressed trees.

 Stream buffers and equipment limitations are designed to eliminate off-site impacts.

Some proposed units are located in areas that have a greater potential for hydrologic impacts. These units 

are listed in Table III-8 (above). Their combined acreage is relatively small; however these units would 

present more risk of measurable impact than the rest of the project. 

Cumulative Effects Risk for Alternative 3

Under Alternative 3, the risk for cumulative adverse watershed effects remains small for all 

subwatersheds, except Coal Creek. Risk levels for the Coal Creek subwatershed are less than those in the 

Proposed Action due mainly to the reduction of road construction (refer to Table III-2 and III-3, above). 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-47

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Road density would be elevated slightly over existing levels but would remain in the “Moderate” range 

for this risk factor. The relatively small reduction in harvest is not likely to have an impact on cumulative 

effect risk since tree removal is limited to thinning (see discussion under the Proposed Action) and since 

the acreage involved is less than 4% of the subwatershed.

Cumulative Effects Risk for Alternative 4

Alternative 4 presents the least ground disturbance of all of the Action Alternatives. Harvest acreage 

reductions between alternatives are small. Table III-3 shows the distribution of logging systems by

harvest acres and shows only an 8% decrease between the Proposed Action and Alternative 4. 

Reductions in surface disturbance are gained by eliminating road construction and increasing use of 

helicopter logging systems (including helicopter landings).

Alternative 4, like the other Action Alternatives, presents no risk of adverse watershed effects in any 

subwatershed other than Coal Creek. Surface impact due to harvest by skyline and helicopter yarding 

would be a minor contribution to overall watershed disturbance. 

Coal Creek subwatershed has been 40% regeneration harvested in the last 30 years; therefore Alternative 

4 could still contribute to the risk of adverse cumulative watershed effects. Grant et al. (2008) suggested 

that harvest alone is relatively benign in increasing peak flows except at levels above 80% harvest. Roads 

are responsible for the bulk of peak flow increases. Since Alternative 4 avoids new road construction and 

any substantial contribution to subwatershed road density, it is unlikely that peak flow increases from 

NFS land in Coal Creek would occur. 

4. SOILS, GEOLOGY AND SITE PRODUCTIVITY

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on soils, 

geologic stability, or site productivity through detrimental soil disturbance, erosion, or effects on woody 

material. 

This issue will describe background geology and analyze effects to existing soil resources within the Eden 

Ridge Timber Sales Planning Area, more specifically, soil productivity and slope stability. FEIS 

Appendix D (Geology and Soils Report, incorporated by reference) includes more detail on current soils 

and geologic conditions, characteristics, and risks for adverse effects. Strongly associated resources are 

described and analyzed in the hydrologic issues and Hydrology Report (FEIS Appendix C), and the 

Preliminary Silvicultural Diagnosis (FEIS Appendix B); both incorporated by reference.

a. Background and Analysis Framework

Management Direction

The authorities governing Forest Service soil management are outlined in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 

2550 – Soil Management (WO Amendment 2500-2010-1, Effective November 23, 2010). Regional 

direction for maintaining and protecting the soil resource from detrimental disturbance to soil productivity 

is given in FSM 2500 – Watershed Protection and Management, Region 6 Supplement No. 2500-9801.

The Siskiyou National Forest (SNF) LRMP provides standards and guidelines (S&Gs) for soil and water 

resources on pages IV-44 through IV-48. In regard to soils and geology, included are S&Gs for 

detrimental soil conditions, soil erosion, mass movement, and large woody material. 

Detrimental soil conditions include compaction, displacement, puddling, and severely burned soil 

conditions. Detrimental soil conditions are further defined in FSM 2500, Region 6 Supplement No. 2500-

98-1. On the Siskiyou National Forest, the total area of detrimental soil conditions should not exceed 15 

percent of the total acreage within the activity area, including roads and landings(S&G 7-2, page IV-44: 

(SNF LRMP, 1989).
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-48

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Surface organic matter (duff, litter) is vital for protecting surface soils from erosion. Mineral soil 

exposure (loss of duff and litter) should not exceed the following limits (ibid.):

o 40% mineral soil exposed on soils classed low-to-moderate erosion hazard;

o 30% mineral soil exposed on soils classed high erosion hazard;

o 15% mineral soil exposed on soils classed very high erosion hazard.

Standards and Guidelines for large woody material stress the importance of addressing site-specific needs. 

In general, five to twenty pieces of large woody material per acre should remain on each site; material 

should be from a range of decomposition classes; each piece should be at least 20 inches in diameter at 

the large end and contain at least 40 cubic feet volume (ibid.). To better guide site-specific needs, 

additional tools based on Plant Association Groups (PAGs), and down wood information collected with 

stand exam data, are used to refine the large woody material prescriptions. Because the Forest’s PAG 

data is at a finer scale, the Forest is currently using plant series data from new PAG classifications, 

delineated by geographical regions (Cascades, Siskiyous, Coast), for determining snag and down wood 

objectives on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (refer to the Silvicultural Diagnosis, FEIS 

Appendix B, for more detail). 

In addition, the Northwest Forest Plan requires that all unstable areas and potentially unstable areas be 

managed as Riparian Reserve.

Geology

The South Fork Coquille River forms the boundary between two major physiographic provinces, the 

Coast Range Province to the north and the Klamath Mountain Province to the south (USDI Bureau of 

Land Management, 1994). The Eden Ridge Planning Area is just within the south end of the Coast Range 

Province. The Planning Area is almost entirely overlying the Tyee Formation. A small sliver of the 

Umpqua Formation is within the very northwest corner of the Planning Area; however no activities are 

proposed in this area in any of the alternatives, therefore it will not be discussed further.

The Tyee Formation is prominent along the Central Oregon coast from approximately Salem southward 

to Myrtle Point (Beaulieu, 1971). South of Myrtle Point, isolated outcrops cap various ridge tops along 

the axis of a major syncline fold (ibid.), and the Eden Ridge Planning Area is an example of this (see 

MAP III-2).

The Tyee Formation is of middle Eocene age (approximately 49 million years), and is made up of thick 

marine sediments deposited in a forearc basin from rivers with watersheds that extended into the interior 

of Idaho (Orr et al., 1992). Tyee sandstone is considered “arkosic”, or rich in white mica, quartz, and 

potassium feldspar, and matches the minerals of the Idaho batholith (Orr et al., 1992). 

It is composed of thick rhythmically bedded, cliff-forming, buff to greenish-gray sandstone with thin 

interbedded dark colored mudstone; the sandstone is composed of medium to coarse-grained, micaceous, 

arkosic, and lithic wacke (Beaulieu, 1971; Meyer & Amaranthus, 1979). Some conglomerates of 

andesite, quartzite, chert, and basalt as well as local coal beds are also located in this formation (ibid.).
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-49

Final Environmental Impact Statement

MAP III-2. Geology of the Eden Ridge Planning Area 

(data from DOGAMI, 2009)

Slope Stability

The Tyee Formation exhibits northerly strikes and dips gently, meaning that it has not been as greatly 

folded and faulted as, for example, much of the Umpqua Formation it overlies (Beaulieu, 1971). This is 

exhibited in the relatively gently sloping topography of Eden Ridge over the majority of the Planning 

Area. Very steep slopes and cliffs are found bordering the gently sloping sandstone slabs, and are 

associated with fluvial processes where drainage systems have downcut through the resistant sandstone 

layers as the landmass has been subjected to tectonic uplift, which is still occurring. Soils on these steep 

slopes have a tendency to fail as debris flows (USDA Forest Service, 1995).

Where Tyee bluffs overlie softer siltstones, rock fall is common, and benches within the bluffs often 

result from large naturally-occurring deep-seated slumps and transitional failures (ibid.). An example of 

this can be seen in Figure C-2 within the Hydrology Report, which shows an oblique view of eroding 

bluffs and benches on the northern side of the Planning Area in the Myrtle Creek subwatershed. 

The slopes to the north of and going below the 448 Road in Section 18 were examined for slope 

instability based on the indication this area is a deep seated slump (Meyer and Amaranthus, 1979). 

Benchy terrain was encountered with locations of very small seeps/sag ponds towards the western end. 

No evidence of current instability was found however, and a review of the recently clear-cut private lands 

to the north, downslope and within the same headwaters of Myrtle Creek, indicate this is not an active 

area of instability, though ancient movement gives the terrain its current shape.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-50

Final Environmental Impact Statement

An example of inner gorge instability is found along first order streams within the Planning Area on the 

southwest end (section 26, area of proposed action Units 307, 308), where streams are flowing through 

steep, V-shaped inner gorge systems. Flows are regularly cutting the toe slopes of these steep walls, 

resulting in localized bank failures and slumping, and trees tipping into and across the channel. A review 

of the forest landslide layer has no records of landslides on the forest in the Planning Area, and none were 

found during field reviews.

Soils

Soils in the Planning Area are developing from Tyee sandstone. Elevations range from approximately 

2,080 to 3,540 feet, with average annual precipitation ranging from 100 to 150 inches, predominantly as 

rain in the winter. A strong maritime influence results in typically moderate year-round temperatures.

MAP III-3 displays the soil map units within the Planning Area, and Table III-16 lists these map units 

with some soil characteristics (USDA SCS, 1989).

MAP III-3. Soils of the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Planning Area 

 (data from USDA SCS, 1989)
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-51

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table III-16. Soil Characteristics of Soil Map Units within the Eden Ridge Planning Area

Map 

Unit Map Unit Name Soil Characteristics

14F Digger-PreacherUmpcoos 

association, 50-80% 

slopes

Digger (30%): Moderately deep; well drained; surface - gravelly loam/6” depth; subsoil - gravelly, 

v. gravelly, and v. cobbly loams; located on side slopes.

Preacher (30%): Deep; well drained; surface – loam/14” depth; subsoil – clay loam; located on 

ridgetops & side slopes.

Umpcoos (25%): Shallow; well drained; surface – v. gravelly sandy loam/3” depth; subsoil – v. 

gravelly sandy loam; located on very narrow ridgetops & steep side slopes along drainageways.

15F Digger-UmpcoosRock outcrop 

association; 

50-90% slopes

Digger (30%): Moderately deep; well drained; surface - gravelly loam/6” depth; subsoil - gravelly, 

v. gravelly, and v. cobbly loams; located on concave side slopes.

Umpcoos (25%): Shallow; well drained; surface – v. gravelly sandy loam/3” depth; subsoil – v. 

gravelly sandy loam; located on convex side slopes above rock outcrop & narrow ridgetops.

Rock outcrop (25%): Hard, fractured sandstone located on precipitous side slopes along 

drainageways & on very narrow ridgetops.

24 Gardiner sandy 

loam; 

0-3% slopes

Gardiner (85%): Deep; well drained; surface – sandy loam/9” depth; subsoil – loamy fine sand; 

located on floodplains.

33 Kirkendall silt loam; 

0-3% slopes

Kirkendall (80%): Deep; well drained; surface – silt loam/7”depth; subsoil – silt loam; located on 

floodplains.

44E Preacher-Blachly 

association; 

30-60% slopes

Preacher (60%): Deep; well drained; surface – loam/14”depth; subsoil – clay loam; located on 

broad ridgetops and benches of mountains.

Blachly (25%): Deep; well drained; surface – silty clay loam/7” depth; subsoil – silty clay; located 

on broad ridgetops and benches of mountains.

46D Preacher-Bohannon 

loams; 3-30% 

slopes

Preacher (50%): Deep; well drained; surface – loam/14”depth; subsoil – clay loam; located on 

concave areas on benches, side slopes and broad ridgetops.

Bohannon (30%): Moderately deep; well drained; surface – loam and gravelly loam/11” depth; 

subsoil – gravelly loam; located on convex side slopes.

46E Preacher-Bohannon 

loams; 30-60% 

slopes

Preacher (40%): Deep; well drained; surface – loam/14” depth; subsoil – clay loam; located on 

concave side slopes.

Bohannon (30%): Moderately deep; well drained; surface – loam and gravelly loam/11” depth; 

subsoil – gravelly loam; located on ridgetops and convex side slopes.

49E Remote loam; 30-

50% slopes

Remote (75%): Deep; well drained; surface – loam/5” depth; subsoil – gravelly & v. gravelly clay 

loam; located on side slopes of mountains.

49F Remote loam; 50-

75% slopes

Remote (75%): Deep; well drained; surface – loam/5” depth; subsoil – gravelly & v. gravelly clay 

loam; located on side slopes of mountains.

50D Remote-DiggerPreacher complex; 

12-30% slopes

Remote (35%): Deep; well drained; surface – loam/5” depth; subsoil – gravelly & v. gravelly clay 

loam; located on narrow ridgetops & steeper side slopes.

Digger (30%): Moderately deep; well drained; surface - gravelly loam/6” depth; subsoil - gravelly, 

v. gravelly, and v. cobbly loams; located on narrow ridgetops & steeper side slopes.

Preacher (25%): Deep; well drained; surface – loam/14”depth; subsoil – clay loam; located on 

broad ridgetops & less sloping side slopes.

50E Remote-DiggerPreacher complex; 

30-50% slopes

Remote (35%): Deep; well drained; surface – loam/5” depth; subsoil – gravelly & v. gravelly clay 

loam; located on convex side slopes & narrow ridgetops.

Digger (25%): Moderately deep; well drained; surface - gravelly loam/6” depth; subsoil - gravelly, 

v. gravelly, and v. cobbly loams; located on convex side slopes & narrow ridgetops.

Preacher (20%): Deep; well drained; surface – loam/14”depth; subsoil – clay loam; located on 

concave, less sloping areas.

58F Umpcoos-Rock 

outcrop association; 

70-99% slopes

Umpcoos (40%): Shallow; well drained; surface – v. gravelly sandy loam/3” depth; subsoil – v. 

gravelly sandy loam; located on ridgetops & in more gently sloping areas.

Rock outcrop (35%): Hard, fractured sandstone located on steeper areas along drainageways & 

on upper slopes of mountains.

Soil Productivity

The main General Soil Map Units in the Planning Area are 10 – Preacher-Bohannon; 11 – DiggerPreacher-Remote; and 13 – Umpcoos-Rock outcrop-Digger. Natural productivity is rated as High for 

General Map Unit 10, Moderate for General Map Unit 11, and Low for General Map Unit 13 (USDA 

SCS, 1989). Refer to the Silviculture Report (FEIS Appendix B) for additional discussion of soil 

productivity, including maps displaying the location of soils based on productivity, and the vegetation 

communities they are supporting.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-52

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The following table (Table III-17) displays the relative sensitivities of each of the soil map units in the 

Planning Area to disturbance (Web Soil Survey: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/), based off of 

various soil properties. 

Table III-17. Sensitivities of Soils in the Planning Area to Selected Disturbances

Map 

Unit

Site Degradation 

Susceptibility

Soil Compaction 

Resistance

Soil Rutting 

Hazard

Erosion Hazard 

(Road/Trail)

Erosion Hazard 

(Off-Road, OffTrail)

Soil 

Restoration 

Potential

14F Highly susceptible Low Severe Severe Very severe High

15F Highly susceptible Low Severe Severe Very severe High

24 Moderately susceptible Moderate Moderate Slight Slight High

33 Slightly susceptible Moderate Severe Slight Slight High

44E Highly susceptible Low Severe Severe Severe High

46D Moderately susceptible Low Severe Severe Moderate High

46E Highly susceptible Low Severe Severe Severe High

49E Highly susceptible Low Severe Severe Severe High

49F Highly susceptible Low Severe Severe Very severe High

50D Moderately susceptible Low Severe Severe Moderate High

50E Highly susceptible Low Severe Severe Severe High

58F Highly susceptible Low Slight Severe Very severe Moderate

The following paragraphs give a brief explanation of each rating, summarized from the Descriptions in 

the Web Soil Survey. Refer to the complete descriptions for more detail.

Site Degradation Susceptibility: Rates each soil for its susceptibility for soil degradation to occur during

disturbance, seen conversely is the soil’s buffering capacity to resist change. Ratings represent relative risk of water 

and wind erosion, salinization, sodification, organic matter and nutrient depletion and /or redistribution, and loss of 

adequate rooting depth.

Soil Compaction Resistance: Rates each soil for its resistance to compaction, which is predominantly 

influenced by moisture content, depth to saturation, percent of sand, silt, and clay, soil structure, organic matter 

content, and content of coarse fragments.

Soil Rutting Hazard: This rating indicates the hazard of surface rut formation through the operation of 

forestland equipment. Soil displacement and puddling may occur simultaneously with rutting. “Slight” 

indicates soil is subject to little or no rutting; “Moderate” indicates rutting is likely; “Severe” indicates that ruts 

form readily.

Erosion Hazard (Road/Trail): Ratings indicate the hazard of soil loss from un-surfaced roads and trails. 

Ratings are based on soil erosion factor K, slope, and content of rock fragments. “Slight” indicates that little or 

no erosion is likely; “Moderate” indicates some erosion is likely, and roads/trails may require occasional 

maintenance, and that simple erosion-control measures are needed; “Severe” indicates that erosion is expected, 

roads/trails require frequent maintenance, and costly erosion-control measures are needed.

Erosion Hazard (Off-Road, Off-Trail): Ratings indicate the hazard of soil loss from off-road and off-trail 

areas after disturbance activities that expose the soil surface. Ratings are based on slope and soil erosion factor 

K, with soil loss caused by sheet or rill erosion where 50 to 75 percent of the surface has been exposed by 

logging, grazing, mining, or other kinds of disturbance.

Soil Restoration Potential: Rates each soil for its inherent ability to recover from degradation (i.e., soil 

resilience). Soil resilience is dependent upon adequate stores of organic matter, good soil structure, low salt and 

sodium levels, adequate nutrient levels, microbial biomass and diversity, adequate precipitation for recovery, 

and other soil properties.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-53

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Overall, the soils within the Eden Ridge Planning Area are sensitive to disturbances that can have an 

adverse effect to soil productivity. Interestingly, these soils also show an inherent ability to recover well 

from these disturbances, either naturally or through implementation of restoration activities. This has 

been apparent in field reviews throughout the Eden Ridge area looking at the residual effects of past 

actions, discussed below.

The Eden Ridge Planning Area was extensively railroad logged in the 1920s and 1930s utilizing steam 

donkeys, and was likely covered in slash or burned. There is evidence indicating a wildfire burned 

through northern areas of the Planning Area as well during these historical harvest operations.

Field reviews looking at soil condition from these past impacts were conducted throughout the Planning 

Area, particularly focusing in stands being proposed for treatments with this project. Within the stands, 

outside of railroad grade impacts, no detrimental disturbance still measurable affecting site productivity 

was found. Decomposing organic litter is providing a consistent blanket across the forest floor to protect 

surface soils from erosion. Occasional evidence of soil displacement from gouging along a steam donkey 

trail was found, but soil pits and shovel resistance tests, as well as observation of vegetation cover, did not 

indicate a measureable difference inside and outside of that past direct disturbance 60 to 80 years later. 

Railroad grades, on the other hand, while in places are supporting large trees, are predominantly still 

heavily compacted and inhibiting or slowing vegetation establishment. These field observations validate 

the resiliency these soils have to disturbance and their ability to recover naturally over time when given 

the opportunity, particularly considering the high level of disturbance they experienced in the 1920s and 

30s. 

Recent stand management has occurred in the Planning Area, though none of these commercial timber 

sale units are within proposed stands for this project. An area that has experienced recent (early to mid2000s) thinning using skyline harvest systems was reviewed on the western end of the Planning Area 

(Backwoods Thin Timber Sale area, T31S, R11W, Section 27) during field analysis for this project. 

Sampling involved a walk-through focusing in particular on areas that would be expected to have the 

highest impacts, and included soil pits looking for changes in soil structure between undisturbed soils and 

soils within skyline corridors, soil shovel penetration resistance, and ocular review of effective 

groundcover and erosion. This review did not reveal any detrimental disturbance from the recent 

commercial thinning activity within the stands, let alone any measurable cumulative impacts to site 

productivity from the historical steam donkey/railroad logging. 

b. Effects Mechanisms

Slope Stability

Slope stability can be impacted by management actions, through actions that alter soil holding strength of 

root systems through vegetation changes, change drainage patterns through soil movement or compaction, 

or undermine slopes. Specific activities as related to the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project include road 

construction and reconstruction, silvicultural treatments, and logging systems.

Roads

Road building in forest land is widely recognized as one of the primary causes of debris avalanches in 

managed forests (Sidle, 1980). Roads change the surface and subsurface water flow patterns, which can 

cause concentrations of flow and soil saturation where it didn’t exist before, leading to a slope failure. 

Roads have the potential to accelerate slumps, earthflows, and possibly creep landslides (Megahan, 1986).

The added weight of fill material on steep slopes, combined at times with improperly routed water that 

causes saturation of the fill slope, often results in eventual failure. Also, road cuts in steep, unstable 

terrain can trigger debris avalanches by removing downslope support.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-54

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Road maintenance provides an opportunity to minimize risk of slope failures along road prisms, by 

providing proper drainage, and recognizing and improving areas that are recognized to be at risk of 

failure.

Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures that have been designed for the Eden Ridge Timber 

Sales Project (FEIS Chapter II), including Best Management Practices (BMPs) for road activities in the 

National Core BMP Technical Guide (USDA FS, 2012) and the Region 6 General Water Quality Best 

Management Practices (USDA FS, 1988), have influenced the planning of road activities during project 

development, and would be implemented to minimize impacts of roads on slope stability.

Silvicultural Treatments

Through increasing the depth of the saturated zone in the soil, and reducing root strength, the removal of 

trees can increase slope failures (Megahan, 1986). When the majority of vegetation is removed, such as 

in a clear-cut, the amount of water in the soil profile is increased for a time due to a reduction in plant 

uptake and transpiration, as well as reduction in canopy interception. Roots increase the strength of soil 

by helping to bind soil particles together, and to reinforce a soil mass by anchoring it to the underlying 

bedrock, particularly in shallower soils (Ziemer, 1981a). When trees die or are cut, the roots die and 

decay, resulting in a decline of reinforcement by the roots; approximately 50% of the original root 

reinforcement is lost within 2 years after deforestation, with 90% gone within 9 years (Ziemer, 1981a). 

However, if only some of the vegetation is removed, such as in a thinning, the loss of root strength is 

greatly reduced. This is because the remaining trees’ root systems are still there to anchor the soils, and 

they take advantage of the reduction in competition by expanding their root systems (Ziemer, 1981b). 

Based on the silvicultural treatments proposed (variable density and non-commercial thinning), it is not 

expected that there would be a measurable effect that would result in an increase in slope failures in the 

Planning Area (refer to effects discussion, below).

Soil Productivity

Soil productivity can be impacted by management activities, through actions that reduce effective ground 

cover, displace soil, cause soil compaction or otherwise negatively impact soil structure, destabilize 

slopes, and change nutrient cycling processes through vegetation and down wood manipulation. Specific 

activities as related to the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project include road construction and reconstruction 

(including temporary road construction and decommissioning), silviculture treatments, activity fuels 

treatments, helicopter landings and use of heavy equipment logging systems.

Roads

Of any of the forest management activities being proposed with this project, the road system being 

used/reconstructed/constructed is expected to result in the greatest opportunity for soil erosion per unit 

area (Megahan, 1986). However, project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures that have been 

designed for the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project (FEIS Chapter II), including Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) for road activities in the National Core BMP Technical Guide (USDA FS, 2012) and 

the Region 6 General Water Quality Best Management Practices (USDA FS, 1988), have influenced the 

planning of road activities during project development, and would be implemented to minimize impacts 

of roads on soil productivity.

Existing System Roads (and historical railroad grades)

Existing system roads are considered a long term commitment of the soil resource to something other than 

soil productivity. The use of existing system roads during the implementation of this project would not 

result in a change to the current condition of the soils that are committed to supporting the transportation 

system. However, where system roads have been closed for a period of years, some level of road 

reconstruction and maintenance would be necessary to make them suitable for treatment access. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-55

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Road (and railroad grade) reconstruction generally requires the removal of vegetation and the reshaping 

of the former road prism, possibly including ditches, from a road in disrepair. The road may have 

achieved some degree of restoration from past use, but whatever that degree, it would be reversed. The 

conditions of roads needing reconstruction vary greatly, from those with near complete restoration to 

those with hardly any. Reconstruction of these routes, however, has far less impact to soil productivity 

(since it had long since been comprised) than to native soil sites, and that is the benefit of reusing them 

over new construction. Nonetheless, soil is compacted and short-term erosion from newly exposed soils 

is likely.

New System Roads

The construction of new system roads would be a long term commitment of the soil resource to 

something other than soil productivity. Road construction requires the removal of vegetation and the 

reshaping of the ground to form a road prism. Minimal disturbance would be on flat terrain where surface 

soils would be displaced during grading operations, and the surface compacted. On slopes, cut-and-fill 

slopes would be created, displacing a much greater amount of surface and subsurface soil and potentially 

bedrock, and affecting a wider area along the route due to creation of cut slopes and fill slopes.

Temporary Roads and Landings

Construction of temporary roads (and associated landings) detrimentally compact soils and contribute to 

erosion by allowing water to run overland rather than naturally infiltrate at the point of raindrop impact, 

resulting in indirect impacts on pathways for water movement. Properly designed and constructed 

temporary roads require structures for channeling this now-redirected water flow to desired locations. 

Temporary roads and landings are expected to have an irretrievable reduction in soil productivity since 

they are bladed (soil is mixed and displaced) and compacted. Even once rehabilitated, the soil profile is 

modified to a degree that may take many decades to return to the productive state of the undisturbed 

forest soils adjacent to it. Landings also, with their likely deep compaction, and soil mixing from 

construction and recurrent disturbance are expected to produce irretrievable reductions in soil 

productivity. Nonetheless, their use is temporary, with the expectation that following use they would be 

returned to the highest degree of productivity reasonably achievable. 

Silvicultural Treatments

Silvicultural treatments being proposed include: commercial thinning (i.e., “variable density thinning”) 

and non-commercial thinning. Variable density thinning may include the creation of irregular shaped 

openings (“gaps”), no-thin areas (“skips”), and wide-thin gaps and roadside sanitation that focus on 

selectively thinning to manage Port-Orford root disease issues. Non-commercial thinning would include 

the thinning or removal of non-commercial sized trees. These actions have the potential to affect soil 

productivity, and organic matter and large woody material through changes to vegetation. Detrimental 

disturbance as it relates to these silvicultural treatments is discussed under Harvest Systems, below. 

Vegetation uptakes nutrients from the soil in a mostly soluble, inorganic form, and converts them to an 

organic form for metabolism. Most of a tree’s nutrients are distributed in the leaves, twigs, and branches; 

as the tree discards leaves, branches, bark, or dies, the plants organic nutrients are returned to the soil. 

Organic material returned to the soil is decomposed and the nutrients are mineralized (i.e., converted to an 

inorganic form) by soil organisms depending on the soil’s physical conditions (such as moisture, 

temperature, aeration, etc...) (Farve and Napper, 2009). All of the silvicultural treatments manipulate to 

various extents the vegetation component that is a part of the nutrient cycle of the soils it is directly 

growing on. However, since all of these treatments maintain a component of the original forest system, 

including some overstory vegetation and the forest floor organic litter layer (i.e., they are not harvest 

systems such as clear-cuts that drastically change the vegetation component), it is not expected that direct 

or indirect effects to soil productivity as it relates to nutrient cycling would be measurable.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-56

Final Environmental Impact Statement

In the forest, precipitation is intercepted, retained, and redistributed by the tree canopy. Water ultimately 

evaporates from the canopy (interception) or drips through (through-fall) or runs down the stems (stem 

flow) to the forest floor. Tree canopies intercept precipitation, moderating and metering its fall to the soil 

surface. They also redirect this intercepted moisture toward the drip line of the tree, and away from the 

base of the trunk. In extreme rainfall conditions in the absence of deep-crowned tree cover, such as 

following clear-cut or shelterwood harvest, the rate of water striking the surface could exceed the rate of 

the soil’s ability to absorb it, with localized sheet erosion a likely result. 

Such effects are generally only relevant to degrees of canopy removal associated with clear-cutting or 

shelterwood harvest, or high intensity stand replacement fire. The treatments in the Eden Ridge Timber 

Sales Project, however, are non-commercial thinning, variable density thinning, or select partial cut and 

removal of diseased or susceptible trees forming small gaps, where a measurable direct or indirect effect 

of this sort is unlikely, since there would still be various levels of an overstory component.

As discussed in Chapter II, prescribed amounts of snags and downed wood would be left on a per-acre 

basis consistent with historical fire regime effects and plant association (plant series) capabilities where 

existing amounts are below such levels. However, this mitigation is only effective where such snags are 

available in adequate numbers. Where they are not so available, there would be an opportunity to create 

more from remaining live trees. Refer to the Wildlife Report for further discussion on snags and downed 

wood (FEIS Appendix G). Snag creation would have a positive effect on long-term soil productivity 

since snags are a source of future down logs, which are an important component of long-term soil 

productivity. 

Harvest (Logging) Systems

Logging systems (ground-based, skyline-cable, and aerial) have the potential to adversely impact soil 

productivity through detrimental compaction, displacement, erosion, and loss of effective ground 

cover/organic matter. Ground-based systems typically have the greatest potential for effects, whereas

aerial systems typically have the least potential for adverse effects.

Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures that have been designed for the Eden Ridge Timber 

Sales Project (FEIS Chapter II), including Best Management Practices (BMPs) for road activities in the 

National Core BMP Technical Guide (USDA FS, 2012) and the Region 6 General Water Quality Best 

Management Practices (USDA FS, 1988), have influenced the planning of vegetation management 

activities during project development, and would be implemented to minimize impacts of harvest 

activities on soil productivity.

Ground-based Systems (tractor, rubber-tired skidder, harvester-forwarder)

Ground-based logging systems have the greatest potential to adversely affect short and long-term soil 

productivity. Logging and other equipment can compact and ‘puddle’ soils over which they operate 

(landings, skid roads, roadways, etc.). Tractor, or ground based logging has the greatest potential to cause 

soil compaction, which decreases soil volume and pore space and modifies soil structure and results in a 

decrease in gas, water, and nutrient exchange, slows root penetration, and can aggravate soil drought, 

especially in Mediterranean climates such as that of SW Oregon (Atzet et al., 1989), though soil drought 

may be less of a concern here where there is a much stronger maritime weather influence. Puddling is 

the destruction of soil structure, primarily when wet, by severe compaction, to the point where ruts or 

imprints are made and the soil structure has been so destroyed as to prevent water from infiltrating into 

the soil profile. 

Compaction may inhibit occupation of the soil by organisms that assist in the decomposition of wood to 

soil organic material that improves site productivity, and help to aerate the soil. Compaction also 

possibly inhibits the growth of beneficial fungi (mycorrhizae) that provide nutrients to plant roots 

(Keslick, 1997). Ectomycorrhizal fungi form an essential interface between soil and trees. They usually 

colonize more than 90 percent of the feeder roots of host plants (Goodman and Trofymow, 1998). Plant

development is also restricted in compacted soils due to poor aeration and impeded root growth. As a 

result, soil productivity is adversely affected (Floch, 1988).
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-57

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Soil moisture content, soil characteristics, and force affect the level of compaction that can occur from 

harvest systems. Fine-textured soils dominated by expandable clay minerals, and well-graded, coarser 

textured soils are most likely to compact when moist, whereas finer textured soils dominated by nonexpandable clay minerals, and of poorly graded, coarser textured soils such as most pumice and coarse 

ash soils, are less affected by soil moisture (Atzet et al., 1989).

Compaction from logging activities is now routinely mitigated, by designating and minimizing the 

number of skid trails used; by requiring logging equipment to use only those roads and skid trails created 

during past timber harvest where feasible; using equipment and or techniques shown effective to prevent 

or minimize compaction (such as low psi (pounds per square inch) or operating on slash to disperse 

weight); and allowing operations only during conditions when soils are unlikely to be detrimentally 

compacted beyond the 15% LRMP allowances (such as on dry or frozen ground; or over deep snow with 

a firm base). These mitigations have been proven successful and are applied to all Action Alternatives in 

this project.

Detrimental displacement is defined as the removal of more than 50% of the soil’s ‘A’ horizon (topsoil) 

from an area greater than 100 square feet that is at least 5 feet in width. This displacement occurs by 

natural means, such as heavy rains that cause erosion on exposed surfaces (such as skid trails and skyline 

corridors), or by mechanical means such as churning tractor treads or dragging of logs across the ground. 

Erosion is a form of detrimental displacement. The majority of erosion occurs by sheet erosion (the even 

removal of thin layers of soil by water moving across extended areas of gently sloping land) and is 

difficult to detect, as there are no dramatic effects to alert one to its occurrence. Rills and gullies, 

however, are dramatic examples of erosion that are easily detected. 

Detrimental displacement is routinely mitigated by designating and minimizing the number of skid roads 

and skyline corridors used; requiring a minimum of one-end log suspension to prevent soil gouging; and 

placing percent slope limitations on ground-based harvest equipment. Additionally, erosion associated 

with skid trails and skyline corridors can be effectively mitigated by the placement of cross drains (water 

bars); drainage dips; placement of down wood and slash; and erosion control seeding (or any vegetative 

cover on exposed soil). Mitigation measures specifically designed for this project can be found in 

Chapter II of the FEIS. These measures have been used for many decades and there has been 

considerable monitoring and demonstration of their effectiveness. 

Large woody material, such as large logs, and standing snags (future large down logs), are important 

components in the development and retention of productive soils. Snags are routinely felled if they are 

believed to be a safety hazard to operations. Operation of logging equipment can mechanically 

damage/destroy downed logs in advanced stages of decay. Logging and burning has the potential to 

eliminate these features, particularly those in advanced degrees of decay, from the landscape if care isn’t 

taken to retain them in adequate sizes, numbers, and distribution across the landscape. Project Design 

Criteria for maintenance of snags and downed wood is located in Chapter II of the FEIS.

Skyline-Cable Systems

Using cables to suspend one or both ends of logs as they are pulled from the stand to the landing largely 

eliminates the potential for compaction and puddling within the stand. What remains, however, is the 

potential for detrimental soil displacement if one or both ends of the log are dragged across the ground 

from the stump to the landing. Full suspension (where the log is lifted entirely off the ground during 

yarding to the landing) and one-end suspension (where one end of the log is allowed to drag along the 

ground), are effective mitigations that are now regularly employed to minimize detrimental displacement, 

as well as the use of a pre-designated skid trail or skyline corridor layout (FEIS Chapter II). Skyline 

systems typically result in approximately 5% detrimental soil conditions.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-58

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Aerial Systems

Helicopter logging has the least impact of all logging systems on soil productivity. This is a form of full 

suspension, with no part of the log being drug across the ground, except for very short distances as logs 

are lifted off the ground from a central point between logs. Such logging eliminates any potential for 

equipment-generated detrimental soil displacement, compaction, or puddling and their attendant erosion 

effects. Helicopter logging does, however, require larger, though fewer landings, with the associated 

compaction and displacement effects (typically around 2%).

An exception to this is the practice of pre-bunching in helicopter units. Pre-bunching is the short-distance 

yarding (using small and lightweight yarding equipment) of numerous logs to a reduced number of 

collection sites within the stand where they would then be picked up by the helicopter. The potential soil 

benefit is the elimination of skid roads, with their multiple soil compacting and soil displacing passes by 

heavy equipment with logs in tow; but the practice still induces some level of soil compaction and 

displacement for short distances in single passes. 

Activity Fuels Treatments

Activity fuels treatment refers to the slash and accumulated fuel resulting from the proposed density 

management treatments. Several methods of activity fuels treatment are being proposed, and include the 

following: burning tree tops that were yarded to landing sites and burning materials accumulated by 

harvest activity that is piled.

Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures that have been designed for the Eden Ridge Timber 

Sales Project (FEIS Chapter II), including applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the National 

Core BMP Technical Guide (USDA FS, 2012) and the Region 6 General Water Quality Best 

Management Practices (USDA FS, 1988), as well as Regional and Forest level Standards and Guidelines, 

have influenced the planning of fuels treatment activities during project development, and would be 

implemented to minimize impacts of fuels treatments on soil productivity.

Leave Tops Attached 

This treatment requires that the top of the tree be yarded to the landing along with the last log (or whole 

tree if small enough). In some small tree cases, this practice may mitigate the potential for detrimental 

soil displacement from the dragging log end as the limbs of the top cushion and elevate that end and 

prevent soil gouging and displacement. 

With the increased interest in harvesting biomass, there has been an increased need to understand how 

removing the branches and needles from the site might be affecting short and long-term soil productivity. 

Most studies have been based on models and/or nutrient budgets which forecast likely effects; however 

long-term field studies have also been started. In a review of literature regarding the effects of whole tree 

harvesting on soil productivity, Farve and Napper (2009) refer to a summary of effects by Waring and 

Running (2007: 214) that found that “a whole-tree harvest can remove as much as three times the 

nutrients as compared to a conventional bole-only harvest....however, since the soil nutrient 

(belowground) pool contains most of the nutrient capital of a forest ecosystem (by several orders of 

magnitude), in general, removal of the whole tree during timber harvesting should result in only a small 

percentage of nutrient loss from the forest ecosystem.” With implementation of the Eden Ridge Timber 

Sales Project, where only a portion of trees are being removed instead of all the trees, the impacts of 

leaving tops attached is expected to be even less, and likely immeasurable. Therefore this will not be 

analyzed further.

Handpile burning

Heat produced during the combustion of aboveground fuels (i.e., dead and live vegetation, litter, duff) is 

transferred to the soil surface and downward through the soil by several heat transfer processes (radiation, 

convection, conduction, vaporization, and condensation). As heat is transferred downward into and 

through the soil, it raises the temperature of the soil. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-59

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The greatest increase in temperature occurs at, or near, the soil surface. Within short distances downward 

in the soil, however, temperatures can rapidly diminish so that within 2.0 to 3.9 inches (5 to 10 cm) of the 

soil surface the temperatures are scarcely above ambient temperature (Neary et al., 2005).

Typical physical effects to soil that can occur from fire include changes to soil structure (particularly as a 

result of loss of organic matter), changes in porosity and bulk density, loss of cover (i.e., canopy, litter, 

duff), water repellency, and runoff and erosion vulnerability. 

Organic matter plays a key role in soil structure in the upper part of the mineral soil at the duff-upper Ahorizon interface, in that it acts as a glue that helps hold mineral soil particles together to form aggregates. 

Fire can impact the organic matter content in soil by killing the living organisms at temperatures as low as 

122 to 140oF, and by destructively distilling to completely consuming nonliving organic matter at 

temperatures of 224oF and 752oF, respectively (Neary et al., 2005). Loss of the organic matter component 

in the soil breaks down the soil structure, which in turn results in a reduction in the amount and size of 

soil pore space. When the soil structure collapses, it particularly reduces the amount of macropore 

spaces, and increases the bulk density of the soil, resulting in a loss to soil productivity.

When fire results in the loss of canopy, litter, and duff cover, it exposes the mineral soil to erosion 

processes. The litter and duff layers also act as an insulator that protects the underlying soil layers from 

heating, and if they are consumed, it exposes the mineral soil to greater soil heating impacts. Fireinduced water repellency may occur when combustion of organic matter vaporizes hydrophobic organic 

substances that then move downward in the mineral soil and condenses into a water repellent layer. This 

in turn increases risk of soil erosion. Water repellent layers have the greatest impact within the first year 

after fire, as they tend to break down fairly quickly.

Typical chemical effects to soil that can occur from fire include nutrient losses, cation exchange capacity 

loss, and changes to pH. Nitrogen is the most limiting nutrient in wildland ecosystems, and as such 

requires special consideration when managing fire. Nitrogen loss increases with increasing temperatures 

through volatilization, with no loss of N at temperatures below 392oF all the way up to complete loss of N 

at temperatures above 932oF (Neary et al., 2005). The amount of N lost is generally proportional to the 

amount of organic matter combusted, and burning during moist litter and soil conditions have shown a 

decrease in the amount of total N lost compared to dry conditions (DeBano et al., 1979; cited in Neary et 

al. 2005). 

The cation exchange capacity of soil can be impacted by fire through the destruction of organic matter. 

The negatively charged particles of organic matter adsorbs otherwise highly soluble positively charged 

cations, which prevents them from being leached out of the soil. As the amount of organic matter is 

destroyed from fire, so too is the soils cation exchange capacity. 

Cation nutrients (i.e., Ca, Mg, Na, K, NH4) become concentrated in the ash following fire, and can be lost 

in several ways such as volatization (but this takes very high temperatures), particulate loss in smoke, 

runoff and erosion, and there can be a long term loss of cations to leaching due to the soils reduction in 

cation exchange capacity. Cation exchange capacity rebuilds over time with new accumulation of organic 

matter. The release of soluble cations from the organic matter during combustion can temporarily 

increase soil pH, but this is dependent in part upon the amount and chemical composition of the ash. 

Thick layers of ash (termed the ash-bed effect) found from severe burning conditions tends to have the 

greatest impact on raising soil pH.

Typical biological effects to soil that can occur from fire include loss of microorganisms, loss of mesoand macrofauna, and loss of roots and reproductive structures such as seed banks. Impacts from fire to 

microorganisms as well as their recovery can be very complex because so many variables are involved. 

In general it can be stated that “intense wildfire can have severe and sometimes long-lasting effects on 

microbial population size, diversity, and function”, whereas at the other end of the spectrum, “lowseverity underburning generally has an inconsequential effect on microorganisms.” (Neary et al., 2005). 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-60

Final Environmental Impact Statement

This range of effects is in part related to the amount of organic matter impacted by fire, and the 

temperature and depth of soil heating. If both of these can be minimized, so will impacts to the microbial 

population in the soil. Effects of fire to meso- and macrofauna, such as mites, insects, and earthworms, is 

also highly variable, depending in part on species, habitat and adaptations. 

Pile/concentrated slash burning increases the residence time of the fire due to concentrated fuels, which 

can lead to more consumption of organic matter, higher soil heating temperatures, heating deeper into the 

soil profile, and thus resulting in isolated patches of severely burned soils directly under the slash pile. 

Mitigations minimizing to the extent possible the size of the piles and burning during moist soil moisture 

conditions can reduce these impacts by keeping burn temperatures and soil heating as low as possible. 

Smaller burn areas tend to recover quicker as well due to the high amount of un-impacted soil around 

them that contribute to recolonization of soil microorganisms and other soil biota. 

The 1998 Regional Supplement to the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2520 R-6 Supplement 2500-98-1, 

Effective August 24, 1998) defines detrimentally burned soil as:

“The condition where the mineral soil surface has been significantly changed in color, oxidized to a 

reddish color, and the next one-half inch blackened from organic matter charring by heat conducted 

through the top layer. The detrimentally burned soil standard applies to a contiguous area greater 

than 100 square feet, which is at least 5 feet in width”.

Burning of slash piles should not exceed the detrimentally burned soil standard since individual burn piles 

are designed to be discontinuous and not greater than 10 feet in diameter. Even if these burn areas are 

taken into account, it is expected that less than 2 percent of the area would be left in a severely burned 

condition. 

Detrimental burning occurs when high intensity fire consumes organic matter above and within the soil, 

heating the soil to the point where the mineral soil surface changes color and the next one-half-inch 

deeper of soil organic matter is charred. This can happen under natural high-intensity wildfire conditions 

or by management actions beneath burn piles or ‘prescribed burns’ when the prescriptions are applied 

incorrectly or “escape” the parameters of their prescription and become overly intense. 

Detrimental burning is most likely under extreme fire weather and dry fuel moisture conditions where 

fuel accumulations are greatest. Reduction of this fuel through management action decreases the 

potential of high intensity fire and detrimental burning of the soil. In areas where fuels have been treated 

(reduced), it is common to have only approximately 20% of the soils in a wildfire-burned area to be in a 

detrimentally burned condition; this is half of what has been observed in areas where fuels had not been 

treated. 

c. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives

Alternative 1 – No-Action

Under the No-Action Alternative, no project activities would take place. No slopes or soils would be 

disturbed from road management (construction, reconstruction, maintenance, decommissioning) 

activities. Slope stability throughout the Planning Area would continue at its natural rates, based on the 

natural conditions of the forest vegetation and climatic conditions. 

Soils would continue to develop along current trajectories and under natural vegetation and climatic 

conditions. The forest floor would remain intact, maintaining a natural level of effective ground cover. 

The current level of large woody material would be unaffected.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-61

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Effects Common to Action Alternatives

Slope Stability

Roads

Many of the proposed roads are ridge top routes with no grade. There would be very little to no risk that 

these segments would fail or otherwise create slope instability. However, other roads would be on slopes 

with grade and/or would cross riparian areas, and/or reconstruct sections of old railroad grade trestle, 

where there could be an increased chance of failure at some point in the future.

Therefore, only the miles of road with characteristics having increased risk are compared between Action 

Alternatives (Table III-18). The road characteristics are based upon the Proposed New Classified 

(System) Road Construction and Proposed New Temporary Road Construction tables for each alternative 

in FEIS Chapter II (Table II-10 and Table II-11, respectively, for Alternative 2; Table II-14 and Table II15, respectively, for Alternative 3), and field knowledge of the proposed routes. 

Table III-18. Miles of New Road with Conditions that Could Increase Risk of Slope Failure

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Miles of new classified and temporary 

road that crosses riparian/ has some 

grade/ reconstruct. railroad trestle

4.74 miles 0.32 miles 0 miles

 *In Alternative 2, 1.61 miles of proposed new Classified Road T is included in this calculation.

Specifically, Alternative 2 miles in Table III-18 includes miles of road segments: B, F, J, S3, S5, S7, S8, 

S9, T (1.61 miles), U, W, and Z. Alternative 3 miles in Table III-18 includes miles of road segments: S3, 

S5, S7, S8, and S9.

Silvicultural Treatments

It is not expected that there would be an increased chance of slope instability due to the silvicultural 

treatments (commercial or non-commercial) being planned with the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project, 

under any Action Alternative. It is expected that the thinning treatments planned would not reduce the 

density of remaining live tree roots enough to cause a weakening of the soil-root reinforcement. The 

remaining trees’ root systems would respond to the reduction in competition and expand in the soil profile 

before the root systems of the cut trees had substantially decayed.

Soil Productivity

Roads

Under all Action Alternatives, the proposed road system would have an effect on soil productivity 

through increased likelihood of surface erosion, as well as a commitment of the soil resource to 

something other than supporting a forest ecosystem. The potential extent of the effects between each 

alternative is shown in Table III-19. For the acreage of land taken out of productivity, the range is based

on a minimum road width of 12 feet, and a maximum road width of 16 feet. Level of erosion from road 

surfaces compares the overall miles of road surface that would exist and have the potential to shed 

sediment, between alternatives.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-62

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table III-19. Estimated Acres of Total Commitment of Soil Resource/Loss of Soil Productivity

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Acres taken out of Productivity 

(range based on est. road widths) 78 acres -104 acres 63 acres – 84 acres 56 acres – 74 acres

Long-term opportunity for Erosion: 

Miles of System Road (existing 

&new construct/reconstruct)

53.4 mi. 45.1 mi. 38.3 mi.

Short-term opportunity for Erosion: 

Miles of Temporary Road 0.3 mi. 0.03 mi. 0 mi.

Silvicultural Treatments

As discussed earlier, since all of the silvicultural treatments (commercial and non-commercial) maintain a 

component of the original forest system, including some overstory vegetation and the forest floor organic 

litter layer (i.e., they are not harvest systems such as clear-cuts that drastically change the vegetation 

component), it is not expected that direct or indirect effects of proposed silvicultural treatments to soil 

productivity would be measurable.

Harvest (Logging) Systems and Pile Burning

Table III-20, below, provides an estimate of the maximum amount of detrimental disturbance that could 

potentially occur with each harvest system, per Action Alternative. However, implementation of Project 

Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures (FEIS Chapter II), such as limiting use of vehicles and 

equipment to dry soil conditions, or use of slash mats, is expected to result in less than the estimated 

acreages actually resulting in detrimental disturbance (in particular displacement and compaction), since 

these measures are designed to limit or reduce the overall impacts of the actions to prevent the creation of 

a detrimental condition. The detrimental soil conditions Standards and Guidelines are the same across all 

management areas and land allocations, and therefore no distinction between land allocations is made in 

estimating the acres of detrimental disturbance. Additional Project Design Criteria related to activities in 

Riparian Reserves, for example, within 100 feet of stream courses, limit detrimental disturbance adversely 

affecting soil infiltration capacity (i.e., detrimental compaction) to 10 percent, would result in even less 

total area experiencing detrimental disturbance from project activities.

In addition, review of recently commercially thinned stands utilizing skyline systems in the Eden Ridge 

Planning Area also showed no evidence of residual detrimental disturbance within the stands (Backwoods 

Thin field review, discussed in Section a. Background and Analysis Framework, above), which is another 

indication that this is a worse-case scenario estimate of disturbance.

Table III-20. Estimated Acres of Detrimental Disturbance per Action Alternative

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Ground-based harvest system 

(est. 15%) 318 acres 268 acres 216 acres

Skyline harvest system (est. 5%) 60 acres 47 acres 23 acres

Aerial harvest system (est. 2%) 0 acres 10 acres 23 acres

Helicopter landings 0 acres 18 acres 22 acres

Pile & Burn* (est. 2%) 39 acres 30 acres 33 acres

Totals 417acres 373 acres 317acres

* Including Riparian Reserves, where some acres would include piling and burning, and potential for pile and burning in 

non-commercial treatment units.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-63

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other Connected and/or Related Actions

Similar and/or Related Actions are included under the Proposed Action and the Action Alternatives; they 

are designed as resource enhancement, restoration, or improvements, and are described in detail in FEIS 

Chapter II, Section D, 2, h. These actions would occur in proximity to commercial and silvicultural stand 

treatments. Included are Non-Commercial Treatments proposed for 363 acres within the ER Planning 

Area (see Table II-6 and MAP II-2), Snag/Down Wood Creation, Meadow Enhancement, Stream 

Enhancement, Native Grass/Forb Seeding, Invasive Plant Treatments, and Other Wildlife Opportunities.

Non-Commercial treatments proposed for 363 acres and associated fuel treatments are included in the 

discussion of effects to slope stability and soil productivity, discussed above in section b. Effects 

Mechanisms, and section c., Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives.

Snag/Down Wood Creation would have no detrimental effect to soils, and would be expected to have a 

beneficial effect, including providing long-lasting microsites of increased moisture, increased mycorrhizal 

activity, asymbiotic nitrogen fixation, and a refuge for microorganisms that are critical to forest 

productivity (Amaranthus et al., 1989). 

Meadow Enhancement, Native Grass/Forb Seeding, and Invasive Plant Treatments would have no 

detrimental effect to soils, and would be expected to have a neutral to beneficial effect to soil 

productivity. These treatments involve the maintenance and enhancement of native vegetation 

communities, and protection of soils through appropriate vegetative cover.

Stream Enhancement activities would include the placement of large wood into stream channels to alter 

channel morphology by increasing channel stability, pool formation, capture and deposition of in-channel 

gravels, development of low velocity areas, and improvement of floodplain function to improve fish 

habitat. Log placement could involve the use of cable, ground based equipment, horses, or helicopters, or 

felled directly into the stream (see FEIS Appendix H, Aquatic Biological Evaluation). Log placement 

activities could involve the localized disturbance of soil, particularly when logs are buried into the stream 

bank, and where access is needed by ground based equipment. Disturbed areas would be minimized and 

restored through the application of Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures for operating in Riparian 

Reserves. 

Other Wildlife Opportunities involves the installation of nest/roost boxes for cavity nesting species, and 

would have no direct or indirect effects to the soil resource. 

d. Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects area for the soil resource is the proposed treatment units and road systems in the 

Project Areas, areas downslope of proposed treatments, and road systems that could be impacted by soil 

movement or slope instability.

Past actions in these areas include the historical railroad logging and related burning/wildfires from the 

1920s through 1940s. As discussed earlier, the soils and slopes in the Planning Area are in a state of near 

to total recovery from those past actions, based on growth of vegetation, lack of erosion or other active 

mass wasting, and build-up of organic matter in the surface soils. Therefore proposed actions under the 

Action Alternatives would have no measureable adverse cumulative effect with these past activities 

within the stands. 

There are no other current or proposed activities in the Planning Area that would occur at the same 

locations; therefore there are no other potential adverse cumulative effects with any of the Action 

Alternatives.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-64

Final Environmental Impact Statement

5. ECONOMICS

Commercial variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions may 

generate various economic benefits/costs depending on design. Effects of economic factors on the 

costs to implement treatment activities, as well as economic return to the local economy. 

Activities associated with the Proposed Action or alternatives may generate various economic 

benefits/costs and overall present net values or benefit cost ratios. The economic value (cash flow) of 

commodities provided under these proposals may be less than the associated costs. 

Under all Action Alternatives, varying amounts of commercial timber would be made available to the 

local wood products industry. Revenue sharing from harvested timber would provide contributions to 

federal, state, and county budgets relative to the amount of timber offered for sale.

FEIS Appendix I (Transportation And Logging Systems Report, incorporated by reference) includes a

transportation and economic analysis of the alternatives considered in detail for the proposed timber sale 

projects. Proposed road related activities that serve the proposed logging systems are primary elements of 

costs associated with these alternatives.

a. Background and Analysis Framework

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

NEPA requires that federal agencies evaluate all activities which may have significant effects on the 

environment. The Act requires that an environmental assessment regarding the project's impacts on its 

surroundings be made available to other agencies and to the public. Land-management plans for national 

forests must provide the Forest Service the ability to mitigate any adverse effects on the environment.

NFMA mandates that national forest plans must 

“... insure consideration of the economic and environmental aspects of various systems of renewable resource 

management, including the related systems of silviculture and protection of forest resources, to provide for outdoor 

recreation (including wilderness),range, timber, watershed, wildlife, and fish;.. [16 U.S.C. §1604(g)(3)(A)].

Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

The decision to provide a sustainable and predictable supply of commercially valuable timber was made 

and documented in the Record of Decision for the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan Final EIS (USDA 1989), as amended. The Forest Plan was designed to achieve the 

following Forest-wide goals (LRMP ROD-10):

1. Provide a balance of resource management that will maintain a healthy Forest ecosystem, and help 

to supply local, regional and National social and economic needs.

2. Provide a sustained yield of resource outputs at a level that will promote the stability of local

communities.

Timber sale projects are expected to maximize net public benefits while achieving management goals for 

other resources in the most economically efficient manner and to contribute toward having total timber 

sale program benefits equal or exceed the total costs over time.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-65

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The lands of the Siskiyou National Forest have demonstrated their capacity to produce timber. Timber

supply is critical to the communities of southwest Oregon. The amount of timber supplied by the Forest

has been and will continue to be an important part of the economic picture. Timber production also

contributes to the National economy, generates receipts to Oregon counties, and contributes to the overall

economic health of the Nation (LRMP ROD-26).

The Matrix land allocation, as stated in the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and 

Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl:

“The matrix consists of those federal lands outside the six categories of designated areas

(Congressionally Reserved Areas, Late-Successional Reserves, Adaptive Management Areas, 

Managed Late-Successional Areas, Administratively Withdrawn Areas, and Riparian Reserves). 

Most timber harvest and other silvicultural activities would be conducted in that portion of the matrix 

with suitable forest lands, according to standards and guidelines. Most scheduled timber harvest 

(that contributing to the probable sale quantity [PSQ] not taking place in Adaptive Management 

Areas) takes place in the matrix. The matrix includes non-forested areas, and forested areas that are 

technically unsuitable for timber production, and therefore do not contribute to PSQ”

Riparian Reserve treatments are to restore lands along all streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, unstable areas, 

and potentially unstable areas that are subject to special Standards and Guidelines designed to conserve 

aquatic and riparian-dependent species. Standards and Guidelines apply to activities in Riparian Reserves 

that may otherwise retard or prevent attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives, as 

defined in the 1994 ROD for the Northwest Forest Plan.

“Apply silvicultural practices for Riparian Reserves to control stocking, reestablish and manage 

stands, and acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain the Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy objectives.”

“New roads will be constructed as needed during the planning period to achieve the objectives specified

in the Forest Plan. This is highly variable from year to year: the locations and extent of roading will be

determined through site specific analyses at the project level.” (LRMP ROD-22).

Analysis Area

The Eden Ridge Timber Sales Planning Area is situated southeast of Powers, Oregon. Centrally located,

commercial timber products have historically and are currently being transported to the communities of 

Broadbent, Myrtle Point, Coquille, Coos Bay, Bandon, Brookings, Glendale, Winston/Dillard, Roseburg 

and surrounding areas. Timber industry jobs include a variety of logging, forestry and mill positions. 

The current level of timber harvesting on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest has dropped 

substantially from the levels of the mid-1980s. This decrease has contributed to a decline in the number 

of local jobs associated with the wood products industry in this and surrounding areas. Eden Ridge

Timber Sales are proposed for several sale auctions and awards in the next five years (under separate and 

unique sales and sale names). There are three Action Alternatives plus a No-Action Alternative being 

considered. 

The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects for economic issues includes 

the project activity units (Project Areas) associated with the Eden Ridge Timber Sales and the 

surrounding communities that would be affected by the proposed project.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-66

Final Environmental Impact Statement

b. Economic Assumptions and Effects Mechanisms

Outputs

The estimated sale volume varies with each alternative between an estimated high of 53,130 thousand 

board feet (MBF) in Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, 52,028 MBF in Alternative 3, to a low of 49,175 

MBF in Alternative 4 (Table III-21). The difference in volume between the alternatives is a reduction in 

treatment acres due to harvesting systems, engineering considerations, and type and extent of 

transportation access. After the “no harvest” Riparian Reserve acres are deducted (based on Riparian 

Reserve Project Design Criteria), an average estimate volume per acre of commercial product is used to 

calculate the total harvest volume by yarding system and alternative. 

Table III-21. Projected Treatment Acres and Volume by Alternative

Alt.

Ground 

Based Acres 

minus 8% RR 

No Harvest

Skyline 

Acres minus 

8% RR No 

Harvest

Helicopter 

Acres minus 

8% RR No 

Harvest

Total 

Treatment 

Acres

Total 

Tractor 

Volume 

MBF

Total 

Skyline 

Volume 

MBF

Total 

Helicopter 

Volume MBF

Total Volume 

MBF 

Harvested

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 1,939 1,097 0 3,036 33,933 19,197 0 53,130

3 1,641 863 469 2,973 28,718 15,102 8,208 52,028

4 1,324 420 1,066 2,810 23,170 7,350 18,655 49,175

Harvest volume is estimated at an overall average of 17.5 MBF/acre (not a target or a threshold)

Yarding Costs

Current costs and values were used which may not reflect future costs and values, but will show a relative 

comparison that should remain relatively consistent into the future. Currently, log values are near a 

historical low and costs are high due to recent increases in fuel costs. It can be expected that log values 

would increase as the economy improves and demand increases.

For this analysis, the costs are from logging systems and transportation needs by alternative. Each 

proposed yarding system has associated costs that have been averaged based on past timber sale 

appraisals on similar terrain (Table III-22).

Table III-22. Estimated Yarding Costs by Alternative

Alt.

Ground Based

Yarding Costs 

@210/MBF

Skyline Yarding 

Costs @250/MBF

Helicopter Yarding 

Costs@465/MBF

Total Yarding 

Costs

1 0 0 0 0

2 $ 7,125,825 $ 4,799,375 $0 $ 11,925,200 

3 $ 6,030,675 $3,77,625 $ 3,816,487 $ 13,622,787 

4 $ 4,865,700 $ 1,837,500 $ 8,674,575 $ 15,377,775

Note: Costs are meant to be used for the relative comparison of alternatives only and do not represent actual appraised 

costs

Roading Costs

New road construction, reconstruction of existing railroad grades, reconstruction of existing non-system 

roads and maintenance of system roads were identified and proposed in an effort to try and reduce 

associated harvest costs. Alternatives 2 and 3 propose new roads to increase access to harvest units and 

reduce harvest cost. Alternative 4 uses the existing system roads and proposes only reconstruction of a 

portion of an existing railroad grade. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-67

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Additional costs are applied to the road construction, reconstruction and maintenance incurred by each 

alternative (Table III-23). The unit costs used for this analysis were determined by using current bid rates 

from recent projects in the area and by using local knowledge of construction practices. The rate per mile 

is not specific to individual roads but rather an average cost per mile of road. Maintenance estimates 

were determined in the same manor with the addition of surface rock replacement assuming 1/10th of an 

inch of rock loss per 10 million board feet of haul. Maintenance collections for Roads 33 and 3358 were 

estimated using current bid rates from recent contracts. The need for collections in lieu of performance is 

due to multiple users at the same time.

Table III-23. Transportation Cost Estimates

ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4

Road Type Miles Cost Miles Cost Miles Cost Miles Cost

Classified 31.03 31.03 $0.00 31.03 $0.00 31.03 $0.00

CUM 0 7.77 $234,654 7.77 $234,654 6.37 $192,374

CUW/R 0 3.74 $594,860 2.08 $419,440 1.89 $185,220

New 

Construction 0 10.45 $1,736,790 7.66 $1,273,092 0 $0.00

Maintenance 31.03 $62,000 52.99 $1,701,987 48.54 $1,580,910 39.29 $1,238,885

TOTALS 31.03 $62,000 52.99 $4,268,291 48.54 $3,508,096 39.29 $1,616,479

Classified: This designation is the existing roads system including the 33 and 3358 Roads that access the Planning Area. 

CUM: Classified Use and Maintenance. This designation is existing roads that are not part of the National Forest Road System 

and would need some improvement before becoming part of the system. These roads would be added to the National Forest 

Roads System through the Cost-Share Roads Program.

CUW/R: Classified Use with Reconstruction. This designation consists mainly of abandoned railroad grades. The old rail 

grade prism is present but clearing and grubbing of trees and stumps, establishing drainage, placing crushed aggregate and cut 

and fill slope repairs would be needed. 

New Construction: This designation is where no existing template or prism exists. 

Maintenance: This designation is for the maintenance of the all roads as a result of log haul for this project, except for 

Alternative 1, the No-Action alternative. This cost represents the cost of reoccurring maintenance needed regardless of hauling 

activities.

See the Transportation and Logging System Report (FEIS Appendix I, incorporated by reference) for 

more detail on the cost analysis for road miles used for comparison.

Revenue

The benefit basis of this analysis is the timber sale revenue from the estimated volume. The present value 

of benefits is based on current log prices for timber sold in Region 6 obtained through the Transaction 

Evidence Appraisal System. This amount reflects deductions for logging, general logging overhead, road 

construction, road re-construction, road maintenance, and temporary developments. Additional 

deductions may include special tree falling costs, slash disposal, environmental protection, engineering 

design, and operator profit and risk margin.

Economic Indicators

The demands for timber harvest are most affected by regional and national economics as well as costs 

from other markets. One of the outputs and effects is the determination of Present Net Value (PNV), 

which estimates the maximum value that might be attained by maximizing the net value of priced outputs 

under a non-declining flow policy. This benchmark serves as a basis for an economic comparison 

between benchmarks and alternatives, as well as a basis for determining the effects of various constraints 

on outputs and costs. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-68

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Further discussion is found in the SNF-LRMP Standards and Guidelines where economic analysis shall 

be included when areas have alternatives with substantial roading and harvesting, and choices that 

maximize net public benefits are not obvious from environmental and resource considerations. Present 

Net Value or Least Cost are appropriate measures of economic efficiency to use in this analysis (SNF 

LRMP, page IV-39).

The ratio of benefit to cost (B/C) is a useful parameter of economic efficiency intended to complement 

the PNV calculations associated with projects. The ratio is simply the total discounted benefits divided 

by the total discounted costs and reflects an average value rather than the total return to the government. 

This ratio is a measure of cost efficiency given different levels of investment among the alternatives. It 

does not reflect benefits from future use of a road system developed for future harvests after this entry.

Cost increases, with all other factors held constant would reduce the likelihood that a proposed project 

would sell. It is desirable to have stumpage values greater than logging costs for projects to be 

economically feasible. Cost efficiency analysis utilizing PNV calculations can provide an indication of 

whether or not a timber sale would be “cost efficient”. Increasing logging costs, with all else held 

constant, would result in projects being below cost.

It is important to recognize the impact more expensive harvest methods such as helicopter yarding in lieu 

of road construction with cable yarding or ground based methods has on the economic feasibility of a 

project. Historical information has shown that the cost to ground base (tractor) yard (with associated 

construction for road access) is the least expensive operation. As yarding systems change to cable 

(skyline) and helicopter, these costs increase. Helicopter yarding is considered a very expensive system 

due to the price of equipment, fuel, and required support of equipment and personnel.

c. Direct Effects of Alternatives

Alternative 1 (No-Action)

The No-Action Alternative would not commercially harvest any timber, and therefore, would not generate 

a PNV or B/C for meaningful comparison to the Action Alternatives. Road maintenance costs for this 

alternative (Table III-23) represents the cost of reoccurring system road maintenance needed regardless of 

hauling activities.

Action Alternatives

The result of the economic analysis shows that the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) is the most 

economically feasible (Table III-24). The Proposed Action has the highest positive net present value and 

benefit cost ratio. The Proposed Action utilizes no helicopter yarding by adding engineer specified, low 

impact roads and spurs to allow access for tractor and cable yarding. Alternatives 3 and 4 have negative 

B/C ratios with Alternative 4 having the lowest PNV. Generally, this decrease of returns among the 

alternatives is reflected in the use of a greater percentage of high-cost yarding, (i.e., helicopters) as 

opposed to conventional yarding systems.

Table III-24. Present Net Value and Benefit/Cost Ratio Comparison between Alternatives

Alternative Volume in 

MBF

Total Estimated 

Benefit or Revenue 

from Sale of Timber

Total Estimated 

Cost

Present 

Net Value PNV

Benefit-Cost 

Ratio (B/C)

1 No Action 0 0.00 $ 62,000.00 $ (62,000.00) 0.00

2 Proposed Action 53,130 $ 16,515,991.80 $ 16,193,491.00 $ 322,500.80 1.02

3 Less Roads–Some Heli 52,028 $ 16,173,268.65 $ 17,130,883.50 $ (957,614.85) 0.94

4 Least Roads–Max Heli 49,175 $ 15,286,540.50 $ 16,994,254.00 $ (1,707,713.50) 0.90

Note: Based on a market value of $310.86 per MBF; values and costs are meant to be used for the relative comparison of 

alternatives only and do not represent expected selling values or actual costs associated with a particular timber sale.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-69

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Region 6 uses Log Lines for west side forests in Oregon, as the basis of relative stumpage values for 

western Douglas-fir. Market stumpage value or the price per thousand board feet of timber contributes 

the most to this economic analysis, assuming road and yarding costs remain the same. Slight changes in 

logging costs or road construction costs do not change the B/C ratio as must as market price. To 

demonstrate, an outcome of an 11.5% increase for the price per MBF, Table III-25 summarizes the effect 

to the point where Alternative 4 is at a break-even, otherwise the point where money spent and money 

returned is the same (B/C = 1.0). The cost to maintain the road system is included in the No-Action 

Alternative to demonstrate the associated cost of the existing road system.

Table III-25. PNV and B/C Comparison between Alternatives with an 11.5% increase in $/MBF

Alternative Volume in 

MBF

Total Estimated 

Benefit or Revenue 

from Sale of Timber

Total Estimated 

Cost

Present 

Net Value PNV

Benefit-Cost 

Ratio (B/C)

1 No Action 0 0 $ 62,000.00 $ (62,000.00) 0.00

2 Proposed Action 53,130 $ 18,361,051.66 $ 16,193,491.00 $ 2,167,560.66 1.13

3 Less Roads–Some Heli 52,028 $ 17,980,041.69 $ 17,130,883.50 $ 849,158.19 1.05

4 Least Roads–Max Heli 49,175 $ 16,994,254.00 $ 16,994,254.00 $ 0.00 1.00

Note: Based on a market value of $345.59 per MBF; values and costs are meant to be used for the relative comparison of 

alternatives only and do not represent expected selling values or actual costs

d. Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives

Alternative 1 (No-Action)

The No-Action Alternative would not commercially harvest any timber, and thus no sawtimber or other 

forest products would be provided to regional mills with no economic value derived from the sale of 

forest products. No-Action would not support direct, indirect, and induced employment. It would not 

result in increased income to the regional or local economy (including the counties). Current levels of 

employment in the wood products sector would not change under this alternative.

Action Alternatives

All Action Alternatives could be economically viable, depending on current selling values, timber volume 

per acre, yarding systems required, proposed road construction, system road maintenance and the posttimber harvest projects. These factors would vary by individual timber sales, the units and logging 

systems they include, the road construction they include, etc. In general, the primary indirect and 

cumulative effect on timber harvest-related employment would occur from commercial timber harvest 

associated with the Action Alternatives from individual sale in estimated selling years of 2014-15 through 

approximately 2017-20. The Action Alternatives would provide some opportunity for timber harvestrelated employment, and higher revenues. 

Alternative 2 would provide higher net value than Alternative 3 and substantially more than Alternative 4. 

Though the combined economic benefit from implementation of any of the Action Alternatives is 

expected to be positive, each of the action alternatives from the project would have a localized beneficial 

effect for the socio-economic environment of southwestern Oregon. The Action Alternatives would also 

have an indirect benefit in the form of revenues going toward the National Forest Fund (NFF). Portions 

of revenue generated by the sale of timber from the Action Alternatives would be available to the county 

for roads and schools. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, new Classified roads were determined to be necessary to minimize temporary 

road impacts on resources, especially, land, water, wildlife, and air. These new Classified roads are 

necessary to maintain a quality that permits future use without need to re-accomplish or replace work that 

is currently in satisfactory condition. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-70

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Construction should minimize repeated impacts and avoid unacceptable risks to resources. It would also

result in lower future capital expenditures that could be required if, for example, roads had to be rebuilt or 

relocated for each sale or entry (see Chapter II, Section D, 2, g).

New Classified road construction is designed to result in the lowest total transportation cost (construction, 

hauling, and maintenance) for the intended management use, while ensuring safety and minimizing 

temporary or extended resource impacts (FSM 2432.34 and FSM 7700). All proposed new Classified 

roads would be created and managed as Maintenance Level 1. Classified (System) roads are for longterm, multiple management needs, often with some potential for future use every five-to-ten years. 

Timber sale contracts may authorize construction of both specified Classified roads and temporary roads. 

Cumulative

Given that the current log prices and reasonably foreseeable future of the regional economy, the 

speculation is that prices will continue to be low during the life of this proposed project. In an 

economically depressed area such as southwestern Oregon, the work provided by this project is 

potentially substantial. The project and its Action Alternatives are primarily proposed within the land 

allocation intended for the purposes of sustained timber production. The silvicultural prescriptions are 

primarily an intermediate treatment, and designed to include all attributes essential for ecologically 

sustainable land management. Roads constructed, reconstructed or otherwise used and maintained by the 

Forest Service or cooperators would not only provide feasible treatments to meet the Purpose and Need, 

Desired Conditions and objectives for this project, but would provide for future management needs to 

achieve quality land management under the sustainable multiple-use management concept to meet the 

diverse needs of people.

E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES: OTHER ISSUES

Other Issues (also introduced in Chapter I) as used in this environmental analysis are those that have been 

determined to be relevant, are used to disclose consequences, may affect design of component actions, 

may prescribe Mitigation Measures or Project Design Criteria, or whose disclosure of environmental 

effects are required by law or policy. Other Issues differ from Significant Issues in that they often 

describe minor and/or similar effects between Action Alternatives, providing nominal comparison of 

consequences to aid in later decision-making. 

1. AQUATIC CONSERVATION STRATEGY

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on 

attainment of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives associated with the Northwest Forest 

Plan and/or Standards and Guidelines associated with Riparian Reserves and Key Watersheds. 

The Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) was designed to facilitate the management and restoration of 

aquatic ecosystems within lands covered by the Northwest Forest Plan (1994). Specifically, the strategy 

is intended to protect anadromous fish habitat on federal lands within the range of Pacific Ocean 

anadromy. It is assumed that implementation of the ACS provides protection for all aquatic species 

present on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.

According to the Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, the ACS was developed to improve 

and maintain the ecological health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems contained within them on public 

lands. The four primary components of the ACS are designed to operate together to maintain and restore 

the productivity and resiliency of riparian and aquatic ecosystems; they include: 1) Riparian Reserves; 2) 

Key Watersheds; 3) Watershed Analysis; and 4) Watershed Restoration. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-71

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Riparian Reserves are established as a component of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, designed 

primarily to restore and maintain the health of aquatic systems and their dependent species. Riparian 

Reserves also help to maintain riparian structures and functions and conserve habitat for organisms 

dependent on the transition zone between riparian and upland areas. 

a. Background and Analysis Framework

Riparian Reserves include lands along all streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, unstable areas, and potentially 

unstable areas that are subject to special Standards and Guidelines designed to conserve aquatic and 

riparian-dependent species. Standards and Guidelines apply to activities in Riparian Reserves that may 

otherwise retard or prevent attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives, as defined in 

the 1994 NWFP ROD. 

Widths for Riparian Reserves necessary to ensure ACS objectives for different waterbodies are 

established based on ecological and geomorphic factors. Widths are typically one site potential tree 

height (175 feet for the Siskiyou portion of the Forest, unless site-specially determined at the project

scale), along each side of stream channels. Widths are twice this distance along fish bearing streams. 

These widths are designed to provide a high level of protection to fish and riparian habitats. 

Key Watershed designation is an additional component of the ACS that is applied to watersheds that 

contain at-risk fish species or anadromous stocks and that provide high quality water and fish habitat. 

b. Applicability of Riparian Reserve Standards and Guidelines

The analysis of the existing conditions of the affected sixth-field subwatersheds (see Hydrology Report, 

FEIS Appendix C) relative to Riparian Reserve Standards and Guidelines is presented below for all 

Action Alternatives (1994 NWFP ROD, pages C-31 through C-39). These Standards and Guidelines 

were reviewed for applicability relative to the types of actions being proposed under the Eden Ridge 

Timber Sales Project.

The Timber Management Standards and Guidelines (NWFP page C-31) were determined to be partially 

applicable because timber management is a subordinate goal of treatments. Timber management is 

discussed on pages C-33 and C-34 of the NWFP ROD. Specifically: 

TM-1 was found to be partially applicable: Timber harvest is prohibited in Riparian Reserves, unless it is 

to acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) 

objectives or to mitigate damaging affects to Riparian Reserves from catastrophic events such as fire, 

flooding, volcanic, wind, or insect damage.

TM-1 (a) is not applicable because salvage is not being proposed as associated with any catastrophic 

event.. 

TM-1 (b) is not applicable because salvage is not being proposed. 

TM-1 (c) is applicable “Apply silvicultural practices for Riparian Reserves to control stocking, 

reestablish and manage stands, and acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy objectives.” 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-72

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Roads Management Standards and Guidelines (NWFP page C-32) were determined to be applicable 

because of proposed new system road construction and the maintenance and/or reconstruction of existing 

roads for access and hauling needs (RF-2, RF-3, RF-4, RF-5, RF-6, and RF-7) are connected actions. 

Some proposed and existing roads cross stream courses and Riparian Reserves. 

The Grazing Management Standards and Guidelines (NWFP page C-33) were determined to not be 

applicable because grazing management is not the goal of density management of second growth stands

and the Planning Area is not associated with any grazing allotment. 

The Recreation Management Standards and Guidelines (NWFP page C-34) were determined to not be 

applicable because recreation management is not the goal of density management of second growth

stands. 

The Minerals Management Standards and Guidelines (NWFP page C-34) were determined to not be 

applicable because minerals management is not associated with density management of second growth

stands. 

The Fire/Fuels Management Standards and Guidelines (NWFP C-35) were determined to be partially

applicable because fuels management is a partial goal and a connected action to Eden Ridge Timber Sales 

and some activity fuels and hazardous fuel reduction treatments could occur within Riparian Reserves. 

FM-1 and FM-4 were determined to be applicable.

The Lands Standards and Guidelines (NWFP page C-36) were determined to not be applicable because 

no lands actions are associated with density management of second growth stands. 

The General Riparian Management Standards and Guidelines (NWFP page C-37) were determined to 

be applicable to all projects under the NWFP that include actions proposed within Riparian Reserves.

The Watershed and Habitat Restoration and Fish and Wildlife Management Standards and 

Guidelines (NWFP page C-37) were determined to be partially applicable because other connected or 

related include restoration and enhancement opportunities. WR-1 and FW-1 were determined to be the 

primary applicable Standard and Guidelines (NWFP page C-37).

The Research Standards and Guideline (NWFP page C-38) RS-1 was determined to be not applicable 

because research is not an activity being proposed as associated with density management of second 

growth stands. 

c. Response to Northwest Forest Plan Riparian Reserve Standards and Guidelines

The applicable NWFP Standards and Guidelines (1994 ROD, pages C-31 through C-39) for Action 

Alternatives considering density management and connected activities under Eden Ridge Timber Sales, 

and their consequences, are displayed in Table III-26.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-73

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table III-26. Evaluation of Applicable NWFP Riparian Reserve Standards and Guidelines

Standard 

and 

Guideline

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4

TM-1 (c)

The Purpose and Need for the Proposed 

Action within Riparian Reserves is based 

on employment of silvicultural practices 

that are designed to control stocking, 

and acquire desired vegetation 

characteristics to allow attainment of 

ACS Objectives.

Alternative 3 would treat Riparian 

Reserves in a similar manner as 

Alternative 2, on slightly less 

acres.

Alternative 4 would treat the fewest 

acres of Riparian Reserves. 

Stocking control would occur and 

desired vegetation characteristics 

would improve in treated areas, 

but not within untreated areas.

RF-2

Alternative 2 includes some new 

proposed roads within Riparian Reserve. 

Existing roads, skid roads and landings 

within Riparian Reserves may also be 

utilized if they would not deliver sediment 

to streams. Extensive Project Design 

Criteria would minimize disruption of 

hydrologic flow paths. This alternative 

has the most new road construction and 

has the greatest risk, based on the 

amount and location of certain roads 

(see Hydrologic Condition Issue).

Alternative 3 includes some new 

proposed roads within Riparian 

Reserve. Existing roads, skid 

roads and landings within Riparian 

Reserves may also be utilized if 

they would not deliver sediment to 

streams. Extensive Project Design 

Criteria would minimize disruption 

of hydrologic flow paths. This 

alternative has less new road 

construction and has minimal risk, 

based on the amount and location 

of proposed roads (see Hydrologic 

Condition Issue).

Alternative 4 does not include new 

proposed roads within Riparian 

Reserve. Existing roads, skid 

roads and landings within Riparian 

Reserves may be utilized if they 

would not deliver sediment to 

streams. Extensive Project Design 

Criteria would minimize disruption 

of hydrologic flow paths. This 

alternative has the least risk, 

based on its design (see 

Hydrologic Condition Issue).

RF-3

All Action Alternatives include road maintenance and road reconstruction that protects and or minimizes adverse 

effects to riparian resources. Stabilizing haul routes is a design element under all Action Alternatives.

RF-4

All Action Alternatives propose road reconstruction that is likely to involve stream crossings. Alternatives 2 and 3 

include new construction where stream crossings are possible. Culvert replacement would be designed, to the extent 

possible, to accommodate a 100-year flood, provide fish passage as necessary, and would result in overall improved 

conditions over current conditions.

RF-5

All Action Alternatives include road maintenance and road reconstruction that protects and or minimizes adverse 

effects to riparian resources. Alternatives 2 and 3 include new construction where stream crossings are possible. 

Extensive Riparian Reserve project design elements would minimize delivery of sediment.

RF-6

All Action Alternatives propose road reconstruction that is likely to involve stream crossings. Alternatives 2 and 3 

include new construction where stream crossings are possible. Culvert replacement would be designed, to the extent 

possible, to accommodate a 100-year flood, provide fish passage as necessary, and would result in overall improved 

conditions over current conditions.

RF-7

Road Management Objectives are in place for all existing system roads. Under all Action Alternatives, Road 

Management Objectives would continue to be in place and inspection and maintenance during and after storm events 

would be a reoccurring practice. 

FM-1 and 

FM-4

All Action Alternatives include activity fuel treatment and fire management practices, and activities to allow attainment 

of the ACS, and to minimize disturbance of riparian ground cover and vegetation. Design elements exclude slash 

piles and ignition of prescribed fire within Stream Channel Protection Zones.

RA-1 All Action Alternatives would maintain in-stream flows, riparian resources, channel conditions and aquatic habitat.

RA-2

All Action Alternatives include project design elements that would require any trees felled within the Stream Channel 

Protection Zones to be left on-site.

RA-3

All Action Alternatives include no proposed use of herbicides, insecticides, and other toxicants or other chemicals as 

part of density management or other managed stand treatments. Use of chemicals (not herbicides) for dust 

abatement on existing system roads that occur within Riparian Reserves would be carefully controlled by project

design elements.

RA-4

Use of water drafting sites associated with existing system roads that occur within Riparian Reserves would be 

carefully controlled by project design elements to maintain flow and habitat for all Action Alternatives.

WR-1

All Action Alternatives include restoration projects with a design that promotes long-term ecological integrity of 

ecosystems, conserves the genetic integrity of native species (e.g., Port-orford-cedar), and allows attainment of 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-74

Final Environmental Impact Statement

d. Compliance with Key Watershed Standards and Guidelines

Key Watershed designation is an additional component of the ACS that is applied to watersheds that 

contain at-risk fish species or anadromous stocks and that provide high quality water and fish habitat. All 

of the lands associated with the candidate stands have been analyzed by a Watershed Analysis and have 

been used during the analysis of this proposal. Under Northwest Forest Plan direction, Key Watersheds 

are not a designated area or matrix, but overlay all allocations. 

Key Watershed designation is a component of the ACS that is applied to watersheds that contain at-risk 

fish species or anadromous stocks and that provide high quality water and fish habitat. The South Fork 

Coquille fifth-field watershed is designated as Key Watershed (the Middle Fork Coquille fifth-field 

watershed is not).

South Fork Coquille River is a Key Watershed for which Watershed Analysis has been performed (see 

FEIS Chapter I and Hydrology Report, FEIS Appendix C). An Aquatic Restoration Plan was prepared in 

2007 (see Hydrology Report). As documented in the Restoration Plan, the South Fork Coquille (SFC) is 

a Tier 1 Key Watershed as defined by the Northwest Forest Plan (1994) and is approximately 108,300 

acres in size. In 2005, the Rogue River - Siskiyou National Forest engaged in an Integrated Work 

Planning process. As part of that process, fifth-field watersheds across the Forest were prioritized for 

resource value and restoration potential. The South Fork Coquille ranked as number 1 on the Forest for 

fisheries, water, and wildlife values.

Timber harvest cannot occur in Key Watersheds or Riparian Reserves unless Watershed Analysis is 

performed to characterize the aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial features within a watershed and to guide 

activities toward meeting Aquatic Conservation Strategy goals (NWFP ROD, page B-20, USFS, 1994). 

Outside of Inventoried Roadless Areas (RARE II) management direction is to reduce existing system and 

non-system road mileage. 

According to the Northwest Forest Plan, Basis for Standards and Guidelines (NWFP page B-19: Roadless 

Areas and Key Watersheds; third paragraph):

“The amount of existing system and non-system roads within Key Watersheds should be reduced 

through decommissioning of roads. Road closures with gates or barriers do not qualify as 

decommissioning or a reduction in road mileage. If funding is insufficient to implement reductions, 

there will be no net increase in the amount of roads in Key Watersheds. That is, for each mile of new 

road constructed, at least one mile of road should be decommissioned, and priority given to roads 

that pose the greatest risks to riparian and aquatic ecosystems.”

Also note under Summary of Aquatic Conservation Strategy for Key Watersheds, (bullet 4), NWFP Page 

B-19:

 “reduce existing system and nonsystem road mileage outside roadless areas. If funding is 

insufficient to implement reductions, there will be no net increase in the amount of roads in Key 

Watersheds.”

The situation for the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project therefore is; a portion of the Planning Area is 

within a Key Watershed; there are no roadless areas associated with this project and under this Standard 

and Guideline, there is to be no net increase in the amount of roads. Note that the basis for this 

Standard and Guideline is “amount of existing system and non-system roads” and not road density 

(usually expressed in miles/sq. mi.). Also note that this Standard and Guideline is applicable at the 

fifth-field scale (the entire area designated as Tier 1 Key Watershed (and not to any of the smaller 

subwatersheds that comprise the larger fifth-field Key Watershed).
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-75

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Road Decommissioning: South Fork Coquille Watershed Road Bank

The term “Road Bank” is used by this project to reflect the accounting of road decommissioning versus 

new road constructed, as discussed in the NWFP, page B-19. As noted above, the primary relevant 

citation regarding road miles of new construction versus road decommissioning in Key Watershed is 

found in the Northwest Forest Plan, Basis for Standards and Guidelines (NWFP page B-19).

Within the South Fork Coquille Watershed, road decommissioning on the Powers Ranger District has 

been occurring since 1992 (prior to but in anticipation of the Northwest Forest Plan ROD of 1994). 

Insight from the Watershed Analysis and the FEMAT process helped the district to begin its road 

decommissioning process earlier than many other districts, which lead the district to begin serious 

decommissioning in 1992. Evidence was provided in DEIS Appendix I for the historical road 

decommissioning situation (Linderman letter to the Region, who was asking for that information at that 

time). The DEIS stated the miles of decommissioned roads within the South Fork Coquille Watershed 

have totaled approximately 61.1 miles (see DEIS Appendix I, Attachment B; File Code 7720-1 regarding 

Road Mileage changes in Key Watersheds, 1999). The basis of this disclosure was the amount of roads 

removed from lands allocated to other purposes than timber production, creating a “road bank”, that is, 

the current level of road mileage, through decommissioning, as well as any new construction, was less 

than the 1992 road mileage conditions. 

Based on public comment on the DEIS, and internal need for clarification, the situation regarding the 

“Road Bank” of decommissioned roads within the South Fork Coquille fifth-field watershed has been 

revisited in the FEIS. While the situation as assessed in 1999 remains valid and correct to the best of 

anyone’s knowledge, internal review has identified that the precise accounting of decommissioned road 

miles needs to begin with the issuance of the NWFP ROD, i.e., after April 13, 1994 (and not in 1992). In 

addition, there is a need to provide substantial evidence that supports the decommissioning action (i.e., 

NEPA decisions, contracts for work, etc.), and evidence that decommissioned roads qualify as restoring 

“hydrologic function”, thus meeting the NWFP definition of “decommission” Monitoring is needed to 

provide this evidence.

In the FEMAT Glossary (the basis of the NWFP), “Decommission” is defined as:

“To remove those elements of a road that reroute hillslope drainage and present slope stability hazards. 

Another term for this is “hydrologic obliteration.” Examples of the types of treatments that may assist in 

restoring watersheds (from FSH 7700) are as follows:

7734.1 – Decommissioning Treatments

Decommission a road by reestablishing vegetation and, if necessary, initiating restoration of 

ecological processes interrupted or adversely impacted by the unneeded road. Decommissioning 

includes applying various treatments, including one or more of the following: 

1. Reestablishing former drainage patterns, stabilizing slopes, and restoring vegetation;

2. Blocking the entrance to a road or installing water bars;

3. Removing culverts, reestablishing drainages, removing unstable fills, pulling back road 

shoulders, and scattering slash on the roadbed;

4. Completely eliminating the roadbed by restoring natural contours and slopes; and

5. Other methods designed to meet the specific conditions associated with the unneeded road.

Analysis of Decommissioned Roads Post 1994

It is important to note the location/position of Eden Ridge Planning Area within the South Fork Coquille 

fifth-field Key Watershed and where the majority of past road decommissioning has occurred (see FEIS 

Map I-2, and Map C-1, FEIS Appendix C). Most of the road decommissioning has occurred within the 

Johnson Creek, Delta Creek, and Headwaters South fork Coquille (aka Wooden Rock Creek) 

subwatersheds, because that is where most of the Forest Service managed lands occur, and it is where a 

more extensive network of existing roads exists from the past (see MAP III-4, below). 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-76

Final Environmental Impact Statement

There are very few existing roads within the Eden Ridge Planning Area and within the Coal Creek 

subwatershed, and therefore minimal opportunities to decommission existing roads that are not needed for 

future management (see FEIS Appendix I; Transportation and Logging Systems Report).

A 1998 Transportation and Road System Analysis (update to 1995 South Fork Coquille Watershed 

Analysis) listed a number of road segments that had been decommissioned starting in 1992 through 1998. 

That total was determined to be 45.39 miles. From that listing, 20.22 miles were determined to have been 

decommissioned post April 1994, the date of the NW Forest Plan. Note that decommissioned roads were 

counted if the restoration action occurred after April 1994, even if they were part of a NEPA decision 

prior to that. After a search of the local files it was determined that some type of record existed that 

indicated a decommissioning action had taken place on 19.37 miles. Also note that over 22 years has 

passed since many of the NEPA decisions and contract documentation was prepared that resulted in road 

decommissioning actions. That is a long time to informally retain district records, explaining why not all 

records could be located.

In addition to the decommissioning, new road construction had taken place on a variety of different 

Federal projects in the South Fork Coquille Watershed from April 1994 to present, totaling an estimated 

4.2 miles. The following table (Table III-27) summarizes decommissioned roads, for which records were 

located, that provide evidence that decommissioned roads qualify as restoring “hydrologic function”, thus 

meeting the NWFP definition of “decommission” MAP III-4 shows the approximate location of 

decommissioned roads in relation to the South Fork Coquille Watershed and subwatersheds within, since 

1994.

Table III-27. Road Bank Summary of Miles “Decommissioned” since April 1994

Post April 1994 decommissioned road miles -19.37

New constructed roads miles Post April 1994 +4.20

Current “Road Bank” miles with documented 

decommissioning evidence

-15.17

Implementation and Effectiveness Validation and Monitoring

In support of Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project, additional review and validation of records and 

monitoring, including field monitoring occurred in 2012 and 2013. This review was conducted by the 

Forest Hydrologist, Forest Soil Scientist, Powers Forester, and Powers Road Managers in order to 

confirm that contract actions were correctly applied, that the road was in fact decommissioned, and that 

actions were effective at restoring “hydrologic function”, thus meeting the NWFP definition of 

“decommission” 

Documentation is contained in the Project Record that documents findings by this review, for each road 

identified as decommissioned, as well as road summaries. This review confirmed the effectiveness of 

decommissioning and confirmed the quantity of miles of decommissioning for the “Road Bank” 

assessment. 

Documentation (including photo series of effectiveness monitoring) for selected decommissioned roads is 

contained in a May 15, 2013Monitoring Report – Monitoring of Roads Decommissioned in the South 

Fork Coquille since the Northwest Forest Plan in April, 1994 (Appendix I2 of this FEIS). As noted in 

this report, it does not cover all roads that have a record of being decommissioned in the South Fork 

Coquille watershed. As monitoring continues, findings of other roads will be documented in similar 

follow-up reports.

The 2013 Monitoring Report determined that 10.9 miles of the roads assessed in the field were roads that 

had been properly decommissioned, and that their condition is meeting the intent of the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy objectives in the Northwest Forest Plan. Table III-28 identifies these findings.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-77

Final Environmental Impact Statement

MAP III-4. South Fork Coquille Watershed - Decommissioned Roads Since 1994
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-78

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Road Bank Summary and Conclusion

The Eden Ridge Timber Sales project could construct up to 10.8 miles (under Alternative 2; Alternative 3 

is 4.45 miles) of new Classified (system) roads to current environmental standards, and be located on the 

landscape to minimize effects to the environment. Under Alternative 2, 9.09 miles of proposed new 

construction would occur within the South Fork Coquille Key Watershed.

Therefore, additional road construction under any Action Alternative could occur with no net increase in 

the miles of roads within a Key Watershed (see Table III-28.). This is due to the “Road Bank” of 

decommissioned road miles, in compliance with this NWFP Standard and Guideline. Records indicated 

that approximately 15 miles of decommissioned road are contained within the South Fork Coquille Key 

Watershed. Field monitoring has determined that nearly 11 miles were found to be properly 

decommissioned. 

Table III-28. Summary of Roads Monitored and found to be Properly Decommissioned

Road 

Number

Year 

Decommissioned 

Miles

Decommissioned

3347-020 1994/1996 -4.1

3347-140 1994/1996 -1.31

3347-144 1994/1996 -0.2

3358-160 1994/1996 -2.28

3300-510 1996 -1.75

5000-680 2000 -1.26

Total -10.9

Additional miles are also likely to be properly decommissioned; monitoring will continue and findings of 

other roads will be documented. The precise accounting of miles of decommissioned road compared to 

new Classified road construction would depend on the final decision for Eden Ridge Timber Sales 

Project.

This analysis has noted that there actually has been many more miles of roads that have been 

decommissioned in the South Fork Coquille Watershed since 1992, not all of which have been confirmed 

and/or accounted for. The Forest Service is not banking these road miles (see 2012 DEIS). Therefore, 

the actual quantify of miles of decommissioned roads across the landscape and within this watershed is 

likely to be higher than summarized above. Natural decommissioning processes are also at work when 

roads become impassable. 

e. Consistency with Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives for Action Alternatives

The Northwest Forest Plan requires project consistency with ACS with specific reference to nine ACS 

Objectives. Below is a summation of the environmental analysis regarding consistency with the elements 

and components of the ACS Objectives for the Action Alternatives. Additional discussion and rationale 

may be found in analysis documented under Significant and Other Issues in this Chapter including 

hydrology, water quality, soils, botany, fisheries, and terrestrial wildlife.

Three spatial scales are utilized in this discussion. The first scale is the “site-scale” and is defined for this 

analysis as the “Project Areas” or where action would occur, such as units where forest thinning is proposed 

and where road use, road construction and/or road improvements are proposed, or where Similar or Related 

Actions would occur (see Chapter III Introduction). 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-79

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The second and broader scale are the five 6

th field subwatersheds (see MAP I-2), that contain the Project 

Areas (and the Eden Ridge Planning Area). They include (Lower) Rock Creek, and Myrtle Creek, which 

are within the Middle Fork Coquille River 5th-field watershed, and Headwaters South Fork Coquille River 

(aka Wooden Rock Creek), Coal Creek, and Mill Creek, which are within the South Fork Coquille River 

5th-field watershed. The final scale is the 5th field watersheds themselves, i.e., Middle Fork Coquille 

River, and South Fork Coquille River.

ACS Objective 1. Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and 

landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, populations and 

communities are uniquely adapted.

The Action Alternatives are expected to have no effect on watershed and landscape-scale features because 

they would be maintained or avoided (FEIS Chapter III, Section D, 1 and 3). At the site-scale, variable 

density management (thinning) could occur within portions of non-fish bearing stream Riparian Reserves, 

however canopy closure would not be reduced below 50%. Treatments would improve stand structure 

and composition. Where landscapes are dominated by dense, young conifer stands (e.g., Douglas-fir 

plantations), thinning can help increase the long-term diversity of forest patch types by accelerating the 

development of variable density stands with large diameter trees (Spies et al., 2013).

Connected actions such as roads would be developed largely outside of Riparian Reserves. Logging 

systems and use of new constructed, temporary and existing roads for haul would employ extensive 

Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures (FEIS Chapter II, Section D, 3, and 10). Planting 

resistant Port-Orford-cedar would enhance landscape scale presence of this species. Other enhancement 

or restoration projects would help to maintain or improve conditions.

At the 6th field watershed scales, there would be an insignificant and undetectable effect on the 

distribution, diversity and complexity of watershed and landscape-scale features. Because there would be 

no measurable effect at the 6th field scales, there would be no effect at the larger 5

th field watershed scales.

ACS Objective 2. Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between 

watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, 

upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections must provide 

chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life history requirements of 

aquatic and riparian-dependent species.

The Action Alternatives are expected to have no effect on spatial and temporal connectivity between

watersheds because they would be maintained or avoided (FEIS Chapter III, Section D, 1 and 3). At the 

site-scale, variable density management (thinning) could occur within portions of non-fish bearing stream 

Riparian Reserves, however canopy closure would not be reduced below 50%. Treatments would 

improve stand structure and composition. Young, high density conifer stands can interfere with the 

movement of riparian-dependent species, and thinning can improve connectivity between habitats of 

riparian-dependent species (Spies et al., 2013). Snags and down wood abundances would be maintained 

and microclimates would not be affected (FEIS Chapter III, Section E, 12).

Connected actions such as roads would be developed largely outside of Riparian Reserves. Logging 

systems and use of new constructed, temporary and existing roads for haul would employ extensive 

Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures (FEIS Chapter II, Section D, 3, & 10). 

At the site-scale and 6th field scales, there would be no measurable effect on lateral, longitudinal, and 

drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and 

intact refugia. Because there would be no measurable effect at these scales, there would be no effect at 

the 5th field watershed scales.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-80

Final Environmental Impact Statement

ACS Objective 3. Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including 

shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations.

The Action Alternatives are expected to maintain physical integrity of the aquatic system because they 

would be minimally affected or avoided (FEIS Chapter III, Section D, 1 & 3). At the site-scale, variable 

density management (thinning) could occur within portions of non-fish bearing stream Riparian Reserves, 

however canopy closure would not be reduced below 50%. Treatments would improve stand structure 

and composition. 

At the site-scale, removal of trees adjacent to stream banks and construction/maintenance of roads used to 

access thinning sites could have a minor effect. Thinning that maintains or increases (through stream 

enhancement) wood loads to streams can help maintain and restore the physical integrity of stream beds 

(Spies et al., 2013). Connected actions such as roads would be developed largely outside of Riparian 

Reserves. Logging systems and use of new constructed, temporary and existing roads for haul would 

employ extensive Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures (FEIS Chapter II, Section D, 3, & 10). 

At the 6th field scales, there would be no measurable effect on physical integrity of the aquatic system. 

Because there would be no measurable effect at those scales, there would be no effect at the larger 5

th

field watershed scales.

ACS Objective 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.

The Action Alternatives are expected to maintain water quality (FEIS Chapter III, Section D, 2). At the 

site-scale, variable density management (thinning) could occur within portions of non-fish bearing stream 

Riparian Reserves with variable width no-treatment buffers, however canopy closure would not be 

reduced below 50%. Treatments would improve stand structure and composition. Treatments are 

designed to maintain or improve the biological, physical and chemical integrity of the aquatic system. 

Thinning operations would employ extensive Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures (FEIS 

Chapter II, Section D, 3, & 10) that would ensure no effects on shade and no increases in stream 

temperatures.

Connected actions such as roads would be developed largely outside of Riparian Reserves. Logging 

systems and use of new constructed, temporary and existing roads for haul would employ extensive 

Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures (FEIS Chapter II, Section D, 3, & 10). 

At the site-scale and 6th field scales, there would be no measurable effect on water quality. Because there 

would be no measurable effect at those scales, there would be no effect at the larger 5

th field watershed 

scales.

ACS Objective 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.

The Action Alternatives are expected to maintain the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems 

evolved, with an insignificant and undetectable effect on sediment regime (FEIS Chapter III, Section D, 1 

& 3). At the site-scale, variable density management (thinning) could occur within portions of non-fish 

bearing stream Riparian Reserves, however canopy closure would not be reduced below 50%. 

Treatments would improve stand structure and composition. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-81

Final Environmental Impact Statement

At the site-scale, yarding of trees and construction/maintenance or use of roads used to access thinning 

sites could have a minor sediment effect. Connected actions such as roads would be developed largely 

outside of Riparian Reserves. Logging systems and use of new constructed, temporary and existing roads 

for haul would employ extensive Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures (FEIS Chapter II, 

Section D, 3, & 10). 

At the 6th field scales, there would be no measurable effect on the sediment regime. Because there would 

be no measurable effect at those scales, there would be no effect at the larger 5

th field watershed scales.

ACS Objective 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 Action Alternatives are expected to maintain in-stream flows, with an insignificant and undetectable 

effect on peak flows (FEIS Chapter III, Section D, 1 & 3). At the site-scale, variable density management 

(thinning) could occur within portions of non-fish bearing stream Riparian Reserves, however canopy 

closure would not be reduced below 50%. Treatments would improve stand structure and composition. 

At the site-scale, yarding of trees and construction/maintenance or use of roads used to access thinning 

sites would have no effect on high or low stream flows. Connected actions such as roads would be 

developed largely outside of Riparian Reserves. Logging systems and use of new constructed, temporary 

and existing roads for haul would employ extensive Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures 

(FEIS Chapter II, Section D, 3, & 10). 

Thinning would potentially remove some smaller trees, which would have a minimal effect on 

recruitment of future (not current) down woody material. For perennial streams, riparian no treatment 

buffers would range from 50-85 feet (based on 2011 TMDL) away from the stream course. Riparian 

Reserve buffer widths and thinning intensity would be based on stream type (perennial, intermittent or 

ephemeral), and fish presence (FEIS Chapter III, Section E, 12).

At the 6th field scales, there would be no measurable effect on in-stream or peak flows, or wood routing. 

Because there would be no measurable effect at those scales, there would be no effect at the larger 5

th

field watershed scales.

ACS Objective 7. Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation 

and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands.

The Action Alternatives are expected to maintain the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain 

inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands (FEIS Chapter III, Section D, 1. At the 

site-scale, there would be no effects to these features because wet meadows and wetlands would be 

avoided and buffered if detected during implementation (FEIS Chapter II, Section D, 3, & 10). Indirect 

effects to floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands are not anticipated.

At the 6th field scales, there would also be no effect on timing, variability, and duration of floodplain 

inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands. Because there would be no effect at those 

scales, there would be no effect at the larger 5

th field watershed scales.

ACS Objective 8. Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant 

communities in Riparian Reserves and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal 

regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel 

migration and to supply amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical 

complexity and stability.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-82

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Action Alternatives are expected to maintain the species composition and structural diversity of plant 

communities in Riparian Reserves and have no effect to wetlands (see ACSO #8 above). Treatments 

would promote the genetic integrity of native species (e.g., Port-Orford-cedar) and Douglas-fir (laminated 

root rot treatments). At the site-scale, no effects are anticipated through manipulation of vegetation that 

would adversely affect species composition and structural diversity of plant communities within Riparian 

Reserves or wetlands. Thinning can increase the diversity and biomass of understory plants. If shadetolerant tree species become established, this helps increase structural diversity by creating a multi-tiered 

canopy. Thinning that increases dead wood loads in streams and riparian areas can help to sustain 

physical complexity (Spies et al., 2013). 

Riparian Reserve thinning would increase tree growth and lessen the time needed to establish future large 

wood delivery. Thinning would result in a long-term beneficial effect to fish habitat, by promoting the 

growth of large trees that would provide stream shade and large wood that creates complex in-stream 

habitats, thereby promoting vigorous fish populations. In the short-term, these treatments would remove 

smaller trees within Riparian Reserves; though, Mitigation Measures would be implemented to reduce the 

potential effect on short-term LWM recruitment, and eliminate the risk of adverse effect to the existing 

stream temperature regime. There is no adverse effect anticipated to forest microclimate and the thermal 

regime of aquatic systems (FEIS Chapter III, Section E, 12).

At the 6th field scales, there would be no measurable adverse effect on species composition and structural 

diversity of plant communities in Riparian Reserves or wetlands. Because there would be no measurable 

effect at those scales, there would be no effect at the larger 5

th field watershed scales.

ACS Objective 9. Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, 

invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species.

The Action Alternatives are expected to maintain habitat to support well-distributed populations of native 

plant, invertebrate and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. Treatments would promote the genetic 

integrity of native species (e.g., Port-Orford-cedar) and Douglas-fir (laminated root rot treatments). There 

would be no measurable adverse effects. At the site-scale, no effects are anticipated through 

manipulation of vegetation that would adversely populations of native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate 

riparian-dependent species (FEIS Chapter III, Section E, 12. Thinning can increase the biomass and 

diversity of understory vegetation. Thinning can create stands of variably spaced overstory trees with 

thick limbs that are used for nesting by marbled murrelets and can provide habitat for a diverse arboreal, 

epiphytic community (Spies et al., 2013).

At the 6th field scales, there would be no measurable adverse effect on populations of native plant and 

riparian-dependent species. Because there would be no measurable effect at those scales, there would be 

no effect at the larger 5

th field watershed scales.

Therefore, as an overall evaluation, the impacts associated with the Proposed Action or other Action

Alternatives, either directly, indirectly, individually or cumulatively, is consistent with, and would not 

prevent attainment of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, or the nine ACS Objectives, at the site, 6th field 

watershed or 5th field watershed (landscape) scales.

f. LRMP Management Prescription MA-11 - Riparian

The SNF Forest Plan allocation of “Riparian” (Prescription MA-11) is now included within the Northwest 

Forest Plan Riparian Reserve allocation; it was generally less restrictive and included less area than does 

Riparian Reserve as now designated (see specifics in FEIS Chapter I, Section G, 2).
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-83

Final Environmental Impact Statement

As noted in Chapter I, the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project is contained within the “South Fork Coquille 

Planning Basin” (SNF LRMP page IV-124), and is assigned Prescription B (SNF LRMP page IV-125). 

Under all Action Alternatives, Timber Standard and Guideline MA 11-5 (SNF LRMP page IV-127) is 

attained (and/or exceeded) because timber management treatments would occur at a level that would 

provide for maintaining the stream temperatures without significant increase (or any increase) in critical 

summer temperatures. With Project Design Criteria for Riparian Reserves, residual basal area, canopy 

cover for stream shading and large conifers for wildlife and stream habitats would be maintained at or 

above 70 percent of natural conditions along Class I and II streams, and 30 percent along Class Ill 

streams. Harvesting would be accomplished in such a way that damage to remaining streamside 

vegetation is minimized. Planting vegetation along shade-deficient stream channels (within treatment 

units) would occur. Under Project Design Criteria, directional falling and full suspension are required 

within the streamside area.

As noted in Chapter I, many aspects of Standards and Guidelines associated with the 1989 LRMP have 

not come to fruition. For example, S&G MA 11-5 discusses that:

“No more than 11 percent of the Riparian Area acreage within each planning basin shall be entered on 

a first entry basis per decade. Harvest units shall be distributed within each basin, and subsequent 

reentries per site should not occur within 20 years.” 

These standards were based on the conditions prevalent in the early 1990s, when regeneration harvest was 

the predominant harvest type. At this time (over 23 years later), minimal amounts of acreage have been 

regeneration harvested within any watershed on federally managed lands, and no regeneration harvest has 

occurred within Riparian Reserves (i.e., Riparian MA-11); the predominant harvest system on all harvest 

acres has been commercial thinning. Under Project Design Criteria specifically designed for Eden Ridge 

Timbers Sales, these Standards and Guidelines would not be exceeded, and are now largely inapplicable.

2. FIRE/FUELS

Effects of density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on fuel loading 

and fire hazard conditions. 

This issue focuses on potential consequences regarding fuels and fire hazard conditions. FEIS Appendix 

E, Fire/Fuels and Air Quality Report (incorporated by reference) includes more detail on current 

conditions, characteristics, and consequences regarding fire and fuels.

a. Background and Analysis Framework

The fire occurrence rate in the South Fork Coquille drainage is relatively low for lightening and humancaused fires. The fire occurrence interval for western hemlock series in the Klamath region is about 65 

years (USDA 1995). Previous reported fires mostly occur in the west half of the ER Planning Area (see 

Map B-11 in Silvicultural Report, FEIS Appendix B). There have been no substantial fires recorded in 

the Planning Area during the twentieth century. Most of the lightning storm events are accompanied by 

moderate and sometimes heavy rainfall. Under these circumstances, fires have sometimes been started, 

burned small areas, and then have been put out by the accompanying rainfall shortly thereafter. Most 

lightning fires have been detected while they are small in size, and have been suppressed before becoming 

larger than one acre.

The potential for human caused starts is considered low to moderate. Public and industrial users travel 

the main road through the area during the dry season, and industrial logging activity on the private lands 

within the Planning Area during the past decade has been quite active. Hunters frequent the area during 

the fall, but camping opportunities are limited.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-84

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The existing levels of dead and down fuels in the proposed treatment units are considered light, consisting 

primarily of fine limbwood from the self-pruning occurring in the second growth stands with a small 

amount of larger material left from historical railroad logging. In the Photo Series for Quantifying 

Natural Forest Residues in Common Vegetative Types of the Pacific Northwest (PNW-105, 1980), the 

classification 1-MC-3 closely represents the fuels present in these stands, with 2.5 to 5 tons per acre of 0 

to 3-inch material,. These fuels are compact and low to the ground, and are best described as a Fuel 

Model 8-Closed Timber Litter, of the Fire Behavior Fuel Models (Anderson 1982). 

Live ground fuels are also scattered and comprise a very minor amount of the available fuels. Salal and 

Oregon grape are the primary ground cover, and are considered a low to no threat component of the 

overall fuel picture due to its fire resistant nature. Wild rhododendron and evergreen huckleberry make 

up the shrub layer of vegetation, with burning characteristics similar to salal. In general, ladder fuels 

capable of carrying a fire from the ground to the crowns of trees are minimal within these stands. The 

trees themselves are generally reaching a point where their bark thickness is more likely to tolerate the 

heat that is generated by the low to moderate intensity surface fire which may pass through the stands.

Fires, burning in this fuel model, are generally characterized by slow burning ground fires; with short 

flame lengths (less than 4 feet), and present only minimal control problems, under normal dry season 

weather conditions. High winds and temperatures, steep slopes, and low humidity can cause control 

difficulties in this fuel model; as well as create a more stand-damaging effect. 

Fire behavior is influenced by the shading and wind-breaking effects of the closed conifer canopy. This 

shading effect generally maintains a cooler microclimate, as opposed to an open-grown area where 

increases in solar radiation and wind tend to decrease fuel moisture and increase fire intensity. The closed 

canopy creates conditions conducive to cooler fire behavior by reducing fuel bed heating (a function of 

shading) and by buffering the prevailing wind speeds. 

While these stands could tolerate a surface fire, they are still vulnerable to an independent crown fire 

initiated from the outside (e.g., neighboring private timber lands), and carried into the Planning Area by 

unusual weather (wind) and/or topographic conditions. The closed canopy condition would readily allow 

fire to move from one crown to another. Steeper slopes would amplify this situation due to pre-heating. 

Such a fire would likely be lethal to current stand conditions.

Management Direction

The activities associated with Eden Ridge Timber Sales are tiered to, and would be designed to comply 

with direction established in the 1989 Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

(SNF-LRMP) as amended by the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, as well as other amendments (see Chapter 

I). Fire management direction was amended from the 1989 LRMP in 2010 under the Fire Use 

Amendment. This amendment is an administrative action involving the modification and changing of the 

wording for management direction and Standards and Guidelines regarding appropriate management 

response to meet current federal and Forest Service fire terminology and policy.

The Biscuit Fire of 2002 provided considerable empirical evidence that many stands of commercial 

thinning size had poor chances of surviving a wildfire, where no fuels treatments had been employed. 

Many areas burned in the Biscuit Fire were similar to stands and conditions within the Planning Area. 

Therefore a goal of this project is to improve forest resiliency which would help control the possibility of 

stand replacement disturbances such as those created by severe wildfire (see Purpose and Need; Project 

Design Objectives, Chapter I). The range of harvest treatments proposed with the Eden Ridge Timber 

Sales should consider stand and fuels treatment which would promote stand survivability, in the event 

that they are subjected to a wildfire, under unusual conditions.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-85

Final Environmental Impact Statement

b. Effects Mechanisms

Peterson, et al., 2005, Omi and Martinson, 2002, and Agee and Skinner, 2005 present a hierarchy of 

potential treatments to prevent stand replacement disturbances by fire. The initial step to be taken is to 

reduce the potential for a surface fire to get into the crowns of the trees in the stand. Research indicates 

that to keep a surface fire on the surface, breaking the ladder fuel chain, while concurrently raising the 

crown base height (with emphasis on raising crown base height), must be accomplished. The general 

recognized practice to accomplish this is to thin from below (Peterson, et al., 2005; Omi and Martinson, 

2002; and Agee and Skinner, 2005). The three papers referenced go on to say fuels created by any 

harvest operations must be reduced to the point where surface fire intensity will be low enough to prevent 

mortality of residual trees by crown fire initiation (keep the fire on the ground), as well as minimizing any 

lethal amounts of heat being applied to the base of the bole of the tree. Agee and Skinner (2005) state that 

timber stand improvement work, without treatment of the fuels created by such activities, were burned 

more severely than unmodified areas. Omi and Martinson (2002) also reach this same conclusion. Agee 

and Skinner (2005) said that whole tree harvest, with disposal of tops at the landing; is most effective at 

preventing surface fuel increases in the residual stand. 

The next level of treatment is to prevent the spread of an active crown fire, once it has been initiated. Fire 

can spread from crown to crown through heat transfer, via two mechanisms. Pre-heating of the crowns by 

an advancing surface fire will allow a passive crown fire (torching) to escalate to an active crown fire, and 

propagate in the direction of fire spread, so long as the surface fuels allow this pre-heating to occur 

(notwithstanding the thorough treatment of surface fuels), and by the continuity of the crowns which 

allow for the aerial spread of the fire. 

Combinations of steeper slopes, drier/hotter conditions, and the influence of wind can exacerbate this 

problem; and could lead to an independent crown fire, spreading through the crowns without the need of 

pre-heating by burning surface fuels, and regardless of the crown base height. Reducing the crown 

densities is the common recommendation. Given the proper degree of crown bulk density reduction, this 

chain can effectively be broken, causing the fire to drop back to the surface. 

There are general guidelines for addressing crown continuity. An example of a field based rule is that the 

distance between adjacent tree crowns should be the average diameter of the crown of the codominant 

trees in the stand (Peterson, et al., 2005). Another rule of thumb taught at S-490 (Advanced Wildland 

Fire Behavior Calculations) is that thinning to a 75% canopy closure is generally adequate. Thinning to 

below these levels further reduces the risk of crown-to-crown fire spread.

Reduction of crown density can open up the understory so that mid-flame wind speed may be increased, 

fine fuel moisture may be reduced due to increased solar radiation (Agee and Skinner, 2005; Omi and 

Martinson, 2002), and growth of fine herbaceous fuels may be promoted due to increased exposure to 

sunlight (Omi and Martinson, 2002).

Using the Fire Behavior Field Reference Guide (PMS 436-4), the effects to surface winds and fine fuel 

moistures, as a result of opening up the canopy can be described. Wind Adjustment Tables indicate that a 

wind speed of 10 mph at the 20 ft. level would result in a 1-2 mph mid flame wind speed (ground level); 

in a fully sheltered stand, such as can be found with the existing condition. Implementation of the 

Proposed Action would leave the stand in a partially sheltered condition, with a resulting mid flame wind 

speed of 3 mph. The table itself offers only 3 levels of sheltering: Fully Sheltered, Partially Sheltered, 

and Unsheltered.

Fine Fuel Moisture Adjustment Tables offer two levels of comparison, Shaded (>50% shading) and 

Exposed (<50% shading) of surface fuels. The differences in fine fuel moisture corrections can range 

from 1-3%. The existing condition would be considered as shaded, any portion of the Proposed Action 

which opens up the canopy more than 50% would be considered exposed.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-86

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Both the wind and fine fuel moisture components described above relate more to the probability of 

ignition and rate of fire spread, than to fire intensity, in the overall picture of fire behavior. The amount, 

size, and arrangement of the fuel left on site will dictate fire intensity and any resultant mortality.

These variable density treatments are designed to enhance overall forest vigor and resiliency. Density 

management would release remaining trees from inter-tree competition for sunlight, water and soil 

nutrients when compared to untreated areas. More fire resistant stands would be created by retaining the 

largest of the existing trees while developing larger trees at a faster rate. Larger trees are more fire 

resistant in nature because of their thicker bark and higher crown base height. Post-treatment objectives 

are to develop a sustainable forest resilient to drought, wind, insects, disease, fire and other natural 

disturbances. 

c. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives

Modeling of crown fire initiation, the potential to sustain an active or independent crown fire, and the 

types of treatments needed to mitigate these problems, generally requires in-depth stand data (stand 

examinations). FVS-FFE (Forest Veg Simulator-Fire Fuels Extension) is the analytical tool which uses 

stand exam data to estimate potential mortality and the type of fire burning within a given stand. The 

modeling uses a simulated silvicultural harvest prescription to remove trees from the stands. A simulated 

fire is then run through these stands under set weather and fuel moisture parameters, using surface fuel 

types assigned to most nearly represent the results of either the pre-harvest conditions, or post-harvest 

conditions representing different levels of fuel treatment.

Analysis for selected examples shows that in their existing condition most stands of the stands proposed 

for treatment would generally tolerate a wildfire burning under the 95th percentile conditions; with less 

than 25% potential mortality resulting from the fire (Table III-29). 

Fire characteristics tend to be surface fires, with low flame lengths, and the modeling shows that crown 

fires are difficult to initiate in all sizes/ages of stands. While the fuel models in these stands varied 

between Low to Moderate Load Conifer Litter models, the Moderate Load Conifer Litter model was used 

to represent a worst case scenario in the analysis.

Table III-29. Forest Veg Simulator-Fire Fuels Extension: Example Modeling Results

Unit Existing Condition

Post-Harvest, 

Leave Tops

Post-Harvest, 

Yard Tops

201 12%, Surface Fire 17%, Surface Fire 9%, Surface Fire

303 20%, Surface Fire 26%, Surface Fire 18%, Surface Fire

334 9%, Surface Fire 12%, Surface Fire 7%, Surface Fire

102 14%, Surface Fire 34%, Surface Fire 8%, Surface Fire

% mortality based on Basal Area and Type of Fire

Alternative 1 – No-Action

Under the No-Action Alternative, no management activities within the Planning Area would occur. It 

would be expected that current stand conditions would continue to develop in a natural and undisturbed 

manner into the foreseeable future.

Deep shading, tight canopy cover inhibiting air flow, low crown ratios, and advanced decomposition of 

the more volatile surface fuels aid in reducing fire severity in forested stands. The stands in the Eden 

Ridge Planning Area are reasonably resilient to the effects of wildfire in their current condition. These 

stands have survived through many years of vulnerability to the potential adverse effects of fire, and have 

evolved into a condition of becoming more resistant and resilient to these effects. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-87

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Crown base heights are generally raised and the fuel ladder would continue to be eliminated (both 

positive fire resistive attributes). They could tolerate most surface fires, with the only true threat to mass 

mortality being an independent crown fire situation.

This condition would not remain static over time however. While fuels in the majority of the areas 

proposed for commercial thinning presently constitute a low to moderate hazard, stand dynamics would 

slowly alter this situation over time. Natural foliage loss and self-pruning are presently contributing fine 

fuels to the litter layer. Suppressed and intermediate trees would slowly begin to die out and contribute 

larger fuels to the forest floor. This process is being somewhat offset by the meltdown (slow 

decomposition) of these same fuels, with the smaller more flammable fuels decomposing at a much faster 

rate than the larger fuels. 

The process of fuels build up and the inevitable changes in stand dynamics is a very slow cycle, possibly 

taking numerous decades to actually develop a noticeable hazard. The results of these processes would 

more readily facilitate fire spread and contribute to potentially higher severity fire, which can put the 

stand at an increasingly higher risk of mortality than currently exists. During this same time period, the 

trees themselves would be developing a thicker bark layer, making them more resistant to the effects of 

fire, countering (to a degree) the potentially higher fire severity created by fuels being contributed from 

the stand itself.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Alternative 2 would commercially thin 75 treatment units totaling approximately 3,314 acres. Harvest 

activities would use a combination skyline and ground based logging systems. During tractor and skyline 

yarding activities, tops of trees removed from all proposed units would be yarded (YTA) and piled on 

landings. 

In addition, following timber harvest, concentrations of logging slash from units adjacent to Forest Roads 

5000, 290, 440, and 448 would be piled by hand and burned up to 100 feet from the road(s), reducing the 

risk for human caused starts and essentially creating a ‘cleaner’, more defensible space along the 

aforementioned roads. All landing piles of slash would be burned or utilized as biomass material.

Based on resulting conditions, prescriptions and treatments would be designed, whereby in the event of an 

unwanted wildfire, the treated stands would be left in such a condition that wildfire would pass though 

without generating unacceptable levels of mortality, and provide an area where the fire can be managed 

by ground based initial attack resources.

The direct effects of this project from a fire and fuels perspective would be a short-term increase in fuels 

loading and the associated fire hazard within the units as generated from activity-generated slash. Such 

an increase would be ameliorated by implementing activity fuels treatments. Other untreated slash would 

be expected to reach a near natural condition within approximately 5 years. Treatments would occur from 

multiple sales over an extended period of time (i.e., 1 5 years or more) allowing concentrations to be 

spread out over the Planning Area.

The Variable Density Thinning (VDT) proposed for this project calls for modifying the existing canopy 

cover to a condition of 35 to 50 percent. This action, in itself, generally reduces the potential for a 

running crown fire by opening up the spacing between tree crowns. 

The primary concern to fire managers, related to fuels remaining after harvest, is the amount of the 

smaller diameter (0 to 3 inch) fuels that are left on site. These smaller fuels constitute a hazard from two 

points. The finer fuels are the most receptive to an ignition source (spark, match, lightning), and are the 

elements that promote rapid fire-spread and increased flame lengths. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-88

Final Environmental Impact Statement

While the larger fuels (3 inches and greater) contribute to the duration and intensity of a fire (once one 

has started), the reduction of these fuels is of lesser importance than the reduction of the finer fuels, in the 

scheme of hazard reduction to reduce the potential for adverse effects of wildfire. Besides being of lesser 

importance in hazard reduction, the retention of this larger material would provide a multitude of other 

benefits, which enhance site productivity and complement other ecosystem values.

The stands are most vulnerable to the potential adverse effects of fire from the time the fine fuels (needles 

and small twigs) become cured, until these fuels drop to ground level and become part of the litter layer. 

Curing usually occurs within the first month of exposure to late spring/early summer like weather 

conditions. The needles would generally fall off the twigs by the second or third year following harvest. 

The twigs decompose at a slower rate, taking four to six years to fall from the main branches. Larger 

branch wood follows suit, taking upwards of eight to twelve years to decompose to ground level. Once 

these smaller diameter fuels (<1”) have all reached ground level, decomposition is rapidly accelerated, 

and the risks associated with a wildfire have substantially diminished. Without treatment, the first 0 to 5 

years present the window of highest risk.

Harvest activities (i.e., tractor and skyline yarding systems) associated with the Proposed Action would 

add needles, limbwood, and tops to the existing fuel bed in varying degrees throughout each treatment 

area. Disturbed ground vegetation and larger woody material would contribute to the dead fuel loading. 

In comparison with the natural long-term accumulation of ground fuels, harvest would contribute fuels to 

the site at an accelerated rate. 

The fuels remaining after harvest would be mostly of the smaller size classes, as most of the larger fuels 

would be removed for utilization, unless contractual requirements for down wood specify that they be left 

on site. The estimated fuel bed remaining after harvest is best described as a Fuel Model 11- Light 

Logging Slash, of the Fire Behavior Fuel Models. The Photo Series For Quantifying Forest Residues 

(GTR PNW-51), 3-DF-3-PC; with a substantial reduction 3.1-9.0 inch size class due to increased 

utilization also is representative of this fuel type. This fuel bed typically has 5 to10 tons per acres of 0 to 

3 inch size class fuels. In the event of an un-planned fire start, the potential for rapid-fire spread would be 

higher than a stand in a natural condition (2 to 7 chains per hour in a natural state, compared to 6 to 9 

chains per hour after harvest).

Effects to the activity-generated fuel bed as a result from implementation of mechanical pre-bunching (if 

utilized) has shown that fuels are concentrated under the tracks of the machine as it travels over the area. 

Needles and small diameter limbs (fuels) are crushed/compressed. This condition actually accelerates the 

results of natural decomposition and subsequent faster response to a reduction of potential fire intensities.

Below are fuels treatment options considered for the proposed density management units. 

Implementation of these fuels treatment methods would likely be one or a combination of several 

treatments.

No treatment: This method would be appropriate for sites where resulting fuel loadings fall well below LRMP 

Standard and Guideline recommendations by photo series (S&G 12-2, page IV-59). When residual fuels exceed 

the guidelines, not treating the fuels may be appropriate in areas of low risk where risks may be assumed for a 

period, until the hazard has been reduced by natural processes.

Hand piling fuels concentrations: This method would be effective in breaking up fuel continuity thereby 

reducing fire spread rates. Hand piling, followed by burning of the piles, can remove most fuels from a site. 

Hand piling is most effective in continuous moderate fuel loadings (25 to 50 tons per acre), and is less effective 

in scattered light fuels. This method may also be employed in areas where no other disposal methods are 

prescribed, or in conjunction with non-burning types of treatments, but where the risks may warrant some sort 

of hazard reduction. Due to the risk of human presence, hand piling is proposed along existing Level 2 

Classified Roads 5000, 290, 440, and 448. Within the commercially thinned units that are adjacent to these 

aforementioned roads (depending on Action Alternative), logging slash within 100 feet of these roads would be 

hand piled and burned.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-89

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for detrimental soil conditions and erosion (SNF-LRMP; pages IV-44-

45) would be applied for this project. Slash piles have the potential to create severely burned and bare soils in 

the footprint of the piles. By minimizing the size and maximizing the spacing between piles, and burning in the 

winter and spring windows of opportunity when soil and fuel moistures are high, soil detrimental impacts and 

mineral soil exposure is minimized. This would also compliment the objectives of maximizing the retention of 

Large Woody Material (LRMP S&G 7-8). Burn Plans would be required for any fuels treatment (see Section 

D, 10, Mitigation Measures, Chapter II), and would specify forest features that would need protection from 

burning activities. Large down logs would be one of the elements to avoid in placement of burn piles, as well 

as others.

Yarding of tops: This method would be effective in removing concentrations of the 0 to 3-inch size class fuels. 

In all treatment areas using ground-based or skyline yarding, tops of commercial trees would be left attached to 

a commercial log while yarding (Yard Tops Attached – YTA). The tops would be piled and disposed at the 

landing location.

Piling and Burning Landing Slash: This method would be effective in disposing of all remaining 

un-merchantable vegetation on log landings (piling and burning, or utilization as biomass material).

SNF-LRMP Standards & Guidelines (S&G) 7-2 (Detrimental Soil Conditions) directs that the application 

of fire be conducted so that thresholds for bare soil exposure are not exceeded. Burning of piles in the 

winter and spring windows of opportunity would best meet this objective, and would also compliment the 

objectives of maximizing the retention of Large Woody Material (S&G 7-8).

Forest-wide S&Gs for fire management (SNF-LRMP; pages IV-59 through 62, as amended) would be 

applied to this project. The fire hazard presented by natural, activity or prior activity fuels would be 

reduced to appropriate levels and proposed activities would be designed and coordinated on the ground to 

help make the fuel treatment and fire protection as practical and economical as possible.

The indirect effects of this project from a fire and fuels perspective would be a slight increase in potential 

fire intensity due to reduced canopy closures. The reduction of canopy closure would allow for an 

increase in solar radiation and air movement. Both of which, would potentially decrease fuel moistures 

and allow an herbaceous and shrub understory to develop. These conditions would continue to develop 

until the residual canopies grow together. At that time, the treated stands would return to near natural 

conditions.

Similar and/or Related Actions are included under the Proposed Action and the Action Alternatives; they 

are designed as resource enhancement, restoration, or improvements, and are described in detail in FEIS 

Chapter II, Section D, 2, h. These actions would occur in proximity to commercial and silvicultural stand 

treatments. Included are Non-Commercial Treatments proposed for 363 acres within the ER Planning 

Area (see Table II-6 and MAP II-2), Snag/Down Wood Creation, Meadow Enhancement, Stream 

Enhancement, Native Grass/Forb Seeding, Invasive Plant Treatments, and Other Wildlife Opportunities.

The effects from these actions are minor is scope and context, and would minimally add to the 

consequences of the Action Alternatives. The largest of these actions (Non-Commercial Thinning) may 

generate the need for some fuels treatment, likely hand pile and burn; this consequence would be no 

larger than any one of the commercial density management units of similar size, would occur within 

several non-contiguous portions of the Planning Area, and not all at the same time.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would commercially thin 65 treatment units totaling approximately 3,240 acres. Harvest 

activities would use a combination of helicopter, skyline, and ground based logging systems. During 

tractor and skyline yarding activities, tops of trees removed from all proposed units would be yarded 

(YTA) and piled on landings. Similar and/or Related Actions are also included.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-90

Final Environmental Impact Statement

In addition, following timber harvest, concentrations of logging slash from units adjacent to Forest Roads 

5000, 290, 440, and 448 would be piled by hand and burned up to 100 feet from the road(s), reducing the 

risk for human caused starts and essentially creating a ‘cleaner’, more defensible space along the 

aforementioned roads. All landing piles of slash would be burned or utilized as biomass material. On 

units where the logging system would be helicopter based, slash would be treated by YTA, piled and 

burned or utilized as biomass material at landing sites.

The direct and indirect effects of Alternative 3 would be much the same as those described for Alternative 

2, as the fuels treatment proposed for this alternative are the same, the only difference being the acres 

(3,240 as opposed to 3,314) proposed for treatment, and the inclusion of helicopter yarding and its 

associated helicopter landing sites. Fuels treatments for this alternative would continue to result in 

conditions that meet LRMP Standards and Guidelines.

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 would commercially thin 53 treatment units totaling approximately 3,058 acres. Harvest 

activities would use a combination of helicopter, skyline, and ground based logging systems. During 

tractor and skyline yarding activities, tops of trees removed from all proposed units would be yarded 

(YTA) and piled on landings. Similar and/or Related Actions are also included.

In addition, following timber harvest, concentrations of logging slash from units adjacent to Forest Roads 

5000, 290, 440, and 448 would be piled by hand and burned up to 100 feet from the road(s), reducing the 

risk for human caused starts and essentially creating a ‘cleaner’, more defensible space along the 

aforementioned roads. All landing piles of slash would be burned or utilized as biomass material. On 

units where the logging system would be helicopter based, slash would be treated by YTA, piled and 

burned or utilized as biomass material at landing sites.

The direct and indirect effects of Alternative 4 would as also be similar to those described for Alternative 

2, as the fuels treatment proposed for this alternative are the same, the only difference being the acres 

(3,058 as opposed to 3,314) proposed for treatment. Fuels treatments for this alternative would continue 

to result in conditions that meet LRMP Standards and Guidelines.

d. Cumulative Effects

Analysis for determining cumulative effects is considered to include stand density reduction and activitygenerated fuels on fuel loading and fire hazard in the Eden Ridge Planning Area. This analysis relies on 

current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing 

conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the 

environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. Any other past, present or future treatment 

activities such as Four Does, Lookout Partner, Backwoods Thin (past), and Silver Doe (present), would 

be expected to meet LRMP Standards and guidelines. This cumulative effects area is considered adequate 

since the concern is relevant to activity-generated fuels.

Under all Action Alternatives, although there may be a short-term increase in fire hazard due to the 

generation of fine fuels, however there would be a long-term benefit by decreasing tree/crown spacing 

and roadside fuels so that defensive measures could be deployed.

The long-term combined (cumulative) effects of this project and other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects from a fire and fuels perspective would be to reduce the risk to forest resources 

from high-intensity fire as described in the Action Alternatives. Stands would be more resilient to fire 

moving through it; both surface fire, and fire in the crowns. Although the surface fuel loading is not 

directly reduced the condition of the canopy would lessen any crown fire potential (Van Wagner 1977). 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-91

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The defensible space along the system roads as described in the Action Alternatives would be improved. 

Stands along these roads would be thinned and slash would be treated with hand piling concentrations and 

YTA to help establish a defensible space if a wildfire were to start in the Planning Area, or adjacent 

private lands. This along with the removal of the future potential for natural tree mortality would 

contribute to reducing the potential for high severity, stand replacement wild fire in this portion of the 

forest.

3. AIR QUALITY

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments, especially activity fuels treatments 

on air quality. 

This issue focuses on potential consequences regarding air quality. FEIS Appendix E, Fire/Fuels and Air 

Quality Report (incorporated by reference) includes more detail on current conditions, characteristics, and 

consequences for air quality.

a. Background and Analysis Framework

The Planning Area for Eden Ridge Timber Sales is approximately twelve miles west of the coastal crest. 

The combination of good air circulation along the Pacific coast and relatively limited industrial 

development has resulted in only minor air quality problems west of the coastal crest. Private lands do 

sometimes add to air quality effects from burning, on recently harvested areas. Air pollution from actual 

silvicultural treatments (e.g., cutting, yarding, equipment operation, hauling) are typically very minor and 

undetectable. Wildland fires that occasionally occur are the primary source of air quality problems in this 

area.

The nearest Class I Airshed is the Kalmiopsis Wilderness, approximately 30 miles south of the Planning 

Area. The nearest Smoke Sensitive Receptor Area (SSRA) listed in the Oregon Smoke Management Plan 

is the city of Coos Bay, about 38 miles to the north/northwest. 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were established by the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1963

and subsequently amended (as amended, at 42 USCA 7401 to 7671(q)). Primary air quality standards 

were established under the act to protect public health; secondary standards were established to protect 

public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of ambient air 

pollutants.

Particle pollution, also called particulate matter or PM, is a complex mixture of extremely small particles 

and liquid droplets in the air (i.e., dust, soot and particles too small to see). When breathed in, these 

particles can reach the deepest regions of the lungs. Exposure to particle pollution is linked to a variety of 

significant human health problems. Particle pollution also is the main cause of visibility impairment in 

the nation’s cities and National Parks.

To better protect public health and welfare for millions of Americans across the country, the EPA on 

September 21, 2006 issued the Agency’s most protective suite of national air quality standards for particle 

pollution ever. The final standards address two categories of particle pollution: fine particles (PM2.5), 

which are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller; and inhalable coarse particles (PM10) which are 

smaller than 10 micrometers (a micrometer is 1/1000th of a millimeter; there are 25,400 micrometers in an 

inch). 

EPA strengthened the 24-hour fine particle standard from the 1997 level of 65 micrograms per cubic 

meter (p.g/m3) to 35~ig/m3, and retained the annual fine particle standard at 15p~g/m3. The Agency also 

retained the existing national 24-hour PM10 standard of 150p.g/m3. The Agency revoked the annual PM10 

standard, because available evidence generally does not suggest a link between long-term exposure to 

current levels of coarse particles and health problems.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-92

Final Environmental Impact Statement

To further comply with this direction, the Forest has several strategies to manage prescribed fire smoke: 

Curtailment, reduction, avoidance, dilution, and education. Also, since the early 1990s, harvest methods 

have changed from regeneration treatments to thinning and amounts of smoke-related pollutants have 

dropped dramatically, further reducing the amount of pollutants generated by prescribed burning.

Management Direction

The activities associated with Eden Ridge Timber Sales are tiered to, and would be designed to comply 

with direction established in the 1989 Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

(SNF-LRMP) as amended by the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, as well as other amendments.

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for air quality resources (SNF-LRMP; pages IV-48 through 50)

would be applied to this project. As stated there, activities shall be planned: to maintain air quality at a 

level adequate for the protection and use of the National Forest resources, coordinate with the appropriate 

air quality regulatory agencies, reduce total suspended particulate emissions and minimize the impact of 

prescribed burning on smoke sensitive areas.

b. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives

Alternative 1 – No-Action

Under the No-Action Alternative, no management activities within the Planning Area would occur and 

there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effect to air quality or the Class I Federal areas.

All Action Alternatives

All Action Alternatives (including the Proposed Action) would burn landing piles and hand piles which 

may affect air quality. Though the amount of burning may vary between Action Alternatives, the intent 

of this discussion of effects is to disclose to what extent burning activities would have on the air quality in 

the Coos Bay area, or to visibility in the Class I Federal area (Kalmiopsis Wilderness). Direct, indirect 

and cumulative analysis of all Action Alternatives relates to those activities which may affect the Coos 

Bay and Kalmiopsis Wilderness Class I Federal areas; therefore, effects analysis is combined below.

The use of fire would be limited in the implementation of the Proposed Action, or any of the Action 

Alternatives. Fire would be applied for the burning of landing slash and burning of hand piled slash. The 

Proposed Action (Alternative 2) calls for the treatment of 3,314 acres on 75 units. For the purposes of 

this analysis, the assumption is made that these treatments would be spread out over a period of 5 years or 

approximately 1 sale per year with 15 units per sale. Thus, on average, the Proposed Action could 

generate as much as 7.3 tons of PM, 5.4 tons of PM10, and 4.6 tons of PM2.5 per year, which is well below 

the thresholds defined in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Alternative 3 would produce 

approximately 86 % of the TSP produced by Alternative 2, and Alternative 4 would produce 

approximately 70 % of the TSP produced by Alternative 2 (Piled Fuels Biomass and Emissions 

Calculator, PNW Research Station, 04/2011).

SNF-LRMP Standards and Guidelines 8-1 would be followed. This standard states, “Management 

activities shall be planned to maintain air quality at a level adequate for the protection and use of National 

Forest resources and meet or exceed applicable Federal and State standards and regulations.” (36 CFR 

219.27(a)(12).

For the protection of Class I Airshed visibility values, as well as preventing any air quality degradation in 

the Coos Bay area, avoidance is the key to preventing any impacts due to human-generated pollutants, 

such as smoke created by slash disposal. Any burning planned to occur would require development of a 

Burn Plan, to include avoidance measures. Among various factors taken into account; detailing 

prevailing wind direction, timing, and coordination with regulatory agencies would ensure that any 

burning would occur during conditions where any smoke would not degrade air quality within the Coos 

Bay and/or visibility within the Kalmiopsis Wilderness (Class I Airshed). 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-93

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Further, burning would not take place during the visibility protection period of Class I Airsheds, which is 

July 1 to September 15. Using the direction and tools described above, slash disposal managers would 

consult with Smoke Management agencies to determine what proper atmospheric conditions are best to 

assure that impacts to either are avoided. 

It the case of the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Action Alternatives, burning under conditions where transport 

winds and mixing heights are favorable, as well as following the daily Smoke Management forecast, 

would assure no adverse impacts to the nearest SSRA (Coos Bay), or the nearest Class I Airshed. As the 

majority of burning that would be done is pile burning, and can be accomplished in a broad window of 

opportunity, there is little risk of not being able to meet the slash disposal needs as a result of this 

constraint.

Burning would not take place within 38 miles of the Coos Bay area or within 30 miles of the Kalmiopsis 

Wilderness (Class I Area). Further, burning would not take place during the visibility protection period of 

July 1 to September 15. Therefore there are no expected direct adverse effects to air quality in either the 

Coos Bay area or the Class I Area.

The potential for the smoke produced by any of the proposed actions, to indirectly enter either of these 

areas would be mitigated by the avoidance methods such as implementation of the visibility protection 

period and not burning during weather conditions when smoke could travel to those areas.

c. Cumulative Effects

All past, present, and foreseeable future projects; have been, are, or would be conducted under the same 

air quality restrictions. Any other past, present or future treatment activities such as Four Does, Lookout 

Partner, Backwoods Thin (past), and Silver Doe (present), would be expected to meet LRMP Standards 

and guidelines. 

Burning under prescribed conditions is a component of each of the Action Alternatives. Since all burning 

would be prescribed and controlled, there would be ample opportunity to time burning when the 

atmospheric conditions are optimal for smoke dispersal. Likewise, there would be an opportunity to limit 

the size of burning events to control emissions. None of the Action Alternatives would result in a 

violation of NAAQS, or an appreciable reduction in air quality related values. 

Wildfires are a naturally occurring event and can be responsible for substantial amounts of pollutants, 

particularly CO and particulate matter. Due to aggressive fire suppression efforts over the past 50 years, 

an accumulation of unnaturally high fuel loadings exist within the unmanaged areas, creating an above 

average fire risk and hazard. Management activities proposed by this project have an objective to 

minimize the risk of a large wildfire occurrence. The emissions that would result from the proposed 

activities would be much less than those that might occur with a large-scale wildfire and can be timed to 

take advantage of favorable atmospheric conditions.

While the anticipated effects disclosed under the direct and indirect effects discussion to air quality may 

result in a minor, short-term increase in air emissions, they are minor in comparison to the ongoing effects 

of human occupation within the region, and insignificant, either alone or when considered in the context 

of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

4. BOTANICAL RESOURCES

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on rare, 

special status, Forest Service Sensitive or Federally listed botanical species. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-94

Final Environmental Impact Statement

FEIS Appendix F includes a complete Botanical Resources Report (incorporated by reference). Forest 

Service Manual (FSM) Chapter 2670 outlines the policy and direction for the management of TES 

vascular plants, bryophytes, lichens and fungi and their habitat on Forest Service lands. FSM Chapter 

2670 requires a Biological Evaluation (BE) report in order to determine and document effects from 

proposed actions on TES species. The Botanical Resources Report (FEIS Appendix F) satisfies the BE 

requirement as stated in the Forest Service Manual. 

a. Background and Analysis Framework

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) Plants and Fungi

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 also contains language relating to diversity and 

species viability that guides decision and management of native plant species on Forest Service lands. 

The language in the currently used planning rule (1982) states “management prescriptions, where 

appropriate and to the extent practicable, shall preserve and enhance the diversity of plant and animal 

communities, including endemic and desirable naturalized plant and animal species, so that it is at least as 

great as that which would be expected in a natural forest and the diversity of tree species similar to that 

existing in the Planning Area.” This language led to the following additions to the Siskiyou National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan in1989:

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for Special Status Plants (see LRMP IV 26-27, 37)

Standards and Guidelines applicable at the project level are:

1) Monitor the effects of management activities on TES plant species. If the results of monitoring show a 

decline in species viability then, alter the management strategy.

2) Analyze the potential effects of all ground disturbing projects on TES plant species and habitat. Mitigate 

project effects to avoid a decline in species viability at the Forest level.

3) Map, record, and protect essential habitat for TES plant species. Species management guides should be 

prepared to address the effects of land management activities on local populations of TES at a broader scale, 

and to identify opportunities to enhance and develop habitat locally.

Strategic Plants and Fungi

Strategic, is a new category of species established in May of 2007 by the Interagency Special Status and 

Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP). Strategic Species are not considered “Sensitive” species under 

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670. These are species listed by the Oregon Biological Inventory Center 

(ORBIC) as category 3 because of information gaps (i.e., distribution, habitat, threats) resulting in status 

or taxonomic uncertainties. 

These species may be rare or uncommon but the current level of scientific knowledge is not adequate 

enough to make an accurate determination for listing as TES. ISSSSP staff in the Regional Office (RO) 

work in coordination with field offices to compile information to remove these uncertainties. The 

management requirement for this group of species is to record survey and location information in the 

agency’s corporate database: Natural Resource Information System (NRIS). Strategic species are not 

specifically targeted during surveys and in the event new sites are located active management is not 

required. However, the rarity of a given species will be taken into account when deciding whether or not 

a site should be protected. 

Survey and Manage Plant and Fungi Species

The 1993 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) and 1994 Record of Decision for Amendments 

to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the 

Northern Spotted Owl (also known as the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP)) created the Survey and 

Manage standard and guideline for all land allocations on the west side of the Cascades in Oregon, 

Washington and northern California and east Cascade forests within the range of the northern spotted owl.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-95

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Standard and Guidelines were created to gain information that could help manage a set of lesser 

known and possibly rare taxa. Species of fungi, lichens, bryophytes and vascular plants were included to 

determine the status of their population viability. 

The original Survey and Manage provision of the NWFP was amended in 2001 and 2004. A recent U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s opinion reversed a U.S. District Court Western District of 

Washington’s order, in Conservation Northwest, et al v. Harris Sherman, et al and D.R. Johnson 

Company, Case 11-35729 (April 25, 2013). Projects that are within the range of the northern spotted owl 

are now subject to the survey and management standards and guidelines in the 2001 ROD.

The Eden Ridge Timber Sale Project applies a 2006 Exemption from a stipulation entered by the court in 

litigation regarding Survey and Manage species and the 2004 Record of Decision related to Survey and 

Manage Mitigation Measure in Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, No. 04-844-MJP (W.D. Wash., Oct. 

10, 2006). Also known as the Pechman Exemptions, the Court’s Order from October 11, 2006 directs: 

“Defendants shall not authorize, allow, or permit to continue any logging or other ground-disturbing 

activities on projects to which the 2004 ROD applied unless such activities are in compliance with the 

2001 ROD (as the 2001 ROD was amended or modified as of March 21, 2004), except that this order will 

not apply to: 

a. Thinning projects in stands younger than 80 years old;

b. Replacing culverts on roads that are in use and part of the road system, and removing culverts if 

the road is temporary or to be decommissioned; 

c. Riparian and stream improvement projects where the riparian work is riparian planting, obtaining 

material for placing in-stream, and road or trail decommissioning; and where the stream 

improvement work is the placement large wood, channel and floodplain reconstruction, or removal of 

channel diversions; and 

d. The portions of project involving hazardous fuel treatments where prescribed fire is applied. Any 

portion of a hazardous fuel treatment project involving commercial logging will remain subject to the 

survey and management requirements except for thinning of stands younger than 80 years old under 

subparagraph a. of this paragraph.” 

The Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project meets Exemption a. because it entails no regeneration harvest and 

entails thinning in stands less than 80 years old (see Eden Ridge Silviculture Report, FEIS Appendix B1) 

Therefore, no specific Survey and Manage surveys were conducted for any plant or fungi species listed in 

the standards and guidelines.

b. Pre-Field Analysis

Based on the applicable laws, policies and procedures outlined above, a review of potential TES plant and 

fungi species was conducted in order to determine the extent of botanical analysis needed for the project. 

The NRIS database was consulted in order to determine the potential likelihood of encountering TES 

plant and fungi species within this project. The results of the data query showed that Oregon bensonia is 

the only Sensitive plant species previously known to occur within the planning/analysis area. 

 

1

 The stands that have been examined including the sampling of tree ages indicate that the stands are currently around 60 to 75 

years old (Crum, pers. com.)
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-96

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Sensitive Vascular Plant, Lichen, Moss and Liverworts

An analysis of the 99 vascular plants, 17 mosses, 7 liverworts and 11 lichen species listed TES and either 

suspected or documented on the RRSNF was completed to determine potential habitat that should be 

surveyed (the complete list and analysis can be seen in Attachment A to FEIS Appendix F, Botanical 

Resources Report). The analysis considered the location where the project would occur as well as the 

type, intensity and duration of disturbance the project would entail in relation to the quality of habitat 

present. Using GIS, digital aerial imagery and known variables such as elevation, aspect and surrounding 

vegetation type, it was determined that the project is within the geographic distribution and elevation 

ranges and contains potential suitable habitat for the following Forest Service Sensitive listed vascular 

plant, moss, liverwort and lichen species.

Table III-30. Potential Sensitive Vascular Plant, Lichen, Moss and Liverwort Species with Habitat

in Eden Ridge Planning Area

Vascular Species Habitat/Distribution

Arctostaphylos hispidula

Gasquet or Howell’s 

manzanita

Forest edges, brush fields, barren ridgelines. Often on serpentine but not always. Usually 

found with other manzanita species especially A. columbiana. Fire dependent species. 

Occurs sporadically from Coos Co., OR south into Humboldt Co., CA. Nearest site to this 

project is about 15 miles to the southwest on the RRSNF. 

Bensoniella oregana

Oregon bensonia

Seeps, springs, moist meadows and wet roadside ditches along upper slopes and ridges. 

Range is restricted to the Coast and Siskiyou Mountains In extreme SW Oregon and NW 

California. Elevations 2,800 to 5,200 feet. Known sites within the Planning Area.

Carex crawfordii

Crawford’s sedge

Seeps, springs, moist meadows and wet roadside ditches along upper slopes and ridges. 

Range is restricted to the Coast and Siskiyou Mountains In extreme SW Oregon and NW 

California. Elevations 2,800 to 5,200 feet. Nearest site to the project is about 27 miles west.

Carex gynodynama

hairy sedge

Moist meadows, open forests, seeps. Found in the Coast Range and Klamath-Siskiyou Mts. 

from Coos County, Oregon to Monterey County California.

Illiamna latibractreata

California globe mallow

Moist sites, stream sides in coniferous forests. Often in open or partial shade, disturbed 

ground, often recently burned. Elevation 300-4,000 ft. Coos, Curry, Douglas, Jackson and 

Josephine Cos., OR; south to Humboldt Co., CA. The closest known site to the project is 5 

miles to the southwest on RRSNF lands. 

Romanzoffia thompsonii

Thompson’s mistmaiden

Sunny vernally wet, mossy (esp. Bryum miniatum), rocky hillsides at 750-6,000 ft. Douglas, 

Jackson, Lane, Linn, Marion Cos., in foothills and west Cascades of OR. In relation to this 

Planning Area, there is a known site on BLM land within 20 miles to the east. 

Lichen Species Habitat/Distribution

Chaenotheca subroscida

Usually in shaded moist situations, esp. close to the base of trunks. On old western red cedar 

and Engelmann spruce trunks, decorticated stumps and dry twigs of spruce under canopy. 

Occurring throughout SW Oregon. Known site approximately 20 miles east of this project.

Moss Species Habitat/Distribution

Codriophorus depressus Forming mats on rocks in perennial or intermittent streams, and in the spray zone of waterfalls, 

between 400 and 11,000 feet elevation. Habitats are subject to scour at high water.

Tayloria serrata

Forming green sods on old dung, rotten wood, or on soil enriched by dung on roadsides, trails, 

in dry to moist coniferous forest of various age classes including early seral, and in wetlands. 

Decomposed dung may be scarcely visible or completely humified. Scattered sites throughout 

SW OR. Nearest site about 40 miles NE of this project.

Liverwort Species Habitat/Distribution

Diplophyllum plicatum

Tends to occur in either Western hemlock/Douglas-fir stands with western cedar present or 

Sitka Spruce older forests stands. It occurs in areas that sustain year-round cool habitats with 

high humidity which are fairly common along the immediate coast and in the Coast Range. 

Many populations known just to the north of the project, the closest are about 5 miles away.

Porella bolanderi

Forming shaded to partly exposed mats on a variety of rock types (siliceous, calcareous, and 

metamorphic) and trunks of Quercus, Umbellularia, and Acer macrophyllum (Piippo and Norris 

1996). In the Pacific Northwest, known elevations range from 500-3,000 feet.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-97

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Sensitive Fungi

Rare ephemeral fungi, such as mushrooms, coral’s and club’s , are treated separately from the above 

listed species because of the difficulty in surveying and detecting them prior to projects being 

implemented. Surveys for species presence are often difficult, because fungi can be seen only when 

fruiting bodies are produced. Even with above-ground fruiting bodies present, their correlation with the 

extent and abundance of the fungal organisms underground is unknown (Straatsma and Krisai-Greilhuber,

2003). 

Because of the logistics and costs involved with completing surveys, which takes two years with several 

visits to each unit, the Forest Service Region 6 policy has been to manage these species at a broader 

landscape scale by conducting regional “strategic” surveys. These are surveys for the sake of finding new 

sites, not for clearance of a project. Therefore the effects analysis for fungi is based on existing 

knowledge of the distribution of each species and focuses on the likelihood of extirpation of a population.

The following table lists the Sensitive fungi species either documented or suspected on the RRSNF with 

the potential to be found in the Eden Ridge Planning Area:

Table III-31. Potential Sensitive Fungi that may Occur in Planning Area

Arcangeliella camphorata (16) Phaeocollybia psuedofestiva (38)

Boletus pulcherrimus (22) Phaeocollybia scatesiae (18)

Cudonia monticola (31) Phaeocollybia spadicea (68)

Dermocybe humboldtensis (4) Ramaria largentii (21)

Leucogaster citrinus (45) Ramaria spinulosa var. diminutive (1)

Otidea smithii (12) Rhizopogon chamaleontinus (1)

Phaeocollybia attenuata (152) Rhizopogon ellipsosporus (7)

Phaeocollybia californica (35) Rhizopogon exiguous (5)

Phaeocollybia olivacea (99) Sowerbyella rhenana (53)

*The number in parentheses represents the amount of known sites in the PNW as of 2007.

In order to determine the likelihood of finding Sensitive fungi species in the Planning Area several 

documents written by the Region 6 ISSSSP were referred to. These documents include: Fungi Effects 

Analysis Guidelines, 10/2008; Attachment 1- Likelihood of Occurrence Key, 9/2004; Attachment 2-

Conservation Assessment for Fungi in Region 5 & 6, 7/2007; Attachment 4 – Potential Impacts to Fungi 

Table; and Habitat Summary for Sensitive Fungi Species, 2007. (ISSSSP website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/flora-fungi.shtml) 

Most of the species in the table above are associated to some degree with forest floor litter, down woody 

material, host tree/shrub species, or a combination thereof. While this association is known, details about 

the requirements for forest floor litter or down woody material for most fungal species are not well 

understood, and host specificity is not often known beyond the broad categories of conifers hardwoods or 

plant families within these categories. Down woody material and forest floor litter are direct food sources 

for fungi that play a role in decomposing organic material. Host trees (or shrubs in some cases) provide 

necessary carbohydrates to some fungi through transference of carbohydrates from the roots of the host to 

the fungus via an underground network termed mycelia. 

Down woody material may function to retain moisture, allowing root tips to support active 

ectomycorrhizae (Harvey et al., 1976; Harvey et al., 1978; Amaranthus et al., 1989; Harmon and Sexton,

1995). These fallen tree "reservoirs", large limbs, and stumps can provide refugia for seedlings and 

mycorrhizal fungi, especially in drier forest communities. As stands mature, the availability of downed 

wood may be crucial for establishment of fungi as well as plant seedlings (Kropp 1982).
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-98

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Down woody material is a direct food source for wood-decaying fungi. Studies in Scandinavia and North 

America indicate that the presence of large down wood promotes higher diversity of wood-decay fungi 

species (Kruys, 1999; Crites and Dale, 1998; Ohlson et al., 1997; Høiland and Bendiksen, 1996; Bader et 

al., 1995; Wästerlund and Ingelög, 1981). Høiland and Bendiksen (1996) found that rare wood-inhabiting 

fungal species occurred primarily on long (average length = 11 meters) and well decayed (average decay 

Class III) down wood. When surface area is taken into consideration, fine woody debris appears to be 

equally important to species diversity (Kruys and Jonsson, 1999). 

The presence of large, well decayed down wood in managed stands can provide habitat for both 

ectomycorrhizal and wood-decay fungi, as well as plant seedlings. For some fungi, spore dissemination 

into disturbed areas is the primary method of re-establishment. Remnant stands of late seral forest 

neighboring managed areas may serve as refugia (Clarkson and Mills, 1994). In addition, resistant fungal 

propagules may remain in soils or down wood after disturbance (Baar et al., 1999). Regardless of the 

method of re-establishment, it may take a great deal of time before fungal species can be detected. 

The size and scale of down woody material influence the range in size of fungal individuals. Fungal 

colonies can range in size from microscopic to many acres and can persist for years or decades (Smith et 

al., 1992; De la Bastide et al., 1994; Bonello 1998). Typically fungi are patchily distributed, in part due 

to patchy distribution of substrate (living host plants, down wood). Scattered islands of down wood 

throughout a management unit, including many sizes ranging from twigs to large logs, as well as a variety 

of decay classes, may provide better fungal habitat than one size or decay class of down wood 

homogeneously covering the forest floor. 

Data on quantities or coverage of down wood necessary to support a diversity of fungi in Pacific 

Northwest forests do not currently exist. In the dry forests of western Montana, Harvey et al. (1981) 

estimated that 25-37 tons of down wood per hectare are needed to support ectomycorrhizal activity 

necessary for forest communities developing after stand removal.

c. Field Inventory Results

Surveys for the above listed vascular plant, lichen, moss and liverwort species were conducted between 

June and August of 2010 with revisits to some areas occurring in June of 2011. Surveys were conducted 

by contract (Siskiyou Biosurvey, LLC) and by Agency botanists. High potential habitat areas were 

delineated prior to commencing surveys. The intuitive controlled survey method was utilized, so that 

each delineated habitat area was searched with a high degree of likelihood that TES species would be 

found if present. In accordance with Region 6 Forest Service direction, fungi surveys were not 

conducted.

Oregon bensonia was the only Sensitive species found during surveys. It was relocated at a handful of 

historically known sites, as well as being located in several new areas, including within some of the 

proposed units and roads in this project. There were several sites found along the edge of existing road 

beds where wet conditions have persisted due to the change in hydrology caused by the roads original 

construction. Units/roads with sites include 007, 314, 318, 319 and 326 and road 5000-448 (see map in 

FEIS Appendix F, Attachment B for details). 

Based on results of downed wood material surveys during stand exams in some units in 2009 (Silviculture 

Report, FEIS Appendix B) and from field observations during surveys for TES plant species, the Planning

Area appears to be stocked with coarse down wood probably due to debris remaining from historical 

railroad logging. There is sufficient substrate and habitat currently available for colonization by Sensitive 

saprophytic fungi, although there are less large diameter structures than desired. Though the structure and 

composition of the forest does not qualify it as old-growth, there is likely to be sufficient opportunity for 

colonization of the existing tree species by Sensitive ectomycorrhizal fungi. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-99

Final Environmental Impact Statement

d. Effects Mechanisms

Oregon bensonia

Direct effects to Sensitive plants may include impacts such as trampling by foot or equipment, piling of 

vegetation or logs on known sites or any other soil disturbing activity that could potentially uproot 

individuals or a population. Examples of indirect effects are things like edge effect (Chen et al., 1992) 

which can cause changes in microclimatic conditions that may be necessary for a species to persist. 

If Project Design Criteria (PDC) were not implemented there is a high likelihood that the populations of 

Oregon bensonia found within treatment areas of this project would be directly impacted by workers or 

their equipment. There is also potential for indirect impacts from thinning due to the potential for lower 

relative humidity and moisture retention levels in the soil from decreased canopy and shade cover causing 

the sites to dry out. 

Sensitive Fungi

Threats and impacts to fungi may occur at several scales. At a local habitat scale, impacts or threats could 

include anything that affects (removes, alters) the substrate on which fungi grow. Impacts may also occur 

on a larger scale as a result of the cumulative effects of many smaller local impacts. Local threats 

combined on larger scales could alter the distribution of populations across regional landscapes, resulting 

in the impairment of landscape-wide species persistence. For example, the loss of several populations 

within one area could truncate population continuity, inhibiting the ability of a species to disperse across 

distances. Such disjunct distributions can often result in expanding areas of extirpation. As cumulative 

effects may be difficult to address, perhaps the most useful strategy is to focus on what can be managed 

locally, assuming that cumulative effects would thus be minimized as well. 

Larger-scale, indirect effects (such as climate change or air pollution) are difficult to assess, given limited 

knowledge of even microhabitat requirements of most fungi. The effect of larger-scale issues on fungi 

populations remains unknown, and cannot be adequately addressed with the management options 

discussed in this document. 

Management activities may pose direct or indirect threats to fungal individuals or mycelial mats, 

depending on the timing or intensity of the activity. Types of activities that can result in threats to fungal 

individuals or alter habitat conditions beyond a given threshold of tolerance include activities that:

o intensively or extensively remove or consume the woody substrate, forest floor litter, or shrub 

hosts with which the species is associated; 

o remove or destroy the fungal organism; or

o remove host tree species or significantly modify the microclimate at the species’ site.

The following table from the Regional Interagency Special Status Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP) 

“Fungi Effects Analysis Guidelines” highlights potential impacts to Sensitive fungi:

Table III-32. Potential Habitat Impacts to Sensitive Fungi Species

Thinning Increase in solar radiation up to 60%. Modification of forest floor conditions. Retention of large wood is 

an important factor in protecting Ectomycorrhizal (EM) and Saprobe/wood decaying species viability

Direct Impacts Indirect Impacts

Removal of host trees 

necessary to sustain 

EM

Disturbance of 

mycelial network

Moisture retention capability

 overstory shade

 forest floor litter and duff 

 large wood

Nutrient source

Large woody material or host trees for regeneration of inoculum source

Soil compaction (less for helicopter)

 root growth and root tip availability for fungi
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-100

Final Environmental Impact Statement

e. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives

There are no populations, nor is there any habitat for any federally listed Threatened or Endangered plant 

or fungi species within the Project Areas. The project would have no effect on any Threatened or 

Endangered plant or fungi species or their habitat. 

Oregon bensonia

Oregon bensonia (Bensonia oregana), a Sensitive vascular plant species, was found within the Planning 

Area and within Project Areas. 

Alternative 1 (No-Action)

The current condition would remain the same under this alternative. Natural processes would continue to 

progress in a random succession with an unknown future outcome. Known and unknown TES plant and 

fungi species that currently exist within the Planning Area would respond and continue to evolve within 

the natural system. There would be no direct or indirect effects from implementing this alternative.

Action Alternatives

The differences in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 have no bearing on effects to Oregon bensonia because under 

all Action Alternatives, the known sites found in Units 007, 314, 318, 319 and 326 would undergo 

vegetation treatments. Effects are relatively similar, (Alternatives 3 and 4 do not include Unit 314) and

include subtle changes in alternative proposal acreages in relation to the larger landscape. For this reason, 

effects for each Action Alternative have been lumped in the discussion below.

Avoidance of the bensonia populations located within this project is proposed so that direct and indirect 

effects are minimized to insignificant. The methods for avoidance are discussed in FEIS Chapter II, 

Section D, 5. Acknowledging there may be habitat and populations that were not found during the 

surveys of the project it is determined that the Eden Ridge Timber Sale Project may impact 

individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing, or cause a 

loss of viability to the population or species. 

The Eden Ridge Timber Sales project will have no impact on any of the other Sensitive vascular plant, 

lichen, moss or liverwort species listed as having potential habitat in the project.

Sensitive Fungi 

Alternative 1 (No-Action)

The current condition would remain the same under this alternative. Natural processes would continue to 

progress in a random succession with an unknown future outcome. Known and unknown fungi species 

that currently exist within the Planning Area would respond and continue to evolve within the natural 

system. There would be no direct or indirect effects from implementing this alternative.

Action Alternatives

The differences in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 have no bearing on effects because they would be relatively 

similar for Sensitive fungi species. This is due to only subtle changes in alternative proposal acreages in 

relation to the larger landscape. For these reasons, effects for each alternative have also been lumped.

Sensitive fungi may be present within the Project Areas but surveys were deemed impractical by Region 6 

protocol. Based on existing data, the regional Interagency Special Status and Sensitive Species Program 

(ISSSSP) provide literature review for this species.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-101

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Based on the Regional Assessment, all Action Alternatives may impact individuals or habitat of 

Sensitive fungi, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing, or cause a loss of 

viability to any population or species within its range.

f. Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are "those effects on the environment that result from the incremental effect of the 

action when added to past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency 

(federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. 

Oregon bensonia

The scale considered for cumulative effects to Oregon bensonia is the extent of the species distribution 

(Coast and Siskiyou Mts. of Coos, Douglas, Josephine and Curry County, Oregon disjunct to the south in 

Humboldt County, California). There are roughly 60 populations of this species known in Oregon. 

Management of this species dates back to the early 1980s when Forest Service botanists began conducting 

surveys prior to proposed projects and recommending PDCs to protect populations of Oregon bensonia 

(Rare Plant Siting Forms, Gold Beach and Powers RD, 1978-present). 

It is likely that adverse effects occurred to some populations of Oregon bensonia from past logging prior 

to the early 1980s. The Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project would not incrementally increase any 

significant effects to Oregon bensonia because it would have no direct or indirect effects to the species 

with the proposed PDCs (avoidance and increased residual canopy cover; see FEIS Chapter II, Section D, 

5) being implemented. 

Sensitive fungi

The scale considered for cumulative effects to Sensitive fungi is the Pacific Northwest Region 6 area in 

Oregon and Washington because this is the level used by ISSSSP biologists to develop the analysis tools 

that have allowed for the assessment of Sensitive fungi without doing field surveys to verify species 

presence or absence within projects. There is a high probability that adverse effects have occurred to 

several of the listed Sensitive fungi species in the past 100 or so years within the region. 

Acknowledging that impacts may occur to Sensitive fungi sites, that are as yet unknown because of a lack 

of surveys and/or an inadequate protocol, is inevitable. Therefore it is can also be said that with these 

potential direct and indirect effects there would also be cumulative effects because of the certainty that 

there has been from past impacts. 

There is also likely to be future impacts because of the lack of information on the distribution of these 

Sensitive species. Overall, these effects are not likely to be significant enough to cause a loss of viability 

to a population or species.

5. INVASIVE PLANTS

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on the 

spread of invasive plant species. 

FEIS Appendix F includes a complete Botanical Resources Report (incorporated by reference). This 

report also includes current condition and effects discussion, and lists of priority invasive plant species.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-102

Final Environmental Impact Statement

a. Background and Analysis Framework

The definition of an invasive plant is those plant species designated as Invasive Plants by the Secretary of 

Agriculture or by the responsible State official. Invasive plants generally possess one or more of the 

following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage, poisonous, toxic, parasitic, a carrier or host 

of a serious insect or disease, or being non-native or newly introduced and not common to the state. 

Generally, species that can survive and reproduce in a natural setting away from landscape areas are 

considered invasive.

Management Direction

Management direction on this subject is given in the Siskiyou NF LRMP under forest-wide standards and 

guidelines item 12-6: "Control of Invasive Plants should be accomplished in cooperation with state, 

county, and private organizations through Weed Control Districts or Coordinated Resource Management 

Agreements. Preventive management is critical to an effective control program."

In addition, this document incorporates by reference all the standards and guidelines described in the 

Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Record of 

Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement Volumes I-III, 2005. That document amends the 

Siskiyou NF LRMP to include an updated set of information on preventing and managing invasive plant 

species in Region 6. 

Current Management Direction for Invasive Plants as stated in the Forest Service Manual 2080, 

Amendment No. 2000-95-5, effective November 29, 1995 states the following:

District Rangers are responsible for:

1. Determining the risk of Invasive Plant introduction or spread as part of the NEPA process for 

proposed actions, especially for ground disturbing and site altering activities.

2. Enforcing closures or prohibition orders issued under 36 CFR parts 261.50 (a) and 261.58 (t) 

and enforcing contract specifications intended to prevent and control the spread of Invasive Plants.

3. Ensuring that the contracts and permits contain appropriate clauses concerning the prevention 

or spread of Invasive Plants as described in the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program 

Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Record of Decision (September 2005).

Policy: When any ground disturbing action or activity is proposed, determine the risk of introducing or 

spreading Invasive Plants associated with a proposed action.

Current Conditions within the Planning Area

Invasive plant surveys were completed as part of the TES plant surveys discussed in subsection 4 (above). 

The Planning Area was found to be relatively void of invasive plants, especially species that are 

prioritized for active treatments (see FEIS Appendix F, Attachment B, Priority Invasive Plants

Documented or Suspected on the RRSNF for a list of priority species).

Tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) was found to be common along at least some portion of each existing 

road within the Planning Area. The district uses only biological controls when treating tansy, no manual 

or spraying treatments are used. Bull Thistle (Cirsium vulgare) was also found to be fairly common 

along roads and within old landings. The district is not actively treating bull thistle, as it is biennial, it 

comes and goes quickly from locations and does not cause irreparable harm. Canadian thistle (Cirsium 

arvense) was found to be less common than the other two previously listed species but is more of a 

concern for persistence and harm to the environment. One historical site of Scotch broom (Cytisus 

scoparius) is known from the Planning Area but was not relocated during surveys. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-103

Final Environmental Impact Statement

b. Effects Mechanisms 

Most invasive species on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF are found along roads. There are many native 

species but non-native plants have increased over time mainly in places of past disturbance. In the past, 

heavy equipment has been a primary mover of noxious weeds by movement of plants and seed in the soil 

on the equipment. 

Thinning of pre-commercial or commercial material and other connected actions (e.g., roads) may spread 

existing infestations and introduce invasive species by moving seed or opening up areas for invasive 

species to establish if PDCs and Mitigation Measures are not followed. 

c. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives

Alternative 1 (No-Action)

There are no known high priority invasive plant species within the Planning Area. There would be no 

chance to infest new areas because no actions would occur if this alternative were chosen. This 

alternative would result in no direct or indirect effects with regard to invasive plant spread. 

Action Alternatives

For effects discussion on invasive plant species, the alternatives are similar enough to lump together. 

Alternative 2 would treat 3,314 ac. and have the largest amount of new roads. Alternative 4 would have 

slightly less treatment acres (3,240), would have less new roads, and would include helicopter landings. 

Alternative 4 would treat the least amount of acres (3,058) and would have no new roads, but would have 

the largest amount of helicopter landings.

Direct effects with regard to spreading invasive plants are actions such as parking road working

equipment on an invasive plant site that has gone to seed, then moving the equipment to another area in 

the Planning Area and potentially spreading the seed to a new site. Several scenarios similar to this 

example have been considered; PDCs and Mitigation Measures were developed (see FEIS Chapter II, 

Section D, 5, and 10, e) to avoid the introduction and/or spread of invasive species in the project. Direct 

effects would be minimized to insignificant by following the PDCs.

The removal of canopy in an area adjacent to an existing invasive plant site is an example of an indirect 

effect that could lead to further spread of that species by opening up bare ground and increasing available 

sun light. The actions proposed for this project have some potential to increase light and expose bare soil 

after thinning occurs, which has been shown to increase invasive plant colonization (Nelson et al., 2008).

d. Cumulative Effects

All past, present, and foreseeable future projects within the Planning Area; have been, are, or would be 

conducted under the same PDCs and Mitigation Measures as would be required by this project. Any 

other past, present or future treatment activities such as Four Does, Lookout Partner, Backwoods Thin 

(past), and Silver Doe (present), would be expected to successfully mitigate the spread of invasive plant 

species. Mitigation Measures account for the potential spread from adjacent private lands.

Based on the limited potential for direct or indirect effects it is anticipated that there would be low to 

moderate risk of increasing cumulative effects on the spread of invasive plant species within the Project

Areas.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-104

Final Environmental Impact Statement

6. PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR ROOT DISEASE

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on the 

spread of Phytophthora lateralis, a non-native pathogen that causes disease, affecting Port-Orfordcedar. 

Phytophthora (meaning “plant destroyer”) is a genus of more than 70 described species of the Oomycetes 

(Brasier et al., 2006). Often referred to as “fungi”, Phytophthora species are “water molds” that are more 

closely related to marine algae than fungi (Erwin and Ribeiro, 1996). Favored by moist conditions, 

Phytophthora species include some of the world’s most notorious plant pathogens. Their spread may be 

influenced by human activities that move infested soil, water, or organic material. FEIS Appendix B2

includes a complete Port-Orford-cedar Report and Risk Key Assessment (incorporated by reference).

a. Background and Analysis Framework

Port-Orford-cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana) is native to an area along the Pacific Coast from Coos 

Bay, Oregon, to the mouth of the Mad River near Arcata, California. Its range extends from the coast to 

about 50 miles inland. There is also a small disjunct population in the Scott Mountains of California. On 

most of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Port-Orford-cedar (POC) is concentrated in Riparian 

Reserves except on the Powers Ranger District where POC is often well distributed across the landscape. 

The Powers Ranger District has the greatest concentration of POC occurring in the world, from the South 

Fork of the Coquille River to Iron Mountain. This district is also unique in having stands with POC stand 

components of up to 70 to 80 percent. Included within the district are the Port-Orford-cedar Research 

Natural Area, Big Tree Viewing Area, which includes the largest POC in the world at nearly 12 feet in 

diameter, and the Coquille River Falls Research Natural Area. 

The 2008 inventory showed 47,902 acres of POC present on the district, of which 2,349 acres (4.9%) are 

infested with Phytophthora lateralis (PL). The research natural areas are infested with POC root disease.

Phytophthora lateralis

PL is a virulent, non-native pathogen that was introduced into the native range of POC in the early 1950s 

and its place of origin is unknown. PL readily kills POC of all ages that are growing on sites favorable 

for infection. Once an area becomes infested, it is difficult to eradicate PL.

PL can cause mortality within weeks of infection in the case of small trees, and in one to four years when 

large trees are infected (Roth et al., 1987). Trees usually lose all foliage two to three years after death. In 

areas where the disease has been active for several years, dead and dying trees with all degrees of foliage 

symptoms are visible (Hadfield et al., 1986).

PL is spread in the following ways (Hansen et al. 2000; Zobel et al. 1985):

-Human vectors over long distances via resting spore transported in infested plant material or soil.

-Locally via waterborne spores moving in ditches, streams, or overland flow.

-Via mycelia growing across root contacts and grafts between infected and uninfected POC.

PL is favored in areas of slow-moving or standing water and on poorly drained microsites, especially 

when such sites occur below roads. Susceptible areas are segregated by risk categories based on USDA 

Forest Service, 2004: Record of Decision and Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment for 

Management of Port-Orford-cedar in Southwest Oregon, Siskiyou National Forest. See FEIS Chapter II 

for more detail on risk categories and examples of PL infested sites within the Eden Ridge Planning Area.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-105

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Port-Orford-Cedar Inventory and PL Infection

An updated POC inventory based on field verification was finalized in 2008 on the Powers Ranger 

District of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. POC presence and PL root disease is mapped in 

the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Planning Area (see FEIS Map II-3, Chapter II). Most of ER Planning Area 

is mapped as canopy cover 1 in the updated inventory. This attribute is defined as 2-5% canopy cover of 

POC foliage present in mapped polygons. Canopy cover is estimated during air photo interpretation and 

field verification in some cases (Polygon Attribute Table-Data Dictionary). 

Canopy cover 1 can be considered to represent a level of POC that will not measurably contribute to land 

management objectives2. Where POC is a small percentage of the stand or does not provide unique stand 

attributes, its loss is probably not meaningful when measured against management objectives (USDA 

2004, p. 34). In these circumstances, the decision to manage for POC is determined by an 

interdisciplinary team. The decision to manage and treat POC with canopy cover 1 in all Action 

Alternatives was made during an Eden Ridge Timber Sales IDT meeting in April 2011. 

Dead and dying POC seedlings and saplings, likely infected with PL are present in road ditches and 

drainages in the surrounding private land ownership. PL has been diagnosed in dying POC regeneration 

alongside the 5000 Road west of the eight mile gate before entering into FS lands (June 14, 2011, field 

trip with Frank Betlejewski, Interregional POC Manager). 

Measurably contributing POC and PL infection is present west of the private inholding around Doe 

Swamp (see Figure B2-5; FEIS Appendix B2, POC Report). This area is mapped as canopy cover 2, 

defined as 6-20% POC present in mapped polygons, which triggers the POC Risk Key.

Whether or not areas with POC are considered measurably contributing in the ER Planning Area, 

landscape-scale POC distribution should be considered as surrounding private timber company land 

downstream from the Doe Swamp area is being managed for Douglas-fir regeneration on a 40-50 year 

rotation. The ecological value of maintaining healthy POC during treatment activities on Forest Service 

lands should be considered important for vegetation diversity and meeting ACS Objectives in Riparian 

Reserves.

b. Effects Mechanisms

Phytophthora lateralis is spread via water or soil. A typical spread scenario involves infested soil being 

transported into an un-infested area on a vehicle or piece of equipment or, potentially, in infested water 

being transported in the tanks of fire engines or helicopter buckets during suppression activities. The 

infested soil falls off of the vehicle or spores are delivered via water and the pathogen first infects POC 

near the site of introduction. 

New spores from that infection are then washed downhill in surface water infecting additional hosts. This 

is especially lethal along drainages and creeks where infested water is channeled and flows near 

concentrations of healthy POC.

Port-Orford-Cedar Risk Key

The POC Risk Key is used to clarify the environmental conditions that require implementation of one or 

more of the disease controlling management practices listed in the 2004 Record of Decision (ROD) and 

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment for Management of Port-Orford-cedar in Southwest 

Oregon Siskiyou National Forest. 

 

2 Pers. conv. Frank Betlejewski, Interregional Port-Orford-cedar Program Manager (retired), Southwest Forest Insect and 

Disease Service Center.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-106

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Program objectives are to maintain POC as an ecologically and economically significant species on 

National Forest (NF) lands. POC management will provide cost-effective mitigation for management 

activities that create appreciable additional risk to important uninfected POC though not to reduce all risk 

to all trees at all cost (USDA-FS 2004). 

Proposed treatment activities and road building through PL pockets in ER Units 326 and 327 could have 

potentially adverse effects to POC in this area. A project-specific POC Risk Key assessment is required 

in areas with measurably contributing POC to help determine where risk reduction management practices 

would be applied and to comply with the LRMP amendment (USDA 2004). 

Figure III-3. PL Pocket in Unit 326 Adjacent to Railroad Grade Proposed for Road Reconstruction

Measurably contributing POC is also present in Units 333 and 334 and the south end of Unit 336. Unit 

333 and 334 would have ground-based logging systems and Unit 336 would use a skyline yarding system. 

All units are proposed for commercial thinning.

A portion of FS Roads 5000 and 5000 440 are within or adjacent to Units 333, 334 and 336. 

Additionally, these roads would be used as the main haul route for timber sales in this portion of the 

Planning Area. Ground disturbance would occur in these harvest units. Ground based logging systems 

would have a higher level of disturbance than skyline. All units have infested PL pockets from which 

inoculum could spread to adjacent uninfected POC within unit boundaries. 

c. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives

Potential for the spread of Phytophthora lateralis, the pathogen that causes Port-Orford-cedar root disease 

is not simply a function of how many acres are entered. Rather, it is a function of a number of factors 

including acres entered with healthy POC, acres entered with PL, management performed on these acres, 

season of activity on these acres, and sequencing of units containing POC and PL to name a few. 

Employing a planned combination of treatments can reduce the probability of long-distance spread more 

than a single treatment. An integrated treatment program that uses a combination of sanitation treatments, 

vehicle washing treatments, road drainage improvements, timing of activities during dry seasons, using 

certified clean or bleach-treated water, scheduling treatments in uninfested before infested areas, 

regulation of special use activities such as cedar bough collecting, and public education efforts combined 

with road closures, has a suggested probability of pathogen spread between zero and two percent per 

activity (page 3 7 4-37: USDA FS USDI BLM, 2004).
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-107

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1

Under the No Action Alternative, the existing condition would continue. The consequences of this 

alternative are described in the January 2004, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

Management of Port-Orford-cedar in Southwest Oregon as Alternative One.

Action Alternatives

There are areas with uninfected POC within, near, or downstream of the activity area that, were they to 

become infected, would likely spread infections to trees whose use or function measurably contributes to 

meeting land and resource management plan objectives.

Measurably contributing POC and PL infection are present west of the private inholding around Doe 

Swamp. This area is proposed for commercial thinning treatments, road reconstruction of an existing 

railroad grade and construction of a new Classified Road ‘W’ to access Units 326 and 327. Both units 

would use ground based logging systems. 

Measurably contributing POC is present in Units 333 and 334 and the south end of Unit 336. Unit 333 

and 334 would have ground-based logging systems and Unit 336 would use a skyline yarding system. A 

portion of FS Roads 5000 and 5000 440 are within or adjacent to Units 333, 334 and 336. Additionally, 

these roads would be used as the main haul route for timber sales in this portion of the Planning Area.

Under Alternative 2, ground disturbance would occur in these harvest units and areas of concern. 

Ground based logging systems would have a higher level of disturbance than skyline. All units have 

infested PL pockets from which inoculum could spread to adjacent uninfected POC within unit 

boundaries. Given these conditions, Alternative 2 would have the greatest risk of spreading infections, 

due to inclusion of the above areas of concern and due to the amount and locations of new road 

construction.

Alternative 3 and 4would not include new Classified Road “W” and many of the units in areas of concern 

would have skyline or helicopter systems, instead of ground based. Alternative 3 would have moderate 

risk, due to fewer new classified roads and proposed yarding systems. Alternative 4 would have the least 

risk because no new classified roads are proposed and proposed the least amount of ground based yarding 

systems.

The Port-Orford Cedar Risk Key is a site-specific analysis to help determine where risk reduction 

management practices would be applied. Only those areas that trigger the POC Risk Key were analyzed, 

as part of Alternative 2. The analysis of POC risk and the Risk Key for Alternative 2 is documented and 

is part of Appendix B2 of this FEIS.

In areas proposed for timber harvest and road building, mitigation measures would be required as 

described in the POC Risk Key assessment (see FEIS Appendix B2, Port-Orford-cedar Report) and 

summarized in FEIS Chapter II. These include seasonal project scheduling, use of uninfested water, unit 

scheduling, road management measures [including not building roads (e.g., Road W through PL pockets 

in Units 326 and 327) or relocating the proposed road to avoid these infested areas, resistant POC 

planting, washing project equipment, roadside sanitation, and site-specific POC management (e.g., 

manage to favor POC uphill from creeks, on ridgetops and on well-drained sites to emphasize 

management of POC on sites where conditions make it likely that trees would escape infection). 

Recommended treatments for management of PL under all Action Alternatives include wide-thin gap 

treatments, roadside sanitation, planting and favoring POC in low risk areas in the silvicultural 

prescriptions (see FEIS Chapter II, Section D, 2, c).
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-108

Final Environmental Impact Statement

This project-specific NEPA analysis has appropriately documented the application of the Risk Key and 

the consideration of the available management practices, and will make the project and its effects 

consistent with the mid- and large-geographic and temporal-scale effects described by the 2004 SEIS 

analysis and Forest Plan Amendment, and will permit the project analysis to tier to the discussion of those 

effects (USDA FS, 2004). 

Similar and/or Related Actions are included under the Proposed Action and the Action Alternatives; they 

are designed as resource enhancement, restoration, or improvements, and are described in detail in FEIS 

Chapter II, Section D, 2, h. These actions would occur in proximity to commercial and silvicultural stand 

treatments. Included are Non-Commercial Treatments proposed for 363 acres within the ER Planning 

Area (see Table II-6 and MAP II-2), Snag/Down Wood Creation, Meadow Enhancement, Stream 

Enhancement, Native Grass/Forb Seeding, Invasive Plant Treatments, and Other Wildlife Opportunities.

The effects from these actions (as well as proposed fuels treatment along the 5000 Road) in regard to 

spread of PL are minor is scope and context, and would minimally add to the consequences of the Action 

Alternatives. These actions would occur within several non-contiguous portions of the Planning Area, 

and not all at the same time.

d. Cumulative Effects

The Rogue River–Siskiyou National Forest is within the North Coast and Siskiyou Risk Regions for POC

(cumulative effects Analysis Area). Of the 47,902 POC acres on the Powers Ranger District, 2,349 acres 

(4.9 %) are infested. Twenty percent of the sites in the North Coast Risk Region are considered to be 

high risk (25,250 acres). At this time approximately fifteen percent of the risk region is considered 

infested (18,900 acres). This level of infestation on the Powers Ranger district is below the infestation 

level for the Risk Region as a whole. In 100 years, the predicted amount of infested acres is predicted to 

increase to 17 percent of high-risk sites (approximately 20,800 acres).

For the Gold Beach and Wild Rivers Ranger Districts, there are approximately 99,551 acres of POC of 

which 10,649 acres are infested (10.7%). In this risk region, forty percent of the acres are considered to be 

at high risk (approximately 46,550 acres). Eleven percent of the Risk Region (12,800 acres) is considered 

infested. The current level of infestation is slightly below the eleven percent infested acres for the Risk 

Region as a whole. In 100 years, the predicted amount of infested acres is predicted to increase to 20 

percent of high-risk sites (approximately 23,600 acres).

These estimates cover all management activity for the Forest Service and BLM. A more complete 

discussion of cumulative risk and rate of spread can be found in the POC FSEIS (USDA Forest Service 

USDI Bureau of Land Management, 2004). 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-109

Final Environmental Impact Statement

7. THREATENED TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on 

Threatened terrestrial wildlife species and/or Critical Habitat. 

FEIS Appendix G includes a complete Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation (incorporated by 

reference). Forest Service Manual (FSM) Chapter 2670 requires a Biological Evaluation to be prepared 

for the proposed Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine and 

document the possible effects that the proposed activity and alternatives would have on any Endangered, 

Threatened, Proposed, or Sensitive wildlife species (FSM 2672.4). A second objective of this evaluation 

is to ensure these species receive full consideration in the decision-making process, to maintain species 

viability and meet defined recovery goals. 

The Biological Evaluation process (FSM 2672.43) provides a description of office analysis, and 

mitigation activities necessary to ensure proposed management actions will not likely jeopardize the 

continued viability of: species listed or proposed to be listed as Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) by the 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service and species listed as Sensitive (S) by the USDA Forest Service Region 6 

(USDA FS 2008, FSM 2670.44).

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) also directs each Federal agency to insure that any action 

authorized, funded or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 

Threatened or Endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical 

habitat. The ESA also directs each Federal agency to confer or consult with the appropriate Secretary on 

any action, which is likely to jeopardize or affect the continued existence of any species or its critical 

habitat. 

a. Background and Analysis Framework

This project is within the species range of the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), and 

marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus). These species are listed as Threatened under the ESA.

In compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)(1973 et seq.) and the Forest Service 

Biological Evaluation process for Proposed, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (PETS) wildlife 

species, the list of species potentially occurring within the RRSNF was reviewed. The January 31, 2008 

Pacific Northwest Region (R6) listing of species applicable to the RRSNF was reviewed in regard to 

potential effects on any of these species by actions associated with the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project. 

ESA Consultation

The Forest consulted with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (per Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act) for the activities proposed in the “Formal Consultation on Timber Harvest, Meadow Restoration and 

Quarry Activities Proposed by the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (Tails # 13420-2009-F0146)(USDA, USDI 2009). The Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project determination was “may affect, not 

likely to adversely affect” (NLAA) northern spotted owls and marbled murrelets.

Wildlife Analysis Area

The Eden Ridge Timber Sales Planning Area was buffered by 2 miles (see MAP III-5), which is a 

northern spotted owl home range plus one half mile. This effects Analysis Area distance is sufficient to 

cover the home range of most of the terrestrial wildlife species analyzed in this FEIS. The term Project 

Area, is used to describe where action would occur, such as units where forest thinning is proposed and 

where road construction or road improvements are proposed. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-110

Final Environmental Impact Statement

MAP III-5. Wildlife Analysis Area

b. Late-Successional Forest 

Two Threatened species (northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet have habitat (and/or may occur) 

within the fifth-field watersheds associated with the Analysis Area and use late-successional forest habitat 

for their survival needs. The most important habitat components these species need are very large trees 

with large cavities or platforms, which are needed for nesting. The majority of trees used for nesting by 

the marbled murrelet and the northern spotted owl are conifers greater than 50” dbh with unique structure, 

such as large limbs or cavities (Nelson and Hamer, 2003; Hamer and Nelson, 1995; LaHaye and 

Gutierrez, 1999; Forsman et al., 1982.

Based on GIS data (satellite imagery), there are about 3,300 acres proposed for treatment that are mature 

(21-32” dbh) forest. These stands are currently less than 80 years old based on historical records and 

stand examinations. They are dispersal-foraging habitat for northern spotted owls. The stands are not 

late-successional forest because they do not contain giant trees, large cavities, large limbs, or sufficient 

levels of snags or down wood.

“Late-successional forests are those forest seral stages that include mature [21-32” DBH or 80-200 years 

of age] and old-growth [>32” DBH or >180-200 years old] age classes.” (NWFP FSEIS Vol. 1, Glossary, 

p. 9 and ROD, p. B-1)(NWFP FSEIS Vol. 1, p. 3&4 – 13 and 3&4 - 26) “Although the processes that 

created the current late-successional and old-growth ecosystems are not completely understood, they 

include: (1) tree growth and maturation, (2) death and decay of large trees, (3) low-to-moderate intensity 

disturbances (e.g., fire, wind, insects, and diseases) that create canopy openings or gaps in the various 

strata of vegetation, (4) establishment of trees beneath the maturing overstory trees either in gaps or under 

the canopy, and (5) closing of canopy gaps by lateral canopy growth or growth of understory trees.” 

(NWFP ROD, p. B-2).

5

OREGON

CALIFORNIA

Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest

Klamath

National Forest

0 1.5 3 6

Miles

Mt. Ashland 

Special Use Permit Area
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-111

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Although there are a number of characteristics in late-successional forest, quantification of latesuccessional or old-growth forest generally uses a combination of diameters (described above) and 

canopy closure (generally greater than 50%). These characteristics are used because diameter and canopy 

closure are easily measured and because these are the types of stands where the characteristics of latesuccessional forest are likely to begin developing or may already occur. For example, a stand which is 

sixty years of age could be dominated by 21-32” dbh trees with high canopy cover, but is not likely to 

contain giant trees, large cavities, or large limbs. This stand could also contain only a few large snags or 

minimal quantities of large down wood; therefore, this stand is only beginning to develop latesuccessional forest characteristics.

Patch sizes have been fragmented by past timber harvest and wildfire, thereby reducing the size and 

number of patches. There is a need to grow larger patches of older forest (LSRA, 1995). Existing latesuccessional forests are probably less diverse because of the decrease in low to moderate intensity fires 

over the past 100 years. Those fires increased stand diversity by creating gaps, snags and large down 

wood when trees burned.

Northwest Forest Plan Standard and Guideline C-44

While no late-successional forest would be affected by this project, the Northwest Forest Plan contains 

Standards and Guidelines which limit harvest of older forest in watersheds/analysis areas where little latesuccessional forest remains (Northwest Forest Plan ROD, page C-44). Standard and Guideline C-44 of 

the Northwest Forest Plan ROD establishes the need to provide for retention of old-growth fragments in 

watersheds where 15% or less is late-successional forest within 5th field watersheds. NWFP S&G (C-44) 

states,”...Within such an area, all remaining late-successional stands should be protected”. NWFP ROD 

B 1-4 discusses structure and composition of late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems and does 

not limit the determination of such stands to diameter and canopy closure.

Table III-33 lists the percent of late-successional and old-growth forest on Forest Service managed lands 

within the affected fifth-field watersheds. Both watersheds are above the 15 percent thresholds described 

above. The inclusion of other federally-managed lands (i.e., BLM) would add to these percentages.

Table III-33. Posthabitat3 Conditions within 5th field Watersheds

5

th Field Watershed Forest Service Acres % Late-successional % Old-growth

Middle Fork Coquille River 1,534 43% (653 ac) 1% (14 ac)

South Fork Coquille River 65,370 21% (14,001 ac) 14% (8,967 ac)

As part of implementation for the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project, an analysis exercise would be done 

to determine whether or not any 5-acre portion of a candidate stand contains 6 or more trees with potential 

late-successional structure. If an area contains 6 or more trees with potential structure, it constitutes 

potential suitable habitat. Any stand with a potential suitable habitat (remnant late-successional tree) 

component would be further assessed with a walk-through of the area that would be impacted (USDI, 

2006). If a late successional component is confirmed, that portion of the stand (or the entire stand) would 

be excluded from treatments (including 1⁄2 site tree un-thinned buffer). The intent is to exclude and 

protect small groups of remnant trees within treatment units. Stands have been examined and most 

remnants have already been excluded. However, if any remnant trees were missed, they would be 

protected in accordance with PDF #6 in Appendix G and FEIS Chapter II 

 

3

 Posthabitat is defined as late-successional forest habitat (mature and old-growth), which is synonymous with nesting-roosting 

habitat for northern spotted owls.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-112

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Because the Eden Ridge Timber Sale project would not occur within or reduce late-successional or old 

growth forest, it would not affect (change or reduce) the current condition of late-successional forest, 

maintaining conformance with Standard and Guidelines at Northwest Forest Plan C-44.

c. Description of Species and Critical Habitat Listed Under ESA

Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina

Habitat and Management Requirements

A detailed account of the taxonomy, ecology, and reproductive characteristics of the spotted owl is found 

in the Interagency Scientific Committee Report (ISC 1990) and the Record of Decision for Amendments 

to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the 

Northern Spotted Owl (USDA FS/USDI BLM 1994).

The spotted owl was federally listed as Threatened primarily due to the loss of suitable habitat. Spotted 

owls tend to be associated with forest stands in which many of the trees are more than 80 years old, and 

stands that contain some old-growth forest structures such as large, decadent live and dead trees. Spotted 

owls are year-round residents in suitable habitat. Generally, the greater the amount of forest greater than 

80 years old, the greater the probability for finding spotted owls within those forests. Approximately 90 

percent of existing spotted owl habitat occurs on federally managed lands. 

Suitable habitat refers to habitat that functions for nesting, roosting, and/or foraging. Spotted owls 

usually occupy larger forested stands exhibiting older forest structure that normally includes mature or 

old-growth conifers with limited fragmentation. The stand usually has multiple canopies, with the 

secondary canopy often composed of both conifers and hardwoods under a conifer over-story. Canopy 

closure at nest sites is usually 60 percent or greater, with conifers at least 21 inches dbh. Most spotted 

owl nests have been found in mature and old-growth forests. The northern spotted owl was listed as 

threatened throughout its range “due to loss and adverse modification of spotted owl habitat as a result of 

timber harvesting and exacerbated by catastrophic events such as fire, volcanic eruption, and wind 

storms” (USDI FWS 1990: 26114). More specifically, threats to the spotted owl included low 

populations, declining populations, limited habitat, declining habitat, inadequate distribution of habitat or 

populations, isolation of populations within physiographic provinces, predation and competition, lack of 

coordinated conservation measures, inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms, and vulnerability to natural 

disturbance (USDI FWS 1992b).

In their 2004 evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl, Courtney et al. (2004) state that present 

major threats to the species include the effects of past and current timber harvest; loss of habitat to fire; 

and barred owls. The 2004 authors go on to state that other threats are also present but of threats 

identified at the time of listing, only one (predation linked to fragmentation) is not well supported.

Management direction for the northern spotted owl (NSO) has its basis in A Conservation Strategy for the 

Northern Spotted Owl (Thomas et al., 1990). Direction stems from the Northwest Forest Plan, which 

amended current forest planning documents and established a system of Late-Successional Reserves 

(LSR) across the landscape to provide habitat for the recovery of spotted owl populations. Thomas et al. 

(1990) disclosed northern spotted owls’ use of old-growth forests almost exclusively and rarely use clearcuts or young forest plantations. When young stands are used, they typically contain remnant large trees 

(Thomas et al., 1990). Where timber harvest has occurred, spotted owls are usually found in the 

remaining patches of old-growth and mature forest (Forsman 1982). Habitat features associated with 

forests used by spotted owls include multi-layered canopies, relatively high canopy closure, large 

diameter trees, and numerous snags and logs (Forsman 1982; Thomas et al. 1990). These stand features 

are related to requirements for feeding, nesting, and roosting (Forsman 1982). Spotted owls most 

commonly nest in tree cavities or on platforms created by debris or mistletoe infections (Thomas et al., 

1990).
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-113

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The primary prey species for northern spotted owls in the Analysis Area are dusky-footed woodrats 

(Neotoma fuscipes) and northern flying squirrels (Glaucomy sabrinus) (USDA Forest Service, 1996). 

Dusky-footed woodrats are occasionally abundant in early mixed-conifer forests and present in late stages 

of forest development (Carey et al., 1999). Northern flying squirrels are generally associated with older 

forests. Zabel et al. (1995) verified a trend of negative, linear relationship between home range size 

during the breeding season and the proportion of woodrats in the diet of northern spotted owls. The 

proportion of northern flying squirrels in the diet was positively correlated with home range size. 

Spotted Owl Recovery Plan

A primary spotted owl recovery goal of the 2011 Revised Recovery Plan is to conserve older stands that 

are either occupied or contain high-value spotted owl habitat. Long-term spotted owl recovery could 

benefit from forest management where the basic goals are to restore or maintain ecological processes and 

resilience. In general, to advance long-term spotted owl recovery and ecosystem restoration in moist 

forests in the face of climate change and past management practices; the principles recommended to be 

applied by land managers include:

1) Conserve older stands that have occupied or high-value spotted owl habitat as described in 

Recovery Actions 10 and 32. On Federal lands this recommendation applies to all land-use 

allocations outside of Congressionally Reserved Areas.

2) Management emphasis needs to be placed on meeting spotted owl recovery goals and long-term 

ecosystem restoration and conservation. 

3) Continue to manage for large, continuous blocks of late-successional forest.

Recovery Action 10 – Conserve spotted owl sites and high value spotted owl habitat to provide additional 

demographic support to the spotted owl population.

Recovery Action 32 – Because spotted owl recovery requires well distributed, older and more structurally 

complex multi-layered conifer forests on Federal and non-federal lands across its range, land managers 

should work with the Service to maintain and restore such habitat while allowing for other threats, such as 

fire and insects, to be addressed by restoration management actions. These high-quality spotted owl 

habitat stands are characterized as having large diameter trees, high amounts of canopy cover, and 

decadence components such as broken-topped live trees, mistletoe, cavities, large snags, and fallen trees 

(USFWS 2011).

During the development of the Proposed Action, any stands meeting the definitions under Recovery 

Action 32 were (or would be) excluded from proposed treatments ( any stand or portion thereof with 

existing high-quality spotted owl nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF).

Northern Spotted Owl Presence

In 2008 and 2009, the Forest Service surveyed to protocol the Eden Ridge Planning Area. No nesting 

owls were located. One detection of a single owl (sex unknown) occurred within the home range of 

historical owl site #290 (see below) in 2008. A single male NSO and a barred owl were detected 

incidental to murrelet surveys in 2009. These 2009 detections were within the Planning Area but outside 

of any known owl home range.

There is one known owl nest site (#290) within the Planning Area in the Hayes Creek drainage (part of 

the Mill Creek subwatershed). In 2013 a private biologist reported that a pair of owls was located near 

the historical nest patch; no nesting was confirmed. The nearest treatment units to the nest site are 3⁄4 mile 

away (Units #401, 402 and 403 - totaling 32 acres). These units are within the home range but outside of 

the one-half mile core area around the nest site. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-114

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The last confirmed nesting at site #290 was in 1998; however, surveys have not occurred annually. For 

this site, private biologists have also reported detections of a single spotted owl in 2010 and 2012, and a 

barred owl in 2011. As noted above, Forest Service surveys detected a single owl here in 2008.

Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat

There is no Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat designated within the Eden Ridge Planning/Analysis 

Area. Critical Habitat for the NSO was first designated in January 1992 (USFWS 1992) and was revised 

in 2008 (USDI FWS 2008a). Most recently, the USFWS completed another revision to the NSO Critical 

Habitat, resulting in the current designation of the final Revised 2012 Critical Habitat for the NSO (USDI 

FWS 2012). The Revised 2012 Critical Habitat for the NSO designation is the current statutory 

designation and countermands all other previous designations. Critical habitat for the northern spotted 

owl corresponds closely with those areas designated as Late-Successional Reserve in the Northwest 

Forest Plan (USDA and USDI BLM 1994). 

Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus)

Habitat and Management Requirements

The marbled murrelet is a small seabird (Alcidae) that nests along the Pacific coast from Alaska to central 

California, and winters as far south as Baja California, Mexico. Murrelets forage at sea where they 

consume a diversity of prey species including small fish and invertebrates, but nest on large limbs in oldgrowth coniferous forests. 

In the Pacific Northwest, murrelets have been found as far inland as 53 miles (USDI FWS 1997). 

Dillingham et al. (1995), examining murrelet survey data for the Rogue River-Siskiyou N.F., found that 

no murrelets were detected more than 32 miles from the ocean, although surveys had been conducted up 

to 47 miles inland. The Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project is approximately 28 miles from the ocean.

The 2009 status review (USFWS 2009d) reconfirmed the murrelet’s status as a Threatened species and 

summarized the terrestrial habitat. Throughout the forested portion of their range, marbled murrelet 

habitat use is positively associated with the presence and abundance of mature and old-growth forests, 

large core areas of old-growth, low amounts of edge and fragmentation, proximity to the marine 

environment, and increasing forest age and height (Hamer and Nelson, 1995b). In all cases, marbled

murrelets focus on the presence of platforms used for nesting. Platform presence is more important than 

the size of the nest tree, and tree size alone is not a good indicator of the abundance of platforms (Evans 

Mack et al., 2003). The presence of platforms is the most important characteristic of marbled murrelet 

nesting habitat (Burger 2002). Individual tree attributes that provide platforms suitable for nesting 

include large or forked branches, deformities caused by broken tops or mistletoe infection, or other 

structures large enough to provide a platform for a nesting adult murrelet (Hamer and Nelson, 1995b).

The NWFP establishes all murrelet occupied stands on Federal lands as LSRs, which greatly restricts the 

habitat modification activities that can occur. In 1996, the Service designated murrelet critical habitat, 

which largely overlaps mapped LSRs within the murrelet range on Federal lands. Predation via corvids 

and or rodents is also considered a threat to reproductive success. 

An account of the taxonomy, ecology, and reproductive characteristics of the marbled murrelet can be 

found in the 1988 species status review (Marshall 1988), the final rule designating the species as 

threatened (USDI FWS 1992b), the final rule designating critical habitat for the species (USDI FWS 

1996), Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet (Ralph et al., 1995), Recovery Plan for the 

Marbled Murrelet (USDI FWS 1997), and the Service’s BO for Alternative 9 (USDI FWS 1994) of the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth 

Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA and USDI 1994a). 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-115

Final Environmental Impact Statement

In 1995, it was estimated 1,077 occupied murrelet sites occurred within Washington, Oregon, and 

California. Suitable habitat for the murrelet was estimated at 2,561,500 acres of Federal lands in the 

listed range of this species (Ralph et al., 1995). Murrelet habitat is protected on Federal land under the 

NWFP. 

Current management direction for the marbled murrelet comes from the Northwest Forest Plan ROD and 

the Marbled Murrelet Recovery Plan (USDA and USDI BLM 1994, USDI FWS 1997). If surveys 

determine a stand is occupied, a Late-Successional Reserve is set up to protect all contiguous existing and 

recruitment habitat (i.e., stands that are capable of becoming marbled murrelet habitat within 25 years) 

within one-half mile of the occupied site. Suitable habitat is generally 80 years old or more with trees 

averaging 32 inches dbh or more, with at least one platform > 5.9 inches in diameter containing nesting 

substrate (e.g., moss, epiphytes, duff) on that platform which has overhead protective cover (tree branch 

or foliage), and has an access route through the canopy that a murrelet could use to approach and land on 

the platform (USDI 2009).

Marbled Murrelet Presence

In 1996 and 1997, marbled murrelet surveys were conducted on one stand of suitable habitat within the 

Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project Area and adjacent to Unit 401. Murrelets were not detected during 

these surveys. Because surveys expire after five years, some project activities in Units 401 and 402

would be seasonally restricted to avoid disturbing nesting murrelets, if present.

In 2008 and 2009, murrelet surveys were conducted within and adjacent to proposed Eden Ridge Timber 

Sales treatment areas. No murrelets were detected (visually or aurally) within the surveyed stands. 

Surveyed areas consisted of small pockets and scattered, individual large trees (remnant structure), some 

of which could serve as nesting habitat. This type of stand is sometimes referred to as “grey” habitat. 

Surveys included all or portions of Alternative 2, Units: 001, 003, 004, 005, 006, 007, 101, 102, 203, 204, 

218, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330 and 331.

Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat 

There is no designated murrelet Critical Habitat Unit (CHU) within the Planning Area, but there is 

within the Analysis Area. The proposed haul route travels through marbled murrelet CHU, but would 

not impact the primary constituent elements of habitat for murrelets. A full discussion on murrelet 

Critical Habitat and its primary constituent elements is included in FEIS Appendix G.

d. Effects Mechanisms

Northern Spotted Owl

As noted above, the primary prey of northern spotted owls in the Analysis Area are dusky-footed 

woodrats and northern flying squirrels. Dusky-footed woodrats are occasionally abundant in early mixedconifer forests and Northern flying squirrels are generally associated with older forests. Northern flying 

squirrels are primarily mycophagous, feeding largely on the fruiting bodies of hypogeous fungi (truffles). 

Several authors have stressed the importance of truffle abundance (Waters and Zabel, 1995; Gomez et al., 

2005; Lehmkuhl et al., 2006) and habitat features that have been correlated with abundance of truffles, 

such as coarse woody debris, particularly large logs (Carey et al., 1999; Smith et al., 2004). Gomez et al. 

(2005) also noted the importance of fungal sporocarps, which were positively associated with large down 

wood. 

Some disturbance of habitat may improve forage conditions, provided under-story structure and cover are 

retained. Removal of some tree canopy, provided it is not too extreme, would bring more light and 

resources into the stand, stimulating forbs, shrubs and other prey food. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-116

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Manning (2011) found that: “Most previous studies of northern flying squirrel response to thinning and 

similar silvicultural treatments have been short-term, and most have indicated negative effects on squirrel 

densities (Waters and Zabel, 1995; Carey, 2001; Bull et al., 2004; Holloway and Malcolm, 2006; Herbers 

and Klenner, 2007; Meyer et al., 2007a; Holloway and Smith, 2011). Conclusions in Manning 2011 are 

that: “More time and monitoring are also needed to estimate when impacted flying squirrel populations 

might recover to levels comparable with those in unthinned stands and to compare the influence of 

various habitat features on that recovery”.

Anthony (2013) found that “The published literature indicates that commercial thinning has negative 

effects on abundance of flying squirrels (Carey 2000; Manning et al. 2012; Wilson 2010; Gomez et al. 

2005; Waters and Zabel et al. 1995, Waters et al. 2000) within the range of the spotted owl, and these 

effects may last up to 15 years or longer (Wilson 2010). Other studies in northeastern Oregon (Bull et al. 

2004), southern British Columbia (Herbers et al. 2007, Ransome et al. 2004), coastal British Columbia 

(Ransome and Sullivan 2002), Ontario (Holloway and Malcolm 2006), and the Sierra Nevada Mountains 

of California (Meyer et al. 2007, Waters and Zabel 1995) have shown similar negative effects of 

commercial thinning on abundance of northern flying squirrels....”

However, as stated in (Anthony, 2013; Page 7): “The long-term benefits of thinning in young plantations 

to create forests with characteristics of late-successional forests (e.g. large diameter standing and down 

wood) may outweigh any short-term negative effects on owls or their prey.” This is the objective of 

treatments under Eden Ridge.

Noise disturbance has the potential to adversely affect a spotted owl such that their normal behavior is 

disrupted. The degree to which an individual spotted owl may be affected from noise disturbance varies 

with the proximity (distance), intensity (sound level) and duration of the disturbance. Activities that 

generate noise levels that result in the alteration of an individual owl’s behavior would constitute a form 

of harassment as defined by the ESA. Harassment is “an intentional or negligent act or omission which 

creates the likelihood of injury by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior 

patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, and sheltering” (50 CFR 17.3).

The potential effects of elevated stress hormones on spotted owl population dynamics are not well 

understood. Evidence of recreation effects on spotted owls was reported by Swarthout and Steidl (2001) 

who found that the closely related Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) was affected by hikers. 

They reported that juveniles and adults were unlikely to flush at distances ≥24 m from hikers, 

respectively. Delaney et al. (1999) studied the effects of chainsaw and helicopter noise on Mexican 

spotted owls. They found that no spotted owls flushed when noise stimuli were >105 m away. This study 

further shows that spotted owls may be sensitive to some types of noise disturbance.

Required Project Design Criteria (Mitigation Measures) have been developed for northern spotted owls 

on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest and this project. Table G-6 in the Wildlife Report (FEIS 

Appendix G) and Mitigation Measures contained in Chapter II of the FEIS portrays zones of restricted 

operations distances from known activity centers for certain operations.

If spotted owls are detected in or adjacent to treatment units, Project Design Criteria from the USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service Formal Consultation on Timber Harvest, Meadow Restoration and Quarry Activities 

proposed by the Rogue River–Siskiyou National Forest (TAILS #: 13420-2009-F-0146) dated August 27, 

2009 (USDA/USDI, 2009c) would be applied to proposed activities (see Wildlife Report PDF #2&3 and 

FEIS Chapter II). 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-117

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Marbled Murrelet

Disturbance of murrelets may lead to nest abandonment by adults, reduced nest attentiveness (leading to 

increased vulnerability of predation), aborted feeding visits, premature fledging, and avoidance of 

otherwise suitable habitat (Hamer and Nelson, 1995). The majority of information on disturbance to 

nesting marbled murrelets has been from anecdotal observations and inferred from studies on other 

seabird species (Long and Ralph, 1998). The sensitivity of an individual to disturbance is likely related to 

the baseline level of disturbance the bird is accustomed to, the level and proximity of disturbance (Hamer 

and Nelson, 1995), and the timing of the disturbance within the nesting cycle and daily activity periods. 

Research has indicated some bird species can habituate to relatively high levels of disturbance over time 

(Long and Ralph, 1998; Hamer and Nelson 1995).

The Eden Ridge Project would apply the Project Design Criteria (mitigation measures) from the USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service Formal Consultation on Timber Harvest, Meadow Restoration and Quarry 

Activities proposed by the Rogue River–Siskiyou National Forest (TAILS #: 13420-2009-F-0146) dated 

August 27, 2009 (USDA/USDI, 2009). Table G-8 in the Wildlife Report (FEIS Appendix G) and 

Mitigation Measures contained in Chapter II of the FEIS portrays zones of restricted operations distances 

from specific activities and other PDCs for marbled murrelet.

e. Direct and Indirect Effects – Northern Spotted Owl

No-Action Alternative

The No-Action Alternative would not result in change in current levels of disturbance to spotted owl nest 

sites (along existing haul routes; see below). No spotted owl pairs would be affected by change to habitat 

and dispersal opportunities would not be reduced from current conditions. In the absence of large-scale 

disturbance (wildfire, insects, and disease) the densities of northern spotted owls would likely remain 

stable, notwithstanding other threats identified by the Sustainable Ecosystems Institute report (Courtney 

et al., 2004) which include barred owls and West Nile Virus.

Action Alternatives

Disturbance

There is the potential for disturbance from harvest operations to spotted owls dispersing through or 

foraging in the Planning Area. One historical owl home range (NSO site #290) occurs in the northwest 

corner of the Planning Area, but the nearest project activities would be 3⁄4 mile from this nest site (PDF 

#2, Wildlife Report Attachment A). Because there are no other historical owl sites in the Planning Area 

and surveys have not detected breeding owls, disturbance to other owls is unlikely. Any incidental owl 

nesting sites, if found, would be protected by mandatory Mitigation Measures (see Wildlife Report PDF 

#3 and FEIS Chapter II) unless surveys show nesting is not occurring.

The haul route runs through one owl core area (0.5 mile) and three home ranges. As a result, owls could 

be disturbed by short-term noise, if they are present. Work on portions of Road 5000-210 would be 

seasonally restricted to minimize the potential for disturbance. The anticipated haul route utilizes roads 

already receiving high timber haul use off of private lands and portions are open to public use; therefore, 

owls may have developed a tolerance to motorized traffic and road activities on these roads.

Alternatives 3 and 4 include helicopter operations, which may be more disturbing (short term) 

than Alternative 2. There would be no disturbance to NSO site #290 from helicopters, because 

there would be no helicopter units within one mile of the nest site.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-118

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Habitat

The Action Alternatives would commercially treat (variable density thin) and maintain up to 3,314 acres 

of spotted owl dispersal habitat and non-commercially treat up to 363 acres. The resultant canopy closure 

(40-50%) and residual tree structure (the larger tree component) would maintain the dispersal function of 

the treated stands. The reduced structural complexity, e.g., loss of some snags and vertical canopy 

diversity, is a degradation of habitat quality for late-successional associated species, but the effect on 

wildlife from this degree of change is likely minimal and dispersal habitat would be maintained. 

Over the long term, thinning under the Action Alternatives would allow stands to develop late-seral 

characteristics, such as large diameter trees, more quickly. This strategy is consistent with the 2011 

Revised Owl Recovery Plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011). There would be no effect to highquality owl habitat (RA-32), because none would exist within treatment units.

No snags or down woody material are proposed for removal during silvicultural treatments. There is 

potential for some existing snags to be felled (but not removed) as safety hazards. The potential would 

increase as the amount of acreage treated increases under each alternative.

The differences in habitat effects under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would not be measurable because they are 

only due to small differences in acres proposed for treatment.

Under Alternative 2 and 3, no new road construction is proposed within any spotted owl home range (1.3 

miles). Alternative 4 does not include new Classified road construction. No known northern spotted owl 

nest patch (300 meter) occurs within the Project Areas or along the haul route. 

Critical Habitat

The Action Alternatives would not affect northern spotted owl Critical Habitat, because the Analysis 

Area and treatment units are not within northern spotted owl Critical Habitat Units (CHU). The nearest 

treatment unit to spotted owl CHU is over 1.5 miles and the nearest road identified for use during the 

Action Altenatives is over 0.8 mile from the nearest CHU.

Known Owl Sites

Under the Action Alternatives, owl site #290 would have thirty two acres of dispersal habitat treated and 

maintained within its mean home range. Nesting in 2011 and the 2008 detection of a single owl within 

the home range, indicates this site is recently active and dispersal and/or foraging could be occurring in 

this portion of the Planning Area. This owl site is currently below the thresholds for NRF (nesting, 

roosting, foraging) habitat recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for site viability (40 

percent NRF for the home range, 50 percent for the one-half mile core area, and 70 acres for the 300 

meter nest patch). Owl site #290 contains 24 percent NRF in the home range, 31 percent in the core, and 

1 acre in the nest patch. The proposed thinning treatments would not decrease those amounts of NRF; 

however, thinning would promote the development of late-successional forest within this owl site and 

help ensure site viability.

Prey Species

Based on historical observations and surveys, there is evidence northern spotted owls are using the 

Planning Area for dispersal, and possibly, foraging. Harvest and vegetation treatments may improve 

foraging habitat conditions for prey (USDI, 2009). Lemkuhl et al. (2006) confirmed the importance of 

maintaining snags, down wood and mistletoe. While flying squirrels tend to increase in abundance in 

older forests, they can also be present in younger stands. Dusky-footed woodrats tend to be more 

abundant in younger and drier forest stands and bushy-tailed woodrats are often associated with cliffs, 

rocky outcrops, and talus, but they also occupy hollow trees and logs. Tree voles appear to show a 

positive correlation with stand age and are more abundant in old-growth forests.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-119

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The understory habitat conditions for prey food should increase over the next few years after treatment, 

until shrubs and residual trees respond to again close in the stand. In addition, residual trees, snags and 

down wood that are retained in the thinned stands would provide some cover for prey species over time, 

and would help minimize harvest impacts to some prey species. Some arboreal prey species would 

venture into harvest units a short distance for food. Northern spotted owls seldom venture far into nonforested stands to hunt. However, edges can be areas of good prey availability and potentially increased 

vulnerability (i.e., better hunting for owls) (Zabel 1995). The retained trees may respond favorably to 

more light and resources and gain height and canopy over time (USDI, 2009). 

Given current conditions (forests less than 80 years old that do not contain giant trees, large cavities, or 

large limbs, adequate levels of snags or down woody material, and not considered late-successional 

forest), stands are likely low-quality prey habitat and it is unlikely flying squirrels are abundant. 

Foraging, if occurring, is expected to continue after density management treatments. There could be a 

small decrease (perhaps 5-15 years) in owl prey species, but the overall impact to owls would be minimal 

because of the low-quality of the prey habitat and the history of limited use by nesting owls. This 

decrease in prey species would be outweighed by future long-term benefits to owls and, more specifically, 

to owl nest site #290 through a more rapid (10-30 year) availability of nesting and foraging habitat in the 

future.

Effects Summary

The potential short-term adverse effects to dispersing owls from disturbance and to owl prey species from

thinning would be balanced out by the long-term benefits of additional late-successional and NRF 

habitats. This approach is consistent with the Recovery Strategy in the 2011 revised owl recovery plan 

(p. II-11) which encourages active forest restoration (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011).

Project Design Criteria would assure that no suitable habitat would be removed. Up to 3,314 acres 

of dispersal habitat could be treated and maintained as dispersal habitat. Because of the potential 

for disturbance to spotted owls, the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project is considered “may affect, 

not likely to adversely affect” for the northern spotted owl (NLAA).

The Action Alternatives would not affect northern spotted owl Critical Habitat, because the Analysis 

Area and treatment units are not within northern spotted owl Critical Habitat Units (CHU). 

f. Direct and Indirect Effects – Marbled Murrelet

No-Action Alternative

The No-Action Alternative would not result in any change to marbled murrelet nest sites. No marbled 

murrelet would be affected by disturbance in habitat and nesting opportunities would not be reduced from 

current conditions. In the absence of large-scale disturbance (wildfire, insects, and disease) the densities 

of marbled murrelet would likely remain stable, notwithstanding other threats.

Action Alternatives

Disturbance

Murrelet surveys have been conducted and no murrelets were detected (visually or aurally) within the 

Planning Area. There are no known occupied sites within the Planning Area. Activities near any 

unsurveyed (or surveyed and expired) suitable habitat would be seasonally restricted (see Wildlife Report 

PDF #7 and FEIS Chapter II). As a result, measurable adverse effects to murrelets through disturbance 

are unlikely.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-120

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Activities in Unit #401 and part of #402 would be seasonally restricted to prevent potential disturbance to 

nesting murrelets in adjacent habitat (because murrelet surveys have expired in this area) (Table G-8 and 

Wildlife Report PDF #7). Work on portions of Road 5000-210 would be seasonally restricted to 

minimize the potential for disturbance. The planned haul route utilizes roads already receiving high 

timber haul use off of private lands and portions are open to public use. If present, murrelets along this 

route may have developed some tolerance to motorized traffic and road activities.

Alternatives 3 and 4 include helicopter operations, so there is an increased risk of short-term disturbance 

to nesting murrelets if they were in nearby habitat. The risk would be minimized through seasonal 

restrictions on helicopter activities in all units within one-quarter mile of unsurveyed, suitable murrelet 

habitat. 

Habitat

Marbled murrelet habitat would not be removed or degraded by the proposed activities. Over the long 

term, thinning would allow the remaining trees to reach a larger diameter, and, possibly, develop larger 

branches sooner.

There may be occasional scattered remnant trees4 within proposed treatment units. Field reviews have 

previously identified and removed scattered pockets of remnant trees from treatment areas and any 

subsequent pockets identified would also be excluded from treatment (see Wildlife Report PDF #6 and 

FEIS Chapter II). Remnant trees would be retained whenever possible. Remnant trees felled for safety or 

operational needs would remain on-site (see Wildlife Report PDF #9 and FEIS Chapter II). 

There would be no measurable effects to suitable murrelet habitat from proposed activities under all 

Action Alternatives, because habitat was excluded from treatment units. If any groups of large remnant 

trees were overlooked, they would be protected by PDF #6 (see Wildlife Report PDF #6 and FEIS 

Chapter II). Thinning would pose minimal risk to adjacent habitat from windthrow or desiccation 

because canopy cover would remain above 40-50 percent.

The differences in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 in terms of potential habitat effects are minimal and due to 

minor differences in alternative proposal acreages in relation to the larger landscape. 

Critical Habitat

The Planning Area is located outside any Critical Habitat Unit (CHUs). The proposed haul route travels 

through marbled murrelet CHU (within the Analysis Area); however, hauling is not expected to have any 

disturbance impacts beyond those already occurring from public use of the roads. There would be no 

effects to murrelet Critical Habitat from the Action Alternatives because there is no critical habitat

designated within the Project Areas, and there would be no effects to the primary constituent elements of 

murrelet habitat.

Project Design Criteria (FEIS Chapter II, Section D, 10, g) would assure that no suitable murrelet habitat 

would be removed or altered. Because of the potential for activities to disturb marbled murrelets, a “may 

affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination is made for the marbled murrelet (NLAA).

 

4

 Remnant trees = generally large old trees that were not removed during earlier regeneration harvest activities or that survived 

stand replacement fires. In some cases they are single trees, while other areas have groups of older trees up to a half acre in

size. These trees generally range from 34” dbh to in excess of 60” dbh and are often at least twice the diameter of the average 

tree in the stand they are located in. They often have a “wolfy” structure consisting of moss covered limbs/platforms > 4-6” 

diameter, and fire scars or charred bark. Generally, bark is thicker and more furrowed and crowns tend to be more flat topped, 

less “pointed” than younger trees.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-121

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Summary of Effects to Federally-Listed Wildlife Species 

A summary of presence, habitat, and effects determinations is shown in Table III-34. 

Table III-34. ESA Species & Critical Habitat Unit (CHU) Presence and Effects Determination

Wildlife Species Sighting/Habitat Habitat Or Species Present

Determination Of Effects 

(Includes PDCs and 

Mitigation)

Federally Threatened Species

Northern Spotted Owl

Suitable Habitat 

Present/Species Known For 

Area

Suitable Habitat Not Affected By 

Project/Species May Be Affected 

by Disturbance

NLAA

Northern Spotted Owl 

Critical Habitat Unit

CHU Not Within Project 

Areas CHU Not Present N/A

Marbled Murrelet

Suitable Habitat Present 

/Species Not Known For 

Area

Habitat Not Affected By 

Project/Species (if present) May 

Be Affected by Disturbance

NLAA

Marbled Murrelet

Critical Habitat Unit

CHU Present Along Haul 

Route

CHU Not Present on Project 

Areas NE

 

 NE = No Effect

 NLAA = May Affect, Not likely to Adversely Affect

 N/A = Not Applicable

Similar and/or Related Actions are included under the Action Alternatives; they are designed as 

resource enhancement, restoration, or improvements, and are described in detail in FEIS Chapter II, 

Section D, 2, h. These actions would occur in proximity to commercial and silvicultural stand treatments. 

Included are non-commercial treatments proposed for 363 acres within the ER Planning Area (see Table 

II-6 and MAP II-2), snag/down wood creation, meadow enhancement, stream enhancement, native 

grass/forb seeding, invasive plant treatments, and other wildlife opportunities.

The effects from these actions are minor in scope and context and would minimally add to the 

consequences of the Action Alternatives. In most cases the effects are beneficial to Federally-Listed 

terrestrial wildlife species. These actions would occur within several non-contiguous portions of the 

Planning Area and not all at the same time.

g. Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects include the effects of past, present and foreseeable future state, local, or private 

activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the Analysis Area. Cumulative effects compound the 

effects of loss of habitat and harassment potential associated with timber harvest operations and other 

activities on both private and public lands. The Eden Ridge Timber Sales Planning Area is basically an 

island of Forest Service land, surrounded by private and Bureau of Land Management land. Due to the 

private ownership status of the area surrounding the Planning Area, vehicular access by the public is 

currently limited to the eastern portion. 

As previously noted, Plum Creek Timber owns approximately 30,000 of the 39,731 acres within the 

Analysis Area. These surrounding private lands are generally on a 40-50 year harvest rotation. Virtually 

all suitable nesting habitats for owls and murrelets have been removed from private lands during past 

harvest in the Analysis Area. After approximately 40 years of age, stands may provide dispersal habitat 

for spotted owls. Private harvest activities could disturb murrelets or owls nesting on adjacent federal 

lands or cause windthrow of adjacent suitable habitat.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-122

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Forest Service manages approximately 8,634 acres within the Analysis Area. The remaining 444 

acres are managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). BLM also consults with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and complies with the Northwest Forest Plan, so effects to listed species are 

comparable to the Forest Service.

Present and foreseeable future federal actions that could affect Threatened wildlife species in the area 

include: fuels treatments, developed and dispersed recreation, timber harvest and vegetation treatments, 

reforestation, restoration, road management, and special uses. All of these activities would be designed to 

meet the objectives in agency management plans and the Northwest Forest Plan (including the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy) (NWFP 1994, Siskiyou NF LRMP, 1989).

Density management effects from the activities proposed in the Eden Ridge FEIS could combine with 

effects from other Forest Service activities; such as, pre-commercial thinning, commercial thinning, 

meadow restoration, and danger tree felling. There are approximately 300 acres currently being thinned 

under the Silver Doe Timber Sale within the Planning Area. There are approximately 675 acres of 

plantation commercial thinning identified under the Coastal Healthy Forest Treatment (CHFT) Project 

within the Analysis Area. The resultant canopy closure (40-50%) and residual tree structure (the larger 

tree component) would maintain the function of this owl dispersal habitat. Owl and murrelet nesting 

habitat is typically excluded from thinning treatments.

Disturbance could occur to murrelets and owls, if present, in adjacent suitable habitat. However, because 

activities are restricted during the breeding periods for most federal activities, adverse effects would 

remain unlikely to occur even when added to the disturbance potentially caused by activities on private 

lands. Also, because the Eden Ridge Planning Area contains minimal amounts of suitable nesting habitat 

and surveys found nesting was not occurring, there would be negligible risk of disturbance to nesting 

birds on Forest Service lands. There is no BLM land within disturbance distances for owls or murrelets.

8. NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on 

Northwest Forest Plan terrestrial wildlife species and habitats. 

FEIS Appendix G includes a complete Wildlife Report (incorporated by reference). This subsection

discusses Survey and Manage and other terrestrial wildlife species and habitats identified and associated 

with the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA/USDI 1994), as amended.

a. Background and Analysis Framework

Survey and Manage Species

The 1993 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) and 1994 Record of Decision for Amendments 

to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the 

Northern Spotted Owl (also known as the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP)) created the Survey and 

Manage standard and guideline for all land allocations on the west side of the Cascades in Oregon, 

Washington and northern California and east Cascade forests within the range of the northern spotted owl. 

The standard and guidelines were created to gain information that could help manage a set of lesser 

known and possibly rare taxa. 

The original Survey and Manage provision of the NWFP was amended in 2001 and 2004. A recent U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s opinion reversed a U.S. District Court Western District of 

Washington’s order, in Conservation Northwest, et al v. Harris Sherman, et al and D.R. Johnson 

Company, Case 11-35729 (April 25, 2013). Projects that are within the range of the northern spotted owl 

are now subject to the survey and management standards and guidelines in the 2001 ROD.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-123

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Eden Ridge Timber Sale Project applies a 2006 Exemption from a stipulation entered by the court in 

litigation regarding Survey and Manage species and the 2004 Record of Decision related to Survey and 

Manage Mitigation Measure in Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, No. 04-844-MJP (W.D. Wash., Oct. 

10, 2006). Also known as the Pechman Exemptions, the Court’s Order from October 11, 2006 directs: 

“Defendants shall not authorize, allow, or permit to continue any logging or other ground-disturbing 

activities on projects to which the 2004 ROD applied unless such activities are in compliance with the 

2001 ROD (as the 2001 ROD was amended or modified as of March 21, 2004), except that this order will 

not apply to: 

a. Thinning projects in stands younger than 80 years old: 

b. Replacing culverts on roads that are in use and part of the road system, and removing culverts 

 if the road is temporary or to be decommissioned; 

c. Riparian and stream improvement projects where the riparian work is riparian planting, 

 obtaining material for placing in-stream, and road or trail decommissioning; and where the 

 stream improvement work is the placement large wood, channel and floodplain reconstruction, 

 or removal of channel diversions; and 

d. The portions of project involving hazardous fuel treatments where prescribed fire is applied. Any 

 portion of a hazardous fuel treatment project involving commercial logging will remain subject to

 the survey and management requirements except for thinning of stands younger than 80 years old 

 under subparagraph a. of this paragraph.” 

The Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project meets Exemption a. because it entails no regeneration harvest and 

entails thinning only in stands less than 80 years old (USDI and USDA, 2011). 

Currently all treatment stands for all Action Alternatives are under 80 years of age and do not 

require Survey and Manage surveys. Based on the Silvicultural Report (FEIS Appendix B) and 

stand exams, the proposed stands range from approximately 53 to 73 years of age in 2011 (also see 

stand exam information in FEIS Chapter II).

Other Northwest Forest Plan Species

The 2001 ROD which amended the Northwest Forest Plan contains management recommendations for 

certain cavity nesting birds, Canada lynx, and some bat roost sites. The ROD requires additional 

protection for caves, mines, and abandoned wooden bridges and buildings that are used as roost sites by 

bats (which includes Townsend’s big-eared bat, a regionally Sensitive species). The remaining species 

with additional mitigation measures were not considered because the Analysis Area is outside of their 

known ranges. Those species are: Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), white-headed woodpecker (Picoides 

albolarvatus), black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus), flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus), and 

pygmy nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea).

b. Description of Species, Habitat and Management Requirements

Survey and Manage Species

Del Norte Salamander (Plethodon elongates)

This species occurs in talus slopes protected by overstory canopy that maintains cool, moist conditions on 

the ground. The species is a slope-valley inhabitant, and sometimes occurs in high numbers near riparian 

areas. Riparian Reserves, in combination with Late-Successional Reserves and other reserves, will offer 

some protection to the species but substantial numbers also occur in upland areas. Additional mitigation 

options in this upland matrix include identifying locations (talus areas inhabited by the species) by using a 

standardized survey protocol [no longer required; the species is in Category D], then protecting the 

location from ground-disturbing activities. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-124

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Protection includes designating a buffer of at least the height of one site-potential tree or 100-feet 

horizontal distance, whichever is greater, surrounding the location. Within the site and its surrounding 

buffer, maintain 40 percent canopy closure and avoid any activities that would directly disrupt the surface 

talus layer. Partial harvest within the buffer may be possible if 40 percent canopy closure can be 

maintained; in such cases, tree harvest must be conducted using helicopters or cable systems to avoid 

compaction or other disturbance of talus (see Wildlife Report PDF #4 and FEIS Chapter II).

Oregon Red Tree Vole (Arborimus longicaudus) 

The Oregon red tree vole is a nocturnal, arboreal mammal specialized in feeding on needles of 

Douglas-fir and other coniferous trees (Maser 1998). The species is endemic to western Oregon (Verts 

1998) primarily in coniferous forests of western Oregon (Csuti et al., 1997; Maser 1998). Red tree voles 

are most commonly found in Douglas-fir but may also be found inhabiting Sitka spruce and western 

hemlock in coastal areas. Red tree voles are usually associated with old-growth forests; however, they 

may occur in younger stands and may not be dependent on old-growth for survival (Aubry et al., 1991;

Corn and Bury, 1991; Gilbert and Allwine, 1991). 

Nests are constructed of twigs and discarded resin ducts in the canopy of larger trees (Csuti et al., 1997; 

Maser 1998). Larger trees, at least 25 to 30 years old, are selected because they can provide the structural 

support for nests as well as adequate protection from inclement weather. In southwestern Oregon, the 

largest available trees are selected for nesting, even in old-growth (Carey 1991). Abandoned nests of 

birds and other small mammals are also used (Maser 1998). The home range of the red tree vole is one or 

more trees (Brown 1985) and they can spend their entire lives in the forest canopy (Carey 1991).

Portions of the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project were surveyed to protocol in 2001. Eighteen of 24 nest 

trees confirmed in the Planning Area are found in proposed treatment units. Current Survey Protocol 

states: “Survey results using this protocol should be considered valid for 5 years after completion of the 

survey.” Although the surveys are no longer valid and under the 2006 Pechman exemption, not required, 

all previously confirmed nest trees have been identified and will be marked as Wildlife Trees to Protect. . 

Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa)

Within the range of the northern spotted owl, the great gray owl is most common in lodgepole pine forests 

adjacent to meadows. However, it is also found in other coniferous forest types. In some locations, such 

as on the Willamette National Forest west of the crest of the Cascade Range, at least some shelterwood 

harvesting seems to be beneficial for the species by opening up otherwise closed canopy cover for 

foraging. In doing so, consequences to species such as northern goshawk and American marten must be 

evaluated. Specific mitigation measures for the great gray owl, within the range of the northern spotted 

owl, include the following: provide a no-harvest buffer of 300 feet around meadows and natural openings 

and establish 1/4-mile protection zones around known nest sites. Protect all future discovered nest sites. 

Great gray owls forage in relatively open, grassy habitat including bogs, natural meadows, open forests 

and selective/regeneration harvest areas. Diet in western US is primarily pocket gophers and voles. Great 

gray owls tend to select nest sites in mature or remnant old-growth mixed-conifer forests near openings 

(within 200m of openings) that have sufficient prey numbers (Platt & Goggans, 1991). Suitable nesting 

habitat adjacent to natural openings 10 acres and larger is necessary to be surveyed. There are no such 

natural meadows 10 acres or larger within the Planning Area.

Other NWFP Species

The 2001 Plan (S&G p. 37) requires the identification of and additional protection for caves, mines, and 

abandoned wooden bridges and buildings that are often used as roost sites for bats. Generally, presence is 

presumed for target species and does not require the identification of species. If a site is occupied, 

specific management direction is employed to protect the site. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-125

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Townsend’s big-eared bats is one of the species which uses the above sites; however, because it is also a 

Region 6 Sensitive species, it is discussed in more detail under Forest Service Sensitive terrestrial species 

(FEIS Section D, 9, below).

c. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives

Survey and Manage Species

Del Norte Salamander

To protect any talus habitat from ground disturbing activities that may cause compaction; a protection 

buffer of at least one site potential tree or at least 100 ft. horizontal distance, whichever is greater for all 

known Del Norte salamander locations (see FEIS Appendix G, Wildlife Report, Table G-15) would be 

designated. Maintain at least 40% canopy closure and avoid activities that would disturb the surface talus 

layer. Partial harvest within the buffer may be possible if 40% canopy closure can be maintained; in such 

cases, tree harvest must be conducted using helicopter or suspended cable systems to avoid compaction or 

other disturbance of talus (PDF #4; Wildlife Report, FEIS Appendix G, Attachment A).

There are 46 known Del Norte Salamander locations within the proposed units and one within a proposed 

non-commercial unit. Known sites include Units 006, 211, 303, 308, 322, 323, 326, 329, 331, 332, 333, 

334, 340, 341, and 342, and Non-Commercial Unit 906. 

All historical locations would be identified and given a protection buffer as described above. These 

buffers overlap multiple proposed treatment units in some cases. This project (all Action Alternatives) 

may affect some individuals or some habitat but effect is minimal.

Oregon Red Tree Vole (Arborimus longicaudus) 

Proposed treatments are expected to impact a maximum of 3,314 acres (Alternative 2) of potential red 

tree vole habitat. Trees with undiscovered red tree vole nests may be cut or blown down following 

treatment. Thinning would isolate individual tree canopies and reduce the current inter-connected tree 

canopies. This project (all Action Alternatives) may affect some individuals or some habitat but effect 

is minimal. 

Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa)

The FAUNA database contains one incidental sighting of a great gray owl within the Siskiyou portion of 

the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. This location is over 2 miles from the nearest proposed 

treatment unit and over 4 miles from the nearest meadow or natural opening within the Project Area. This 

project would have no impact on great gray owls because suitable nesting/foraging habitat does not occur 

within or near the Project Areas or the Planning Area.

Other NWFP Management Species

Other Northwest Forest Plan species potentially in the Project Area include bats that use caves, mines, 

and abandoned wooden bridges and buildings as roost sites. Because these features are not present in the 

project area, there would be no adverse effects to these sites or bats. 

Effects to Townsend’s big-eared bats from other project activities are discussed below under the Forest 

Service Sensitive terrestrial species (FEIS Section E, 9, below).
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-126

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Similar and/or Related Actions are included under the Action Alternatives; they are designed as 

resource enhancement, restoration, or improvements, and are described in detail in FEIS Chapter II, 

Section D, 2, h. These actions would occur in proximity to commercial and silvicultural stand treatments. 

Included are Non-Commercial Treatments proposed for 363 acres within the ER Planning Area (see Table 

II-6 and MAP II-2), Snag/Down Wood Creation, Meadow Enhancement, Stream Enhancement, Native 

Grass/Forb Seeding, Invasive Plant Treatments, and Other Wildlife Opportunities.

The effects from these actions are minor in scope and context, and would minimally add to the 

consequences of the Action Alternatives. These actions would occur within several non-contiguous 

portions of the Planning Area, and not all at the same time.

d. Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects include the effects from past, present and foreseeable future State, local, or private 

activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the Analysis Area. Cumulative effects compound the 

effects of loss of habitat and harassment potential associated with timber harvest operations and other 

activities on both private and public lands. The Eden Ridge Timber Sales Planning Area is basically an 

island of Forest Service land, surrounded by Private and Bureau of Land Management land. 

Present and foreseeable future actions that may affect rare and uncommon terrestrial wildlife species or 

habitats within the Analysis Area include: fuels treatments, developed and dispersed recreation, timber 

harvest and vegetation treatments, reforestation, restoration, road management, and special uses. All of 

these activities would be designed to meet the direction provided within the Land and Resource 

Management Plan (as amended) (and in accord with Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives (NWFP 

1994, Siskiyou NF LRMP, 1989).

Density management effects of this project also combine with those of district-wide pre-commercial 

thinning, commercial thinning, meadow restoration, and danger tree felling. Approximately 8,634 acres 

within the Analysis Area are managed by the USFS. There are approximately 300 acres currently being 

thinned under the Silver Doe Timber Sale within the Planning Area. There are approximately 675 acres 

of plantation commercial thinning identified under the Coastal Healthy Forest Treatment (CHFT) Project 

within the Analysis Area. Around 50 acres are currently being treated and treatments on the remaining 

acres may occur within the next 10 to 15 years. No USFS projects, which would remove or degrade oldgrowth/remnant trees, are occurring or are anticipated in the Project Areas or Analysis Area. 

Plum Creek Timber owns approximately 30,000 of the 39,731 acres within the Analysis Area. These 

acres appear to be on an approximate 40-50 year regeneration harvest rotation. There is little habitat on 

private land for other rare and uncommon species in the Analysis Area. The remaining approximately 

444 acres of the Analysis Area are managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), whose 

management practices are similar to the USFS.

Because there is minimal adverse effect from actions under this project on habitat for these species, there 

is not likely to be an adverse cumulative effect when considering the effects of past, present and 

foreseeable future other federal or private activities that are likely to occur within the Analysis Area. 

9. FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES & HABITATS

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on 

terrestrial wildlife species and habitats, identified as Forest Service Sensitive species. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-127

Final Environmental Impact Statement

FEIS Appendix G includes a complete Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation (incorporated by 

reference). Forest Service Manual (FSM) Chapter 2670 requires a Biological Evaluation to be prepared 

for the proposed Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine and 

document the possible effects that the proposed activity and alternatives would have on any Endangered, 

Threatened, Proposed, or Sensitive wildlife species (FSM 2672.4). This subsection discusses Forest 

Service Sensitive terrestrial wildlife species and habitats.

a. Background and Analysis Framework

In compliance with the Forest Service Biological Evaluation process for Proposed, Threatened, 

Endangered, and Sensitive (PETS) wildlife species, the list of species potentially occurring within the 

RRSNF was reviewed. The January 31, 2008 Pacific Northwest Region (R6) listing of species applicable 

to the RRSNF was reviewed in regard to potential effects on any of these species by actions associated 

with the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project. The following determinations are made:

Table III-35. R-6 Sensitive Species Known or Suspected to Occur on the RRSNF

R6 Sensitive Species Habitat Presence Species 

Presence

Determination Of 

Effects With Mitigation

American Peregrine Falcon Habitat Present Species Present MIIH

Bald Eagle Habitat Present Species Present NI

Harlequin Duck No Habitat Suspected NI

Lewis’ Woodpecker No Habitat NI

White-Headed Woodpecker Not Within Range

Northern Waterthrush Not Within Range

California Wolverine Not Within Range

Pacific Fisher Habitat Present Suspected MIIH

Pacific Pallid Bat Not Within Range

Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat Habitat Present Suspected NI

Fringed Myotis Habitat Present Suspected MIIH

Northwestern Pond Turtle Habitat Present Potential NI

Oregon Spotted Frog Not Within Range

Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Habitat Present Suspected NI

Siskiyou Mountains Salamander Not Within Range NI

California Slender Salamander Not Within Range

Black Salamander Not Within Range

Siskiyou Short-Horned Grasshopper Not Within Range

Coronis Fritillary No Habitat NI

Mardon Skipper No Habitat NI

Insular Blue Butterfly Not Within Range

Hoary Elfin Not Within Range

Johnson’s Hairstreak Habitat Present Suspected MIIH

Franklin’s Bumblebee Not Within Range

Siskiyou Hesperian Not Within Range

Crater Lake Tightcoil Not Within Range

Traveling Sideband Not Within Range

Green Sideband Not Within Range

Chace Sideband Not Within Range

Oregon Shoulderband Snail Not Within Range

Evening Fieldslug Not Within Range

NI = No Impact

MIIH = May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss 

of viability to the population or species
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-128

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Project Area is outside the known range for the following Sensitive species and they will not be 

discussed further: white-headed woodpecker, northern waterthrush, California wolverine, Pacific 

pallid bat, Oregon spotted frog, Siskiyou mountains salamander, California slender salamander, 

black salamander, Siskiyou short-horned grasshopper, insular blue butterfly, hoary elfin, 

Franklin’s bumblebee, Siskiyou hesperian, pristine springsnail, Crater Lake tightcoil, Pacific 

walker, robust walker, green sideband, Chace sideband, traveling sideband, Oregon shoulderband, 

evening field slug.

b. Description of Species Habitat and Management Requirements

American Peregrine Falcon (Falco pergrinus anatum)

The American peregrine falcon was identified as an Endangered species in the 1970s and then delisted in 

1999. Peregrine falcons are typically associated with cliffs, which serve as nesting and perching sites. 

Nest site criteria include ledges, potholes, and small caves that are near water, inaccessible to mammalian 

predators, and offer protection from rain and snow, and heat and cold. Peregrine falcons feed almost 

exclusively on birds.

Cliffs with suitable ledges provide nesting habitat for peregrine falcons. Peregrine habitat on the Siskiyou 

portion of the Forest is managed in accordance with the Regional Forester's letter of July 19, 1999 

(USDA 1999b) and Standard and Guideline 4-5 of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the 

Siskiyou National Forest (1989). To date, six active nests are known on the Siskiyou portion of the 

Forest. On 25 August 1999, the USDI (1999) Fish and Wildlife Service removed (delisted) the American 

peregrine falcon throughout its range as a threatened species from the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife, thereby removing all protections provided by the Act. A strategy for the 5-year 

monitoring plan that follows the delisting has been developed and is being implemented (FWS 2003). 

Evaluation of impacts of proposed actions on the peregrine falcon should follow the process described in 

FSM 2673.4 and be documented in the Biological Evaluation. If a proposed project may potentially 

adversely impact the species or its habitat, surveys using the Regional protocol should be conducted.

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Bald eagles were listed as Endangered in Oregon and elsewhere by the FWS in 1967 (USDI FWS 1967). 

The bald eagle was removed from the federal list of endangered and threatened plants and wildlife by a 

ruling published in the Federal Register on July 9, 2007 and effective August 8, 2007 (72 FR37345). 

Bald eagles continue to be protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. The Act 

prohibits disturbance, recently defined by FWS as: “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a 

degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an 

eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, 

or sheltering behavior” (50 CFR 22.3). 

The Final Environmental Assessment Proposal to Permit Take Provided Under the Bald and Golden 

Eagle Protection Act (USDI 2009) and Eagle Permits; Take Necessary to Protect Interests in Particular 

Localities; Final Rule (50 CFR Parts 13 and 22) finalizes permit regulations to authorize limited take of 

bald eagles and golden eagles under the Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act. 

Bald eagle habitat on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF is protected and managed in accordance with the 

Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USDI FWS 1986), and Standards and Guidelines 4-3 and 4-4 of the 

Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1989). As part of the recovery 

plan, key nesting habitat areas have been identified on the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF along the Rogue, 

Illinois, and Sixes Rivers (USDI FWS 1986).
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-129

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Most bald eagles nest within 0.6 to 1.2 miles of aquatic foraging areas, which is typically a lake, 

reservoir, large river, or coastal estuary (Anthony et al., 1982; Stalmaster 1987; Anthony and Isaacs 1989; 

Johnsgard 1990; Garrett et al., 1993). Nest trees are usually the dominant trees in the stand, often much 

larger than the surrounding trees (Anthony et al., 1982; Stalmaster 1987). The nest trees provide adequate 

support for the large nests, an open flight path to the nest, and a view of the surrounding terrain 

(Stalmaster 1987). Although bald eagles usually nest near water, they will search areas away from water 

to find suitable structure for their nest (Anthony et al., 1982; Stalmaster 1987). Young stands are 

avoided, but eagles do desire large openings in the canopy provided by lakes, rivers, and meadows 

(Stalmaster 1987).

Roosting and perching habitat is also important. Roost trees are often the largest trees in the stand 

(Anthony et al., 1982). When selecting roost trees, eagles choose trees providing greater shelter versus 

trees close to food. On the other hand, trees used for perching are usually near water and food. Perches 

are used for resting, hunting, and eating. The species of tree is less important than the location and form 

of the tree (Stalmaster 1987).

Bald eagles require an abundant supply of food because of their large size. Bald eagles feed on fish, 

waterfowl, small mammals, and carrion (Stalmaster 1987; Johnsgard 1990). The specific diet may vary 

by season and location (Stalmaster 1987).

On the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF, major rivers provide the best habitat for bald eagles. The South Fork 

Coquille River is the nearest large river, approximately 2.2 miles SW of the Planning Area. The nearest 

known nest is approximately 4.5 miles NW of the Planning Area and there are no known nests on the 

Powers Ranger District. 

The Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project is considered a “No Impact” for the Bald Eagle because there are 

no known nests within disturbance distances from the project and the project is beyond the distance where 

most bald eagles nest. 

Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus)

The harlequin duck is a short-distance east-west migrant that moves to breeding streams from Pacific 

coastal areas (Cooper and Wright, 1998). Harlequin ducks migrate northward and inland in spring, 

arriving at their breeding areas in the intermountain western U.S. late-April through mid-May, with males 

departing for west coast molting areas soon after females begin incubating (Spahr et al., 1991). Breeding 

females move to the coast later depending on breeding success and whether or not females abandon 

young. Non-breeding females also remain on rivers through the incubation period. Successful females 

and juveniles arrive on the coast in mid to late September. Some coastal breeding populations are 

probably non-migratory (Cooper and Wright, 1998). Young accompany their mothers to coastal molting 

or wintering areas in the late summer (Regehr et al., 2001). 

In Oregon, records of arrival on inland streams can be found from the first week of March, including a 

few reports of pairs (Dowlan 1996). Breeding occurs primarily on the rivers in northern Oregon, with 

occasional records from the Umpqua drainage. A pair was on Lost Creek in the McKenzie drainage in 

January, 1992, and an unspecified number of ducks was reported from the McKenzie in late February, 

1991. Pairs are seen on breeding streams in greatest numbers between the second week of April and the 

end of May, though a few records of pairs can be found through June. Some of these late observations 

appear to represent late-nesting or non-nesting pairs (Dowlan 1996). In September 2007, a female with 

young was photographed on the Powers RD (J. Lowe 2007, pers. com.). 

Inland, the harlequin duck dives for food in strong currents or fast-flowing streams, looking for prey on or 

near the bottom. Their diet is almost exclusively aquatic invertebrates, but also insects and a few small 

fish (Bellrose 1976). 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-130

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Harlequin ducks typically nest on the ground in well-concealed locations, usually on mid-stream islands 

(Wiggins 2005) although successful nest sites have also been located in tree cavities or cliff ledges which 

afford safety from high water (Street 1999). Occasionally harlequin ducks may nest up to 45m away from 

a stream (EUG BLM), but nests are typically located close (within 10m) to water and have some degree 

of vertical cover close to the nest (Bruner 1997; Robertson and Goudie, 1999). Nests may also be situated 

at the base of trees, on piles of woody debris, under fallen logs, or on sheltered banks (Robertson and 

Goudie, 1999). They will sometimes nest beside mountain lakes and lake outlets. They tend to breed in 

the same area in successive years. The male defends the female until incubation begins, then the pair 

bond ends (NatureServe 2010). The female harlequin lays her eggs in a mass of down; after the eggs are 

laid, the male migrates to the coast to molt (Street 1999). 

Harlequin ducks have been the focus of management actions in eastern North America, the Pacific 

Northwest, and in the Rocky Mountain states due to concern over declining populations. Relative to 

other species of ducks, they occur at low population densities and exhibit high breeding site fidelity, low 

reproductive rates, and delayed reproduction. All of these traits contribute to making harlequin duck 

populations particularly slow to recover from habitat degradation or loss (Wiggins 2005).

Suitable habitat for the species is not present in the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Planning Area; however, 

suitable habitat does exist within the watershed outside of the Planning Area. The Eden Ridge Timber 

Sales Project is a “No Impact” determination for the harlequin duck because suitable habitat for the 

harlequin duck does not exist in the Planning Area.

Lewis’ Woodpecker (Menalerpes lewis)

Lewis’ woodpeckers are migratory in southwestern Oregon, with sporadically large populations in the 

winter and scattered breeding pairs in the summer reported. Gilligan et al. (1994) reports that they are 

common breeders in summer in Jackson and Josephine Counties but in the last 10 years they have not 

been documented (N. Barrett 2008, pers. com.) and there are few recent breeding records (Janes et al., 

2002). This species is closely tied to the ponderosa pine/oak savannah habitats of eastern and southwest 

Oregon.

Nests are often in large ponderosa pine snags or mature oaks while the birds forage on insects and acorn 

meat. In winter they store acorn meat in crevices in trees and power poles. Because this woodpecker 

does not usually excavate its own cavity, they have a close tie to older snags within the forest that are 

likely to contain cavities and have crevices for food storage.

The population of Lewis’ woodpeckers has fallen dramatically across Oregon as pine – oak woodlands 

are lost (Gilligan et al., 1994). A contributing factor in the decline has been the spread of the European 

starling, which aggressively out-competes this species for available cavities. Habitat loss is due to a wide 

variety of concerns that include urbanization of valley floors, fire suppression and encroachment of 

conifer forests, timber harvest of pine components in the oak forests, etc.

Suitable habitat for the species is not present in the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project Area or along the 

haul route; therefore, a “No Impact” determination for Lewis’ woodpecker has been made for this 

project.

Pacific Fisher (Martes pennanti)

Pacific fisher was petitioned for listing by the Center for Biological Diversity and several other 

environmental organizations in November 2000. After a 12 month review, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service found Pacific fisher to be a distinct population segment (DPS) and gave a “warranted but 

precluded” decision to the petition, designating the West Coast DPS a Federal Candidate species (USDI 

2004). 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-131

Final Environmental Impact Statement

According to reviews, the fisher occurs throughout most of Canada and possibly extreme southeastern 

Alaska. Its distribution extends south through several forested areas of the northeastern United States. In 

the western United States, fisher populations are known to occur in western Montana, the Idaho 

panhandle, the southern Sierra Nevada of California, the Klamath and Siskiyou mountains of 

northwestern California and extreme southwestern Oregon, and the southern Cascade Range of 

southwestern Oregon. There has been a recent fisher reintroduction effort in the Olympic Peninsula in 

2007 and 2008 (Happe et al., 2008).

The fisher is one of the most habitat-specialized mammals in western North America (Buskirk and 

Powell, 1994). Specialization appears to be tied primarily to denning and resting habitats. The varied diet 

of fishers suggests they may forage in a variety of habitats.

Fishers use landscapes at different spatial scales for different behaviors and activities (Powell 1994). For 

example, fishers may establish their home ranges at the landscape scale, forage at the patch scale, and 

select habitat for resting or denning at the patch scale as well as at a finer scale of habitat characteristics 

of elements within a patch (Powell 1994; Powell and Zielinski, 1994). 

Cavities in both conifers and hardwoods are used by fishers for resting. However, to create suitable rest 

cavities, trees must be old enough to have suffered the type of stresses that create infection courts for 

heartrot fungi, and large enough to form cavities large enough to be used by fishers (Zielinski et al., 

2004). Large trees also provide platform-type resting structures such as mistletoe brooms, clumped 

branches that support rodent nests, or rust brooms that can support the weight of fishers. Once these large 

trees die and fall, they become the type of log that fishers have been known to use as rest sites. Removal 

of understory and mid-story canopies around large structures may also reduce the effectiveness of the 

structure as a secure rest site because they contribute to the microclimate of the site. Under- and midstory canopies probably also provide some protection for female and juvenile fishers from predation or 

harassment by large raptors and mobbing by corvids because sight distance is reduced in dense, multistoried stands.

Fishers appear to be a generalist predator and opportunistic in their foraging strategies, which is reflected 

in their diverse diet (Zielinski and Duncan 2004; Aubry et al., 2002; Zielinski et al., 1999; Powell 1993). 

There is some indication of seasonal variation in the fisher’s diet (Zielinski et al., 1999) which is likely 

linked to seasonal abundance of prey and forage species. While fishers require structures provided by 

older aged or residual stands for denning and resting, they appear to use a wider variety of stands for 

foraging. Jones and Garton (1994) found that fishers did not use non-forested sites while resting or 

hunting, but they did use pole-sapling forests for hunting significantly more than for resting. The 

inclusion of berries in the diet of fishers suggests that they do forage, at least occasionally or seasonally, 

in more open stands where many fruit-bearing shrubs and forbs are found. 

Fishers have not been detected in the Analysis Area. There are 4 observations of fisher for the Powers 

Ranger District, the nearest being over 15 miles from a proposed treatment unit under the Eden Ridge 

Project. 

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)

Townsend’s big-eared bats can be distinguished by their enormous ears, up to 40 millimeters in length 

and by the glandular masses on their muzzles. They are medium sized and have dull, soft hair. Their 

backs vary from brown, grayish brown, to black, with paler undersides. Their ears are by far the largest 

ears of any bat along the Oregon coast. Their flight membranes are dark brown and very thin.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-132

Final Environmental Impact Statement

They occur in a wide variety of habitats, its distribution tends to be geomorphically determined and is 

strongly correlated with the availability of caves or cave-like roosting habitat (e.g., old mines) (Pierson et 

al., 1999). Saul and others (1977) found Townsend’s big-eared bats roosting in a variety of structures in 

southwest Oregon: caves, bridges, abandoned mines, barns and houses. Suitable roosts sites and 

hibernacula fall within a specific range of temperature and moisture conditions. The species may also use 

tree cavities for night roosting. 

Moths make up the majority of the diet for C. townsendii, but they will also ingest beetles, true bugs, and 

flies. Their flight is slow, and they are able to hover at a point that interests them. In addition to foraging 

on the wing, they will take insects from foliage. 

The proposed project does not affect caves, mines, wooden bridges, or buildings. The Eden Ridge 

Timber Sales Project would have “No Impact” on the Townsend’s big-eared bat because suitable 

habitat for this species would not be impacted. 

Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes)

Csuti et al. (1997) considered this species a cave-dwelling bat, even though most of the specimens they 

examined were from buildings. It appears to be adapted to living in areas with diverse vegetative 

substrates. In SW Oregon, M. thysanodes appears to be a snag obligate and they are known to roost 

within and under the bark of snags (D. Clayton, pers. obs.). 

Current management direction is the Northwest Forest Plan ROD page C-43. This standard and 

Guideline provides additional protection for caves, mines and abandoned wooded bridges and buildings 

that are used as roost sites for bats. There are no documented sightings for the area, however, they are 

known to occur in the coast range and are suspected to occur within the Analysis Area. 

Northwestern Pond Turtle (Emmys marmorata marmorata)

Northwestern pond turtles are capable of living in a wide variety of aquatic habitats. The northwestern 

pond turtle inhabits marshes, ponds, lakes, reservoirs, sloughs, and slow moving portions of creeks and 

rivers (Nussbaum et al., 1983; Stebbins 1985; Brown et al., 1995). Pond turtles may also be found in 

abandoned gravel pits, stock ponds, and sewage treatment plants (Holland 1994). In the Rogue River 

drainage, records of pond turtle sightings are almost equally divided amongst rivers, larger-order streams, 

and small ponds (Holland 1994).

The size of habitats used by northwestern pond turtles is quite variable from place to place. Turtles have 

been observed using small ephemeral ponds only a few square meters in size (Holland 1994). On the 

other hand, turtles are also known to live in Upper Klamath Lake which covers an area of several dozen 

square kilometers. In areas where water is present only part of the year, turtles aestivate in the mud in the 

watercourse or in upland areas during late summer or early spring (Holland 1994). Pond turtles seem to 

prefer areas that possess some type of refugia such as undercut banks, submerged vegetation, rocks, logs, 

or mud (Nussbaum et al., 1983; Stebbins 1985; Holland 1994; Brown et al., 1995). Areas containing 

basking sites for thermoregulation such as rocks, logs, or emergent vegetation are also preferred 

(Nussbaum et al., 1983; Stebbins 1985; Holland 1994; Brown et al., 1995). Partially submerged logs, 

vegetation mats, mud banks, rocks, and tree branches provide areas for sunning (Nussbaum et al., 1983; 

Stebbins 1985).

There is some habitat for northwestern pond turtles within the Analysis Area. However, it is unlikely that 

any Action Alternative would impact turtles because suitable habitat would not be changed, removed or 

degraded by the proposed thinning activities or connected actions. Therefore, a “No Impact”

determination for northwestern pond turtle has been made for the project.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-133

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii)

Foothill yellow-legged frogs live in sections of low-gradient streams with exposed bedrock or rock and 

gravel substrates. They lay their eggs in late spring or early summer, and they attach them to the bottom 

of quiet scour-pools or riffles in gentle-gradient streams, often where there is only slight flow from the 

main river. Hatchlings cling to the egg mass initially, and then to rocks. Tadpoles live in pools that often 

have a connection to the main river flow, but little or no silt. Froglets live in pools with gravel and 

cobbles. 

Adults live in pool edges (often in a deep pool with sedge clumps around the edge), in bedrock at the edge 

of the main channel or under cobbles at the bottom of the pool (Corkran and Thoms, 1996). This is 

mainly a frog of rocky or gravelly streams in southwestern Oregon and is seldom seen far from water. 

Habitat is confined to the immediate vicinity of permanent streams below 1,800 feet, including those that 

may be reduced to waterholes connected by trickles during the dry season (Nussbaum et al., 1983). The 

FAUNA database contains no records of sightings of foothill yellow-legged frog in the Eden Ridge 

Timber Sales Analysis Area.

The Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project would have “No Impact” on the foothill yellow-legged frog 

because suitable habitat for this species would not be impacted. 

Mardon Skipper (Polites mardon)

Mardon skippers are univoltine, completing one life cycle annually. Adults typically emerge between 

May and July, but possibly later at higher elevations. Individuals live between five days and two weeks 

(Potter et al., 2002). A unique feature of this species is that it is reported as spending its entire life cycle 

in one location, without migration. Its dispersal distance is unknown. Eggs are laid into tufts of Festuca

spp. bunchgrass upon which the larvae feed for approximately 3 months. Hibernation is believed to occur 

in the grass as well (USDA and USDI BLM 2007).

Adult skippers feed on nectar from a variety of herbaceous plants though they also make use of other 

grass/forbs including such species as common camas (Camassia quamash), western buttercup 

(Ranunculus occidentalis), and Idaho blue-eyed-grass (Sisyrinchium idahoense). The southern Oregon 

populations are reported as occupying small (0.5 – 10 ac.) high-elevation (4,500 – 5,100 ft.) grassy 

meadows with mixed conifer forests. 

Surveys into areas neighboring known populations has expanded knowledge considerably from 37 known 

in 1999 to over 60 sites in 2004. Additional surveys in 2005 located approximately 11 additional sites in 

Oregon, and one additional site on the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. 

In 2005, four new Mardon skipper sites were located on Rogue River National Forest lands 6.5 km north 

of Medford District BLM sites in the southern Oregon Cascades. The 2007 total of approximately 73 

sites is almost double the number of sites known in 1999. However, this increase is likely not due to 

increased habitat or expanding populations, but instead due to increased survey effort in areas not 

previously surveyed (Kerwin and Huff, 2007).

There is a historical record of the skipper from 2 miles north of Gold Beach just inland of the beach. The 

skipper has been found at Lone Ranch Beach in Curry County north of Brookings during surveys in 2007 

(Ross 2007). In 2008, another new site was located in the Signal Butte area on BLM land approximately 

0.75 miles west of the Forest boundary (USDI, 2008). In 2009, a site was located in the Quosatana 

watershed on the Gold Beach Ranger District. In 2010, another site in the Signal Buttes area was 

discovered as well as a large site in the East Fork Pistol watershed was discovered. Occupied sites in 

Curry County have all been in wet serpentine meadow with adjacent dry meadow habitat. These habitat 

characteristics do not occur in any proposed treatment units. No records currently exist for the Powers 

Ranger District. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-134

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The meadows in the Planning Area are typically sandstone, not serpentine, and are not included within 

proposed treatment areas. The Action Alternatives are not expected to impact Mardon skipper habitat and 

is very unlikely to affect individuals; therefore, the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project is considered “No 

Impact” for Mardon skipper.

Johnson’s Hairstreak (Callophrys johnsoni)

This small brown butterfly occurs in isolated pockets in the western mountains of California up into 

British Columbia. At lower elevations on the west slope of the Cascade Mountains and in the Coast 

Range, M. johnsoni feeds on Arceuthobium tsugense growing on large mature western hemlock in oldgrowth forests. 

Butterflies fly in the forest canopy most of the time, but may nectar on flowers in open areas along 

roadsides. At higher elevations in the Cascade Mountains, this species feeds on A. abietinum growing on 

true firs in subalpine forests. Southward, M. johnsoni is particularly associated with an Arceuthobium 

growing on Brewer spruce at high elevations in the Siskiyou Mountains of southwestern Oregon and 

northwestern California (Miller and Hammond, 2007). On the RRSNF, range maps indicate a population 

in the coastal mountains of Coos, Curry and Josephine counties. A second population is in northern 

Jackson County around Crater Lake National Park. 

This butterfly is an old-growth obligate and spends much of its time in the tops of mature conifer forests, 

making survey efforts extremely difficult. They do nectar on some plants, like Oregon grape and males 

come into damp earth sites, such as seeps and springs. Caterpillars feed on pine dwarf mistletoe 

(Arceuthobium campylopodum) which grows on pines and others conifers. It is also known to use coastal 

hemlock mistletoe. Timber harvest of mature forests may be a potential threat (NatureServe 2010). 

Coronis Fritillary (Speyeria coronis coronis)

A relatively large (~ 3in.) butterfly that occurs in lower Rogue & Illinois River valleys of Jackson and 

Josephine counties. It is expected in Coos, Curry and Douglas counties and locally distributed in the 

Siskiyous.

The coronis fritillary inhabits lower elevation canyons and grasslands as well as mid-montane meadows 

and forest margins and openings (Pyle 2002). Caterpillars spend winter in first instar before feeding (Pyle 

2002). In spring larvae feed mostly on Viola hallii, found in rocky serpentine habitats (Hammond pers. 

comm.). Adults seem to move uphill shortly after emerging, probably in search of nectar (Warren 2005). 

Adults find nectar on bull thistle, other composites, and chokecherry (Pyle 2002). Females, at least, 

apparently return to basin habitats later in the season to deposit eggs. The single annual brood flies from 

mid-May to mid-September.

Rocky serpentine meadow habitat does not occur in the Analysis Area or within proposed treatment units. 

The project is not expected to impact habitat and is very unlikely to affect individuals. The Eden Ridge 

Timber Sales Project is considered a “No Impact “for coronis fritillary.

c. Direct and Indirect Effects of Action Alternatives

This subsection discusses effects to species that were determined to be potentially affected by commercial 

thinning activities and/or connected actions (see above).

American Peregrine Falcon 

The presence of humans detected by a raptor in its nesting or hunting habitat can be a significant habitataltering disturbance even if the human is far from an active nest (Knight and Temple, 1995). Some 

peregrine falcons are extremely sensitive and refuse to breed if humans have been in the vicinity of their 

aeries (Olsen and Olsen, 1980). Even brief absence by parent birds can lead to missed feedings, predation 

on eggs or young, or to overheating, chilling, or desiccation of eggs or young (Suter and Joness, 1981). 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-135

Final Environmental Impact Statement

There is one known peregrine falcon site within the Analysis Area. Three proposed treatment units 

associated with all Action Alternatives (#401, #402, and #403) are within the disturbance distances and 

would be seasonally restricted for all activities - January 1 to July 31. Additional units that are within 

disturbance distances (e.g., Units 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309 and 310) may require 

seasonal restrictions if helicopters are anticipated as the yarding system (Alternatives 2 and 3; Alternative 

4 only includes Unit 310). 

Until a Site Management Plan is developed, disturbance distances for seasonal restrictions have been 

designated at the maximum distance for the primary management zone of 800 m radius (Pagel 1991). 

However, based on the aspect, topography and location of the aerie, an additional 800 meters has been 

added to the NW half of the initial primary management zone radius. Maintenance activities on portions 

of Roads 5000-200, 5000-210, and 5000-290 would also be seasonally restricted January 1 to July 31 or 

until it has been determined by the district wildlife biologist that either fledging has occurred or that the 

site is unoccupied (see Wildlife Report PDF #10 and FEIS Chapter II). 

Any helicopter landing locations within 1 mile of the known or any newly found peregrine falcon sites 

would require approval of the district wildlife biologist prior to implementation (see Wildlife Report PDF 

#11 and FEIS Chapter II). 

All Action Alternatives of the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project “may adversely impact individuals, but 

not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area (Siskiyou National Forest), nor cause a 

trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range wide” for the American peregrine falcon

due to the potential for disturbance to individuals and potential limited adverse effects to prey species 

from treatments. 

Pacific Fisher

Thinning may reduce existing canopy closure of between 70 to 100%, to between 40 and 50%, which 

could result in a reduction of denning, resting and foraging habitat for 10-15 years, until shrub and tree 

canopy closure. This would occur incrementally over the life of this project, since the proposed 3,314 

acres (Alternative 2) would be broken into multiple sales over an approximate 5 year span. Some 

remnant trees may be felled as hazards but would be subject to Wildlife Report PDF #9 (i.e., would not be 

removed; see FEIS Chapter II).

Although, Fisher have not been detected in the Analysis Area, suitable habitat is present and would be 

affected by the Action Alternatives. Occupation is assumed, therefore All Action Alternatives under the 

Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss 

of viability on the planning area (Siskiyou National Forest), nor cause a trend to federal listing or a 

loss of species viability range wide,” for Pacific fisher because it could result in a reduction of denning, 

resting and foraging habitat.

Fringed Myotis

The project does not affect caves, mines, wooden bridges, or buildings. As such, no impact is expected to 

these potential bat roost sites. By design, the project maintains and promotes the development of large 

trees, large snags and decadent trees which could serve as roosting habitat. However, some larger 

snagsmay be felled as hazard trees during this project; they would not be removed or would be utilized as 

habitat improvement structures. 

Due to minor direct and indirect effects, the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project “may adversely impact 

individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area (Siskiyou National 

Forest), nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range wide,” under all Action 

Alternatives for fringed myotis because there may be some impacts to existing snags or trees with 

cavities. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-136

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Johnson’s Hairstreak

Because surveys have not been conducted in the Project Area and potential habitat may occur in treatment 

units, occupation is assumed and all Action Alternatives for the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project “may 

adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area 

(Siskiyou National Forest), nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range 

wide” for Johnson’s hairstreak due to the removal of trees which may have mistletoe. Adverse effects 

are limited because the scale of impacts is very small compared to the scale of the distribution of this 

species and mistletoe would continue to persist within the Analysis Area, as should this species if it does 

occur.

Similar and/or Related Actions are included under the Action Alternatives; they are designed as 

resource enhancement, restoration, or improvements, and are described in detail in FEIS Chapter II, 

Section D, 2, h. These actions would occur in proximity to commercial and silvicultural stand treatments. 

Included are Non-Commercial Treatments proposed for 363 acres within the ER Planning Area (see Table 

II-6 and MAP II-2), Snag/Down Wood Creation, Meadow Enhancement, Stream Enhancement, Native 

Grass/Forb Seeding, Invasive Plant Treatments, and Other Wildlife Opportunities. The effects from these 

actions are minor is scope and context, and would minimally add to the consequences of the Action 

Alternatives. In most cases the actual effects are beneficial to the above species. 

d. Cumulative Effects

Because this project would create minimal adverse effects on regionally sensitive wildlife species, 

cumulative effects would remain insignificant when added to the effects of past, present and foreseeable 

future activities likely to occur. The viability of all Region 6 Sensitive species within the Analysis Area 

would be maintained.

Cumulative Effects include the effects of past, present and foreseeable future State, local, or private 

activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the Analysis Area. Cumulative effects compound the 

effects of loss of habitat and harassment potential associated with timber harvest operations and other 

activities on both private and public lands. The Eden Ridge Timber Sales Planning Area is basically an 

island of Forest Service land, surrounded by Private and Bureau of Land Management land. Due to the 

private ownership status of the area surrounding the Planning Area, vehicular access by the public is 

currently limited to only the eastern portion. 

Present and foreseeable future actions that may affect Sensitive terrestrial wildlife species or habitats 

within the Analysis Area include: fuels treatments, developed and dispersed recreation, timber harvest 

and vegetation treatments, reforestation, restoration, road management, and special uses. All of these 

activities would be designed to meet the direction provided within the Land and Resource Management 

Plan (as amended) (and in accord with Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives (NWFP 1994, Siskiyou 

NF LRMP, 1989).

Density management effects of this project also combine with those of district-wide pre-commercial 

thinning, commercial thinning, meadow restoration, and danger tree felling. Approximately 8,634 acres 

within the Analysis Area are managed by the USFS. There are approximately 300 acres currently being 

thinned under the Silver Doe Timber Sale within the Planning Area. There are approximately 675 acres 

of plantation commercial thinning identified under the Coastal Healthy Forest Treatment (CHFT) Project 

within the Analysis Area.

Road access around the peregrine falcon site is not available to the general public. All access is through 

private gates, and the Forest Service has access through a Cost Share Agreement. However, it is likely 

that peregrine falcons have habituated to vehicular traffic from harvest activity on the private timber 

lands. There are other potential nesting and roosting sites within the Analysis Area on private lands. It is 

not known whether peregrine falcons utilize these areas. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-137

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Density management projects could reduce canopy closure for 10-15 years until the shrub and tree 

canopies return. Stands that lack remnant tree structure likely only function as foraging habitat for fisher. 

Density management would likely increase growth and allow young stands to become suitable for fisher 

sooner than if they were not treated. No USFS projects, which would remove or degrade oldgrowth/remnant trees (other than felling when safety hazards), are occurring or are anticipated in the 

Project Areas or Analysis Area.

Plum Creek Timber owns approximately 30,000 of the 39,731 acres within the Analysis Area. These 

acres appear to be on an approximate 40-50 year regeneration harvest rotation. There is little habitat on 

private land for Pacific fisher in the Analysis Area because the vast majority of it is non-forested. Jones 

and Garton (1994) found that fishers did not use non-forested sites while resting or hunting. The 

remaining approximately 444 acres of the Analysis Area are managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), whose management practices are similar to the USFS.

There is potential for some existing snags or trees with cavities to be felled as hazards in conjunction with 

future Forest Service activities. This could occur on future CHFT thinning projects and hazard tree 

felling along open roads. Hazard tree felling is likely to have minimal cumulative impact to fringed 

myotis because of the intensity (only a few trees per mile). 

Activities on private lands within the Analysis Area are likely to have similar impacts. Past and current 

removal of snags as hazard trees along roads and within timber harvest units occur. There is likely little 

recruitment of future snags within private timber lands because of regeneration harvest practices. The 

amount and disposition of abandoned wooden bridges and buildings is unknown; however, the few that 

are known to exist would not be impacted by future Forest Service project. 

Since Johnson’s hairstreak is an old-growth obligate, it is not expected to occur in any CHFT projects. 

No other federal or private projects are anticipated to occur within the analysis area which would remove 

or degrade substantial numbers of old-growth/remnant trees. 

10. TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on 

Forest Plan Management Indicator Species. 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) associated with the Siskiyou NF LRMP (USDA 1989) represent the 

issues, concerns, and opportunities to support recovery of Federally-listed species, provide continued 

viability of Sensitive species, and enhance management of wildlife and fish for commercial, recreational, 

scientific, subsistence, or aesthetic values or uses. FEIS Appendix G includes a complete Wildlife Report 

(incorporated by reference) that contains more detail on MIS.

a. Background and Analysis Framework

Management indicators representing overall objectives for wildlife, fish, and plants may include species, 

groups of species with similar habitat relationships, or habitats that are of high concern (FSM 2621.1). 

An indicator species represents all other wildlife species which utilize a similar habitat type. Indicator 

species act as a barometer for the health of various habitats and will be monitored to quantify habitat 

changes predicted by implementation of the Forest Plan (1989 pages IV-10 and 11, FEIS page III-102). 

The Forest has developed the Siskiyou National Forest MIS Forest-Wide Environmental Baseline and 

Species Account (USDA Forest Service, 2012) to which this document incorporates by reference. Please 

refer to this document for background information that includes a more exhaustive review of habitat use 

and ecology, distribution of the species, Forest-level habitat evaluations, and viability assessments.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-138

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table III-36. Management Indicator Species and Habitat Requirements (SNF LRMP Page IV-11)

Species Habitat Represented

Bald eagle* Habitat along major rivers

Spotted owl* Old growth forest

Osprey Habitat along large rivers

Pileated woodpecker Mature/interior forest

Woodpeckers (others) Wildlife trees (snags) 

American marten Mature/interior forest

Black-tailed deer Early successional forest stages

Roosevelt elk Early successional forest stages

* Bald eagle is discussed in Forest Service Sensitive Species, Section E, 9, above. Spotted owl is discussed in Threatened Species Section 

E, 7, above.

b. Description of Species Habitat and Management Requirements

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus)

Ospreys are commonly observed along the South Fork Coquille River, the Rogue River, Elk River and in 

the Chetco fifth-field watersheds. This species is closely associated with open water (lakes, rivers, and 

streams). Ospreys historically have required large live trees (usually with broken tops) or large snags for 

nesting. By the mid-1970s they had begun to use artificial nest platforms, poles and other man-made 

structures (Marshall et al., 2003). Ospreys arrive during early spring (March), nest, and then leave for 

wintering grounds by October. Their primary diet includes fish and lamprey, which they hunt while in 

flight. Nests in Oregon are usually located within 2 miles of water and accessible fish populations 

(Marshall et al., 2003).

The nearest known osprey nest is approximately 1 mile from the haul route and over 3 miles from the 

nearest proposed treatment unit associated with the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project. Road construction 

and thinning treatment activities are not likely to occur near any undiscovered nests because activities 

would not occur near the main stem of the South Fork Coquille, where osprey are likely to nest. Project 

activities would not cut mature trees or large snags, except when determined to be a safety risk. As a 

result, it is unlikely that a potential nest tree would be removed or impacted. No impacts to osprey or 

their nesting habitat are likely to occur. 

Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus)

Pileated woodpeckers are generally associated (feeds and breeds) with the Mixed forest habitat type, and 

is present in the Oak habitat type. Pileated woodpeckers use mature and older, closed canopy stands for 

nesting and roosting, but may use younger (40-70 years), closed-canopy stands for foraging if large snags 

are available; large snags and decadent trees are critical habitat components for pileated woodpeckers; 

down logs do not appear to be an important foraging substrate for pileated woodpeckers on the west side 

of Oregon and Washington (Hartwig et al., 2004; Mellen et al., 1992; Raley and Aubry, 2006).

In the Coast Range of western Oregon, pileated woodpeckers prefer deciduous riparian habitats and forest 

stands > 40 years of age for foraging, however, nests and roosts were located only in forest stands > 70 

years of age (Mellen et al., 1992). Nests were predominantly in broken topped snags; Douglas-fir was the 

primary species used, with a few nests in red alder. Roosts were in snags and live trees and substantially 

larger in dbh than nest trees; Douglas-fir was the predominant species used, but also red alder, big-leaf 

maple, and western redcedar (Mellen 1987).

The selected alternative for the Northwest Forest Plan was determined to meet the NFMA requirement to 

provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities (USDA and USDI 1994a). The pileated 

woodpecker was one of 36 birds determined to be closely associated with late-successional and oldgrowth forests, with occurrence of large snags necessary for optimal habitat (USDA and USDI 1994b; 

3&4-177). 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-139

Final Environmental Impact Statement

A viability assessment was completed by the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT

1993). The viability outcome for the pileated woodpecker was 100 percent likelihood of Outcome A –

“Habitat is of sufficient quality, distribution, and abundance to allow the species population to stabilize, 

well distributed across federal lands” (USDA and USDI 1994b; 3&4-179). This outcome determination 

was based on provisions of: 1) a large system of late-successional reserves, 2) standards and guidelines 

for Riparian Reserves, and 3) retention of green trees, snags, and coarse woody debris within the Matrix. 

The Forest Service has been implementing the NWFP and monitoring late-successional habitat trends 

since 1994. The 10-year monitoring report (Haynes et al., 2006) states “...it appears that the status and 

trends in abundance, diversity, and ecological functions of older forests are generally consistent with 

expectations of the Plan. The total area of late-successional and old-growth forest (older forests) has 

increased at a rate that is somewhat higher than expected, and losses from wildfires are in line with what 

was anticipated.” 

Woodpecker Group

The woodpecker group includes acorn, black-backed, downy, hairy, Lewis’, and white-headed 

woodpeckers, as well as northern flickers and red-breasted sapsuckers. These species are generally 

associated (feeds and breeds) with oak woodland, mixed forest, and/or grassland habitat types. 

Woodpeckers excavate nests in snags and trees. They also forage in decayed wood. White-headed and 

black-backed woodpeckers are unlikely inhabitants of the fifth-field watersheds. 

Acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus): This species is common in the Rogue Valley and 

adjacent hills and was thought to be likely extirpated in Coos Co, although a likely wandering or 

vagrant individual was observed for a period of 4 days in Powers during the spring of 2011 (Lowe 

pers. obs., 2011). Species is typically restricted to oaks, mixed conifer/oak, and tanoak, but uses 

adjacent stands (Marshall et al., 2003). 

Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus): This species is rare to locally common near the 

summit and on the west side of the Cascades. The westernmost extent of its range is in the Siskiyou 

Mountains. It has been found in most types of conifer forests but observations increase dramatically 

if the forest contains a high proportion of dead trees. It is most abundant in recently burned or beetle 

killed forests. 

Downy woodpecker (Picoides pubeseus): This species is found mostly at low to moderate elevation 

in deciduous and mixed deciduous-coniferous forests, and less often in coniferous forests (Marshall et 

al., 2003). All but one of several nest reports from Oregon were in dead trees. A preference is shown 

for decayed wood for nesting, though sound wood is also utilized (Marshall et al., 2003). 

Hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus): This species is resident in forests throughout Oregon with 

the exception of juniper. It is common throughout most of range, but uncommon to fairly common 

along the coast and in western interior valleys. Found primarily in mixed-conifer and ponderosa pine 

forests, as well as adjacent deciduous stands, especially during the breeding season (Marshall et al., 

2003). 

Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis): This species is associated with open woodland habitat near 

water. Primarily breeds in Oregon white oak, ponderosa pine, and riparian cottonwood communities 

and important components of this breeding habitat include open woodland canopy and large-diameter 

dead or dying trees. Formerly widespread, it is currently common year-round only in the white oakponderosa pine belt east of Mt. Hood (Marshall et al., 2003).

White-headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus): This species occurs mainly in open ponderosa 

pine or mixed-conifer forests dominated by ponderosa pine. A small population exists in true firs in 

the Siskiyou Mountains southwest of Ashland. In addition to uncut old-growth, they commonly use 

areas which have undergone various silvicultural treatments if large-diameter ponderosa pine and 

other old-growth components remain (Marshall et al., 2003). 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-140

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Red-breasted sapsucker (Sphyrapicus ruber): This species is found in moist coniferous coastal 

forest and mixed deciduous-coniferous forest west of the Cascade crest. Studies in the Oregon 

Cascades, Coast Range, and S. Washington Cascades showed increasing abundance with stand age 

and a close association with old-growth forest. Nest cavities are typically in large snags or live trees 

with decayed interiors (Marshall et al., 2003). 

Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus): Northern flickers are a common resident throughout Oregon 

(Marshall et al., 2003). Northern flickers may be encountered in almost any terrestrial habitat, but are 

generally most abundant in open forests and forest edges adjacent to open country. They typically 

avoid dense forest (Marshall et al., 2003). Most nests in forested areas are in older open forests, 

along older forest edges, and in larger-diameter remnant snags (Marshall et al., 2003).

American marten (Martes americana)

Hargis et al. (1999) stated that in North America, American martens are closely associated with mature 

conifer stands with complete canopy closure, and small (<100m), limited, and interspersed openings that 

are used as forage areas. Thomas et al. (1993) and Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team 

(FEMAT 1993) list marten as “closely associated” with late-successional and old-growth forests and the 

old-growth elements of large snags and down logs. 

The reports also indicate a strong relationship of marten with riparian areas. Buskirk (1992) reported that 

knowledge is almost completely lacking regarding behavioral or population responses of martens to such 

landscape attributes as stand size, stand shape, area of stand interiors, amount of edge, stand insularity, 

use of corridors, and connectivity. 

Marten use a variety of structures for rest and den sites. Resting and denning sites offer protection from 

predation and thermal stress; thus, availability of quality denning sites likely increases the rates of 

survival and fecundity in marten (Raphael and Jones, 1997).

In northwestern California, Slauson and Zielinski (2009) found marten rest sites primarily in old-growth 

stands, which were used disproportionate to their availability. In serpentine habitats, rock piles and shrub 

clumps made up 42% of rest sites.

The diet of American marten is highly diverse. In the western United States in winter, most prey are 

captured beneath the snow surface, but squirrels may be caught in trees (Buskirk and Ruggiero, 1994). 

Snags, downfall, and large woody material provide cover, denning sites, and access points to forage areas 

below the snow (subnivean habitat). Zielinski and Duncan (2004) found that in the southern Sierra 

Nevada, diets of both marten and fisher were more diverse than previously reported for North America. 

Of the major taxonomic groups, mammals were most common followed by insects and plants (mostly 

fruits).

Black-tailed Deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus)

Black-tailed deer are an edge adapted species using dense hiding cover during the day, emerging in the 

morning and evening to feed in more open areas (Maser et al., 1981). Throughout much of western 

Oregon, black-tailed deer reside year-round in relatively flat areas at mid to low elevations, on south 

facing slopes dominated by vine maple (Acer circinatum), huckleberry (Vaccinium spp), and salal 

(Gaultheria shallon) plant communities (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2008).

Black-tailed deer rely upon several different successional stages of vegetation to meet their life needs. 

Areas with heavy canopy closure are used during all seasons. In summer, areas of heavy canopy closure 

are used to facilitate thermal regulation during periods of high temperatures. During winter, heavy 

canopy closure moderates temperatures and intercepts snowfall during winter storms. The reduction of 

snow depth under heavy canopy reduces energetic expenditure during movements of deer and provides 

areas of browse that would normally be under the snow surface. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-141

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Areas with little or no overstory canopy cover are important for deer as forage areas. Forest gaps and 

natural openings provide optimal conditions for shrubs and forbs to grow, which deer depend on for 

forage. Quality deer ranges provide both forested conditions for thermal regulation and hiding/escape 

cover interspersed with open areas for optimal foraging conditions. Decreased canopy closure in young 

stands should provide increased light and resources for forage plants.

Roosevelt Elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti)

Summer Roosevelt elk forage consists of a combination of lush forbs, grasses, and shrubs high in 

nutrients and easily digestible. Generally, higher elevation wet meadows, springs, and riparian areas in 

close proximity to forested stands offer these conditions for the longest period. Such areas provide 

nutritious forage and moist, cool places for bedding and escaping summer heat and insects (Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2003).

Elk achieve peak body condition during late summer and fall. Winter survival depends on fat reserves 

animals are able to store, thus, quality forage during summer and fall is crucial. Additionally, this forage 

is needed to meet the rigors of breeding and migration for those animals moving to winter ranges. The 

late summer/fall period can be critical on many elk ranges during drought years (Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, 2003). 

Winter is when elk survival is severely tested. Day length shortens, temperatures drop, and rain and snow 

increase. Forage becomes less abundant and accessible, and nutritional quality declines. Elk energy 

requirements can be high, and during this time they are dependent on stores of body fat. At this time they 

increasingly seek out an environment that helps minimize energy consumption. Such areas typically 

provide protection against weather and offer security for minimizing harassment or disturbance. During a 

typical winter, elk may lose 20 to 25 percent of their body weight. Elk losing more than 30 percent body 

weight likely will not survive (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2003).

Cover is an important component of elk habitat and provides both thermal and hiding properties. During 

summer it provides cooler, shaded areas for elk to bed during the heat of the day. During winter it 

provides a warmer, protected environment out of the cold, wind, rain, or snow. Lichens and other plants 

associated with cover can be an important source of forage for wintering animals. Adequate thermal 

cover reduces the energy needed by elk and contributes to over winter survival (Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, 2003). 

Deer and Elk Effects Mechanisms

Cook et al. (2004), reviewed four thermal cover studies conducted on elk and deer across North America 

and concluded that they indicate the thermal cover benefit attributed to dense forest cover is probably not 

operative across a considerable range of climate, including climates in boreal ecosystems of the 

northeastern United States, maritime ecosystems of the inland Pacific Northwest, and in cold, dry 

ecosystems of the central Rocky Mountains. 

Cook et al. (2004) also concluded that the experimental studies outlined above evaluated the weather 

moderating influences of forest cover (i.e., influences on wind speed, ambient temperature, and long- and 

short-wave radiation fluxes). They did not evaluate other potentially beneficial aspects of forest cover, 

which under some circumstances could include enhanced security, reduced snow depth and a better 

foraging environment. Thus, results of these experimental studies cannot be used to categorically reject 

all potential benefits of forest cover to elk.

Hiding cover is also referred to as security cover and allows elk to escape and hide from intrusions or 

disturbances. These intrusions can be human (hunters, vehicles, hikers, etc.) or natural (predators). 

Factors affecting elk security are topographic relief, vegetation density, and proximity to human activity. 

Hiding cover becomes more important if other components that provide security are absent. This can be 

particularly important where predator numbers or human intrusions are high. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-142

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Inadequate security or hiding cover can make elk more vulnerable to predators, harvest by hunters, or 

other sources of mortality that can lead to abandonment of traditionally used areas. Regulating hunters 

can sometimes help, however this provides little benefit if predation and/or other human disturbance are 

occurring (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2003).

Roads are a major contributor to habitat fragmentation because they divide large landscapes into smaller 

patches and convert interior habitat into edge habitat. As additional road construction and timber harvest 

activities increase habitat fragmentation across large areas, the populations of some species may become 

isolated, increasing the risk of local extirpations or extinctions (Noss and Cooperrider, 1994). 

Heavily roaded areas may contain fewer patches of forest cover large enough to function effectively as 

habitat for elk. The direct impacts of roads and associated traffic on elk can be summarized in three basic 

categories: 1) Elk avoid areas near open roads, 2) Elk vulnerability to mortality from hunter harvest, both 

legal and illegal, increases as open road density increases, and 3) In areas of higher road density, elk 

exhibit higher levels of stress and increased movement rates (Rowland et al., 2004).

The adverse effects of roads and traffic on both deer and elk are numerous. High road densities and the 

associated traffic have been shown to decrease habitat quality and increase vulnerability for both deer and 

elk. Deer and elk are likely to be affected by the following road or motorized trail-associated factors: 

collisions, hunting, poaching, displacement or avoidance, disturbance at a specific site (Gaines et al., 

2003). Elk experience higher levels of stress when exposed to increased road density. Physiological 

indicators of stress, such as fecal glucocorticoids, have been observed in elk exposed to increased road 

density and traffic on roads (Millspaugh et al., 2001). Energetic costs of moving away from disturbance 

associated with roads may be substantial (Cole et al., 1997). During winter, when big-game species are 

on winter ranges, forage availability and value is generally low due to senescence of grasses and forbs. 

During this period open roads and the associated traffic have even greater detrimental effects on big-game 

due to their inability to escape harassment (disturbance) and both legal and illegal hunting pressure due to 

deep snow. In elk, if body fat is reduced below 9% as animals enter the winter period, the probability of 

surviving the winter is reduced (Cook et al., 2004).

c. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives

Pileated Woodpecker

Snags that pose a hazard to project operations would likely be felled and retained (see Wildlife Report 

PDF #12 and FEIS Chapter II). However, felled snags would still have woodpecker value as down wood 

foraging habitat. Trees damaged during operations may become future snags or trees with cavities. 

Additional snags would be created if funding is available. Non-commercial treatments that thin young 

stands are not expected to increase risks to pileated woodpeckers. All Action Alternatives under this 

project are expected to have minimal impacts to this species within the Planning Area, but there is the 

potential that an occasional existing snag or tree with cavities may be impacted. As a result, projects 

consistent with the NWFP are expected to maintain viability of mature forest associated with species such 

as the pileated woodpecker.

Woodpecker Group

Snags that pose a hazard to project operations would likely be felled and retained (see Wildlife Report 

PDF #12 and FEIS Chapter II). However, felled snags would still have woodpecker value as down wood 

foraging habitat. Trees damaged during operations may become future snags or trees with cavities. 

Additional snags would be created if funding is available. Non-commercial treatments that thin young 

stands are not expected to increase risks to cavity nesting woodpeckers. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-143

Final Environmental Impact Statement

All Action Alternatives under this project are expected to have minimal impacts to these species within 

the Planning Area, but there is the potential that an occasional existing snag or tree with cavities may be 

impacted. Habitats such as oak woodland or grassland habitat types would not be affected. Projects 

consistent with the NWFP are expected to maintain viability of mature forest associated with species 

identified in the woodpecker group.

American Marten

The Forest Service FAUNA database contains no observations of marten within the Analysis Area and 

only 16 for the entire Powers Ranger District between 1979 and 1997, and none since. The nearest 

recorded sighting is over 7.5 miles from a proposed treatment unit. 

Thinning may reduce existing canopy closure of between 70 to 100%, to between 40 and 50%, which 

could result in a reduction of denning, resting and foraging habitat for 10-15 years when shrub and tree 

canopy closure increases. This would occur incrementally over the life of this project, since the proposed 

3,314 acres (under Alternative 2) would be broken into multiple sales over an approximate 5 or more year 

span. Remnant trees, snags and down wood suitable for denning & resting would be retained per PDF # 9 

(Wildlife Report and FEIS Chapter II), however some may be felled and retained. 

All Action Alternatives under this project are expected to have minimal impacts to these species within 

the Planning Area, but there is the potential that an occasional existing snag or tree with cavities may be 

impacted. Projects consistent with the NWFP are expected to maintain viability of mature forests and 

habitats associated with American marten.

Deer and Elk

Black-tail deer and Roosevelt elk use all successional stages to meet their habitat needs for cover, forage 

and reproduction. Natural or created openings provide the majority of foraging habitat, which is assumed 

to be the most restrictive habitat component in this region (Forest Plan FEIS, III-106-107). Deer and elk 

represent more than 180 wildlife species that need early successional stages to meet some or all of their 

requirements (Brown, 1985). 

Forage habitat is available within existing meadows, harvest units less than 10 years old and open canopy 

forested areas. Meadows and large grassy areas would be protected from disturbance. Corridors, skid 

trails, landings, slash piles, equipment operation and road construction would not be permitted within 

meadows and identified large grassy areas (see PDF # 14 in Wildlife Report and FEIS Chapter II). 

Forested conditions provide hiding (vegetation capable of hiding 90% of a standing adult deer or elk at 

200 feet or less), thermal cover (a forest stand > 40ft tall with > 70% canopy cover) and optimal cover (a 

forest stand with overstory, sub-canopy, shrub, and herbaceous strata and >70% canopy). Proposed 

thinning units currently provide hiding and thermal cover. 

Evidence is consistent that vehicular traffic on forest roads evokes an avoidance response by elk. Even 

though habitat near roads is not denied to elk, it may not be fully used (Lyon, 1983). Christenson et al. 

(1993) reported that even primitive roads that see little summer use are often used extensively during the 

hunting season.

Under Alternative 2, road construction of 10.8 miles of new road, 0.3 miles of temporary road and reconstruction of 6.1 miles of unclassified roads could potentially increase harassment. Although 

temporary roads are scheduled to be decommissioned after implementation and new system roads would 

be closed to motorized use unless being used for commercial operations, they still provide a vector for 

additional disturbance to deer and elk during implementation. They are also likely to increase nonmotorized use of the area during hunting season and during other recreational activities. Alternative 3 

would have less impact from new road construction and reconstruction. Alternative 4 would not include 

new roads, but harassment from helicopter operations would be the greatest of any Action Alternative.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-144

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Eden Ridge Timber Sales project has the potential to improve forage for deer and elk by reducing 

canopy closure which would allow sunlight to penetrate the canopy and invigorate the grass, forb, and 

shrub component in the understory on an estimated 3,314 acres. Thermal cover is currently not limited 

and conditions would not substantially change over the Planning Area under any Action Alternative. The 

non-commercial treatment of 363 acres could also provide a forage benefit to big-game. This would 

depend upon the spacing of the residual stand. More open spacing would provide a greater benefit to biggame by allowing the understory forage component to grow which would increase forage.

The proposed density management treatments may affect some individuals or some habitat but effect 

is minimal for black-tail deer and Roosevelt elk because of loss of some thermal cover and adverse 

effects due to potential increased harassment from new and temporary roads. The increase in available 

forage from a more open forest would provide a beneficial effect. Projects consistent with the NWFP are 

expected to maintain viability of habitats associated with black-tail deer and Roosevelt elk

Similar and/or Related Actions are included under the Action Alternatives; they are designed as resource 

enhancement, restoration, or improvements, and are described in detail in FEIS Chapter II, Section D, 2, 

h. These actions would occur in proximity to commercial and silvicultural stand treatments. Included are 

Non-Commercial Treatments proposed for 363 acres within the ER Planning Area (see Table II-6 and 

MAP II-2), Snag/Down Wood Creation, Meadow Enhancement, Stream Enhancement, Native Grass/Forb 

Seeding, Invasive Plant Treatments, and Other Wildlife Opportunities.

The effects from these actions are minor in scope and context, and would minimally add to the 

consequences of the Action Alternatives. In most cases the long-term effects would be overall beneficial 

to many MIS species, especially those associated with mature coniferous forests and a healthy shrub 

layer. Because project activities would be spaced out both spatially and temporally, direct effects to MIS 

species would be minor.

d. Cumulative Effects

Cumulative Effects include the effects of past, present and foreseeable future State, local, or private 

activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the Analysis Area. Cumulative effects compound the 

effects of loss of habitat and harassment potential associated with timber harvest operations and other 

activities on both private and public lands. The Eden Ridge Timber Sales Planning Area is basically an 

island of Forest Service land, surrounded by Private and Bureau of Land Management land. Due to the 

private ownership status of the area surrounding the Planning Area, vehicular access by the public is 

currently limited to only the eastern portion. 

Present and foreseeable future actions that may affect terrestrial wildlife Management Indicator species or 

habitats within the Analysis Area include: fuels treatments, developed and dispersed recreation, timber 

harvest and vegetation treatments, reforestation, restoration, road management, and special uses. All of 

these activities would be designed to meet the direction provided within the Land and Resource 

Management Plan (as amended) (and in accord with Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives (NWFP 

1994, Siskiyou NF LRMP, 1989).

Density management effects of this project also combine with those of district-wide pre-commercial, 

commercial thinning, meadow restoration, and danger tree felling. Approximately 8,634 acres within the 

Analysis Area are managed by the USFS. There are approximately 300 acres currently being thinned 

under the Silver Doe Timber Sale within the Planning Area. There are approximately 675 acres of 

commercial thinning identified under the Coastal Healthy Forest Treatment Project within the Analysis 

Area. Around 50 acres are currently being treated and treatments on the remaining acres may occur 

within the next 10 to 15 years. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-145

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Density management projects could reduce canopy closure for 10-15 years until the shrub and tree 

canopies increase. Density management would likely increase growth and allow young stands to become 

suitable for woodpecker foraging and/or nesting sooner than if they were not treated. No USFS projects, 

which would remove or degrade old-growth/remnant trees (other than felling safety hazards), are 

occurring or are anticipated in the Project Areas or Analysis Area.

The Eden Ridge Timber Sales project has the potential to cumulatively impact foraging habitats for 

pileated woodpeckers and other cavity nesting woodpeckers due to the potential of reducing snag 

density for operator safety requirements. 

Plum Creek Timber owns approximately 30,000 of the 39,731 acres within the Analysis Area. These 

acres are on an approximate 40-50 year regeneration harvest rotation. There is little snag habitat on 

private lands for woodpeckers in the Analysis Area because the vast majority of it is in an early seral 

stage and most snags were felled for safety purposes during regeneration harvest activities. The 

remaining approximately 444 acres of the Analysis Area are managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), whose management practices are similar to the USFS.

Stands that lack remnant tree structure likely only function as foraging habitat for American marten. 

Density management would likely increase growth and allow young stands to become suitable for marten 

sooner than if they were not treated. There is little habitat on private land for marten in the Analysis Area 

because the vast majority of it is in an early successional stage. 

Because there is minimal adverse direct or indirect effect from actions under this project on habitat for 

these species, there is not likely to be an adverse cumulative effect when considering the effects of past, 

present and foreseeable future other federal or private activities that are likely to occur within the 

Analysis Area. 

11. NEO-TROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRDS 

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on other 

neo-tropical migratory bird species or habitats. 

FEIS Appendix G includes a complete Wildlife Report (incorporated by reference). That report and this 

subsection discuss neo-tropical migratory birds/land bird focal species.

a. Background and Analysis Framework

In 1918, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) was passed to enforce a treaty between the United 

States, Mexico, and Canada. This law addressed the issue of poaching migratory birds - Under the 

M33TA, except as permitted by regulation, it is unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to 

pursue, export, import, transport, or carry any migratory bird. It is the position of the Federal 

Government that the prohibitions of the MBTA do not apply to land management activities of Federal 

agencies or their employees acting in their official capacities.

In September, 2000, the USDA Forest Service Land Bird Strategic Plan was distributed. This plan set 

forth goals and actions to assist meeting the Forest Service commitment to provide habitat for sustainable 

resident and migrant landbird populations and monitor their populations through time. An Executive 

Order (EO) 13186) was signed in 2001. Provisions within this document directed agencies to integrated 

bird conservation principles, measures, and practices into agency planning process, restore and enhance 

habitat of migratory birds as practicable, and ensure that analysis evaluates the effects of actions on 

migratory birds, especially species of concern.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-146

Final Environmental Impact Statement

In December, 2008, the USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service signed a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds (USDA, USDI 

2008). The purpose of this MOU is to strengthen migratory bird conservation by identifying and 

implementing strategies that promote conservation and avoid or minimize adverse impacts on migratory 

birds. Focus first on species of management concern along with their priority habitats and key risk 

factors. Within the National Forest System, conservation of migratory birds focuses on providing a 

diversity of habitat conditions at multiple spatial scales. The Rogue River-Siskiyou NF is within Bird 

Conservation Region 5 (Northern Pacific Forest) as described in Birds of Conservation Concern 2008, 

prepared by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI, 2008a). (Available online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/BCC2008/BCC2008.pdf).

b. Description of Species, Habitat and Management Requirements

This analysis is based on neo-tropical migratory birds/land bird focal species identified by Partners in 

Flight (PIF, 1999): Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in Coniferous Forest of Western Oregon and 

Washington. As per the Partners In Flight Bird Conservation Plan “... if you provide all of the habitats to 

some degree over some landscape, then you will probably be taking care of most if not all of the landbirds 

in that habitat. The conservation emphasis is on ecosystems, habitats, and habitat conditions, not 

species.” The list of birds in Table III-37 includes the species found in Birds of Conservation Concern 

2008 (USDI, 2008a) within Bird Conservation Region 5, which could be impacted by this project.

Table III-37. Focal Migrant Bird Species and Associated Habitat 

Habitat Condition Habitat Attribute Bird Species

Coniferous forest Old-growth / 

Mature Large snags Vaux’s swift, pileated woodpecker

Coniferous forest Old-growth / 

Mature

Large trees; conifer cones; 

mid-story tree layers Brown creeper; red crossbill; varied thrush

Coniferous forest Mature / 

Young

Varied canopy closure; 

deciduous canopy & 

understory; complex forest floor

Hermit warbler, Hammond’s flycatcher; Pacificslope flycatcher; Wilson’s warbler; winter wren, 

Northern goshawk, purple finch

Coniferous forest Young / Pole Deciduous canopy Black-throated gray warbler

Coniferous forest Pole Deciduous subcanopy / 

understory Hutton’s vireo

Coniferous forest Early-seral

Residual canopy trees, snags, 

deciduous vegetation; nectarproducing plants

Olive-sided flycatcher; western bluebird; orangecrowned warbler; rufous hummingbird

Coniferous forest Unique Mineral springs Band-tailed pigeon

Coastal scrub Early-seral Coastal fog belt, dense riparian 

shrub. Allen’s hummingbird

Oak woodlands 

(including nonforested prairie)Unique

California quail, western screech-owl, Nutall’s 

woodpecker, oak titmouse, wrentit, California 

thrasher, black-chinned sparrow, Oregon vesper 

sparrow, horned lark

Cliffs, waterfalls & 

forest Unique Cliffs near waterfalls within forested habitat. Black swift

Riparian Riparian Large trees adjacent to major 

rivers. Dense shrub habitat. Bald eagle, willow flycatcher

Large cliffs Unique Peregrine falcon
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-147

Final Environmental Impact Statement

c. Direct and Indirect Effects of Action Alternatives

Vaux’s swift and pileated woodpecker are associated with large snags; effects to these species would be 

minimal as Project Design Criteria would retain snag components in units and if funding is available, 

more would be created following treatment. The brown creeper; red crossbill and varied thrush are 

identified as old-growth/mature obligate species. Remnant trees and minor species including hardwoods 

would be retained thus having minimal effect to this species grouping. Hermit warbler is closely 

associated with a densely closed Douglas-fir canopy. 

Thinning treatment impacts have been reported as a 1-3 year slight reduction in relative abundance and 

abundance levels are similar to those in untreated stands in 5-15 years (PIF, 1999). Hammond’s 

flycatcher; Pacific-slope flycatcher, Wilson’s warbler, winter wren, northern goshawk and purple finch 

are most closely tied to deciduous canopy and complex forest floor/understory habitat which would be 

retained /increased in treatment prescriptions, therefore having minimal adverse to beneficial effects to 

the species overall.

Some species such as olive-sided flycatcher; western bluebird; orange-crowned warbler; rufous 

hummingbird may decrease in the short term because habitat may be removed during landing clearing and 

temporary road construction (approximately 20-40 acres). Effects to the peregrine falcon and bald eagle 

are addressed in the Forest Service Sensitive Species section (above).

Because of the limited acres of dry land grass sites, the biggest concern with NTMB on Forest Service 

lands may lie in degradation of riparian habitat and subsequent loss of brush cover favored by many 

species (Bock et al., 1993). Riparian habitat in the Project Areas within the Stream Channel Protection 

Zone (within 25 feet) of true riparian habitat) would not be altered or impacted by the proposed activities 

due to the use of Riparian Reserve Project Design Criteria (see FEIS Chapter II). Since the majority of 

the species occupy or require a true riparian habitat component; the proposed project would not be 

impacting this habitat type. Potential treatments within the outer (upland) portions of Riparian Reserves 

may be treated with variable density thinning, which may allow for more brush cover due to increased 

space and light.

Overall, grass and shrub nesting birds are expected to benefit in the long-term under all Action 

Alternatives, because thinning treatments will allow grasses and shrubs to increase by adding light into 

the stands. Harvest activities would cause a short-term adverse effect through disturbance, but seasonal 

restrictions for other species would lessen impacts. 

Another benefit is the creation of some snag trees (usually 0.5 - 1 per acre) caused by logging activities or 

scorching from burning. There are mitigations to help limit damage to existing trees but some would 

occur; thereby creating some foraging and nesting habitat for woodpeckers and secondary cavity nesters. 

The remnants of some unburned or partially burnt piles may benefit nesting and cover habitat in areas that 

currently lack these components. 

Disturbance from operations and smoke during the nesting period for NTMBs could occur. Efforts would 

be made to reduce impacts to nesting. Timing of operations would occur outside of the spring 

breeding/nesting season as much as possible (May 15 to July 15) (see FEIS Chapter II). 

Effects to NTMBs from the Action Alternatives are variable depending on the habitat associations of the 

individual species. Impacts to habitat for some species may occur from commercial thinning of mature 

and younger forests, hazard tree felling, landing clearing/road construction. However, due to the limited 

amount of area affected by these actions within the Project Areas, effects to NTMBs are expected to be 

minimal.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-148

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Similar and/or Related Actions are included under the Action Alternatives; they are designed as 

resource enhancement, restoration, or improvements, and are described in detail in FEIS Chapter II, 

Section D, 2, h. These actions would occur in proximity to commercial and silvicultural stand treatments. 

Included are Non-Commercial Treatments proposed for 363 acres within the ER Planning Area (see Table 

II-6 and MAP II-2), Snag/Down Wood Creation, Meadow Enhancement, Stream Enhancement, Native 

Grass/Forb Seeding, Invasive Plant Treatments, and Other Wildlife Opportunities.

The effects from these actions are minor in scope and context, and would minimally add to the 

consequences of the Action Alternatives. In most cases the long-term effects would be overall beneficial 

to many NTMBs, especially species associated with mature coniferous forests and a healthy shrub layer. 

Because project activities would be spaced out both spatially and temporally, direct effects to NTMBs 

would be minor.

d. Cumulative Effects

Cumulative Effects include the effects of past, present and foreseeable future State, local, or private 

activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the Analysis Area. Cumulative effects compound the 

effects of loss of habitat and harassment potential associated with timber harvest operations and other 

activities on both private and public lands. The Eden Ridge Timber Sales Planning Area is basically an 

island of Forest Service land, surrounded by Private and Bureau of Land Management land. Due to the 

private ownership status of the area surrounding the Planning Area, vehicular access by the public is 

limited to only the eastern portion.

Present and foreseeable future actions that may affect terrestrial wildlife species or habitats on the Forest 

include: wildland fire, fuels treatments, developed and dispersed recreation, timber harvest and vegetation 

treatments, reforestation, restoration, road management, and special uses. All of these activities would be 

designed to meet the direction provided within the Northwest Forest Plan and the local Land and 

Resource Management Plans (i.e., Forest Plans), and in accord with Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

objectives (NWFP 1994; Siskiyou NF LRMP, 1989).

Density management effects of this project also combine with those of district-wide pre-commercial, 

commercial thinning, meadow restoration, and danger tree felling. Approximately 8,634 acres within the 

Analysis Area are managed by the USFS. There are approximately 300 acres currently being thinned 

under the Silver Doe Timber Sale within the Project Area. There are approximately 675 acres of 

commercial thinning identified under the Coastal Healthy Forest Treatment Project within the Analysis 

Area. Around 50 acres are currently being treated and treatments on the remaining acres may occur 

within the next 10 to 15 years. 

Plum Creek Timber owns approximately 30,000 of the 39,731 acres within the Analysis Area. These 

acres are on an approximate 40-50 year regeneration harvest rotation. There is little forest habitat on 

private lands for NTMBs in the Analysis Area because the vast majority of it is in an early seral stage and 

most snags were felled for safety purposes during regeneration harvest activities. The remaining 

approximately 444 acres of the Analysis Area are managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

whose management practices are similar to the USFS.

Because there is minimal adverse direct or indirect effect from actions under this project on habitat for 

these species, there is not likely to be an adverse cumulative effect relative to the availability of habitats 

within the overall Analysis Area and fifth-field watersheds.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-149

Final Environmental Impact Statement

12. AQUATIC SPECIES AND HABITATS

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on 

aquatic species and habitats, including Threatened or Sensitive species and/or Critical 

Habitat/Essential Fish Habitat. 

In compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Forest Service Biological 

Evaluation (BE) process for Endangered, Threatened, Proposed or Sensitive fish species (Siskiyou LRMP 

S&G 4-2; page IV-27) FEIS Appendix H includes a complete Aquatic Biota Report and Biological 

Evaluation (incorporated by reference). Forest Service Manual (FSM) Chapter 2670 outlines the policy and 

direction for the management of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed or Sensitive fish species.

a. Background and Analysis Framework

The Biological Evaluation process (FSM 2672.43) is intended to conduct and document activities necessary 

to ensure Proposed Actions will not likely jeopardize the continued existence or cause adverse modification 

of habitat for:

A. Fish species listed or proposed to be listed as Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) or Proposed

for Federal listing (P) by the National Marine Fisheries Service.

B. Listed as Sensitive (S) by USDA, Forest Service.

The USDA Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive Species List (updated December 2011) was reviewed and field 

reconnaissance was conducted in regard to potential effects on any of these species by actions associated with 

the Eden Ridge Timber Sales. The results are summarized in the Table III-38 below. 

Table III-38. Potentially Affected Species, Status, and Habitats Assessed

Species/Habitat Pre-field Review Field Surveys

Common name Scientific Name

Existing Sighting or Potential 

Habitat

(Yes*/No**)

Habitat or Species 

Confirmed

(Yes*/No**)

Threatened Species

OC Coho Salmon Oncorhyncus kisutch Yes Yes

Southern DPS green sturgeon Acipenser medirostris No No

Southern DPS Pacific eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus No No

Critical Habitat

Southern DPS Pacific eulachon T. pacificus No No

Southern DPS green sturgeon A. medirostris No No

OC coho salmon O. kisutch Yes Yes

Essential Fish Habitat

Coho salmon O. kisutch Yes Yes

Chinook salmon O. tshawytscha Yes Yes

Sensitive Species

SONCC Chinook salmon O. tshawytscha No No

PC chum salmon O. keta No No

OC Steelhead O. mykiss Yes Yes

Western ridged mussel Gonidea angulata Yes No

Highcap lanx Lanx alta No No

Scale lanx Lanx klamathensis No No

Robust walker Pomatiopsis binneyi No No

Pacific walker Pomatiopsis californica No No

Haddock’s Rhyacophilan 

Caddisfly Rhyacophila haddocki Yes No

A caddisfly Namamyia plutonis Yes No
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-150

Final Environmental Impact Statement

*Yes – The proposed project’s potential effects on these species will be further analyzed.

**No – No further analysis is necessary, and a determination of “No Impact” is rendered.

b. Status of Listed Species, Essential Fish Habitat, and Critical Habitat

Oregon Coast Coho Salmon and Critical Habitat (Threatened)

Oregon Coast (OC) coho ESU was listed as Threatened on August 10, 1998 (63 FR 42587). This listing 

was reevaluated and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) determined listing OC coho was not 

warranted on January 17, 2006. The listing was once again reevaluated and NMFS determined a listing 

of threatened was warranted on February 4, 2008 (73 FR 7816). OC coho salmon critical habitat was 

designated as threatened also on February 11, 2008 (73 FR 7816). Final protective regulations for OC 

coho salmon were issued on February 11, 2008 (73 FR 7816). On April 28, 2009 NMFS announced that 

it was initiating a status review of OC coho. On May 26, 2010, NMFS affirmed the listing of the OC 

coho salmon as Threatened (75 FR 29489). 

Critical habitat is defined in Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as “the specific areas within the geographical 

area occupied by the species Oregon Coast Coho on which are found those physical or biological features 

(I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management

considerations or protection.” Section 7 of the ESA prohibits the destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat (CCH). 

On the RRSNF, the South Fork Coquille River, though occupied by OC coho, is exempt from Critical 

Habitat designation due to economic benefits of exclusion outweighing the benefits of designation. 

Further, marine habitats are not included as Critical Habitat due to the difficulty in identifying specific 

areas critical to the species. The habitat indicators addressed in this analysis that are pertinent to aquatic 

habitat health, also represents the primary constituent elements of proposed CH for OC coho salmon. 

Therefore, this analysis is sufficient for consultation of proposed CH. 

NMFS developed a list of Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) that are essential for the conservation of 

OC coho, and which are based on the life history of the coho salmon. These PCEs are: freshwater 

spawning sites, freshwater rearing sites, freshwater migration corridors, estuarine areas, nearshore marine 

areas, and offshore marine areas. These PCEs in concert with OC coho distribution data were used to 

delineate the spatial extent of the critical habitat. The lateral extent of this designation is limited to the 

ordinary high water mark (i.e., bankfull elevation). For the purposes of this analysis, the PCEs are cross 

referenced with the respective Habitat Indicators in Table III-39 below. 

Table III-39. OC Coho Critical Habitat Essential Habitat Features and Habitat Indicators

PCEs of OC coho Critical 

Habitat Habitat Indicator

Freshwater Spawning Sites Change in Peak/Base Flows, Water Temperature, Sediment/Turbidity, Chemical 

Contamination/Nutrients, Substrate

Freshwater Rearing Sites Change in Peak/Base Flows, Floodplain Connectivity, Water Temperature, Sediment/Turbidity, 

Chemical Contamination/Nutrients, Water Quality Indicators, Riparian Reserves, Substrate, Large 

Woody Debris, Pool Frequency, Pool Quality, Width/depth Ratio, Off-channel Habitat, Streambank 

Condition

Freshwater Migration Corridors Physical Barriers, Change in Peak/Base Flows, Water Temperature, Sediment/Turbidity, Chemical 

Contamination/Nutrients, Riparian Reserves, Substrate, Large Woody Debris, Pool Frequency, Pool 

Quality, Width/depth Ratio, Floodplain Connectivity, Off-channel Habitat, Streambank Condition

Estuarine Areas Physical Barriers, Water Temperature, Sediment/Turbidity, Chemical Contamination/Nutrients, 

Change in Peak/Base Flows, Water Quality Indicators, Riparian Reserves, Substrate, Large Woody 

Debris, Pool Frequency, Pool Quality, Width/depth Ratio, Floodplain Connectivity, Off-channel 

Habitat, Streambank Condition

Nearshore Marine Areas N/A to RRSNF Actions

Offshore Marine Areas N/A to RRSNF Actions
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-151

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Essential Fish Habitat

Interim final rules for Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(b)) 

were published in the Federal Register/ Vol. 62, No. 244, December 19, 1997 and final rules published in 

the Federal Register/ Vol. 67, No. 12, January 17, 2002. These rules are pertinent to Chinook salmon and 

coho salmon habitat within the Southern Oregon Coastal Basin. Essential Fish Habitat has been defined 

by NMFS as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to 

maturity.” This definition includes all waters historically used by anadromous salmonids of commercial 

value. 

Because federally listed Threatened fish species and/or critical habitat are present as associated with this 

project, consultation requirements were conducted in accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 

(SIS LRMP S&G 4-2). A Biological Assessment (BA) was prepared for consultation purposes and is 

available on request (and is incorporated by reference into this FEIS).

Action Area

The Action Area, as defined by the Endangered Species Act, is all areas to be affected directly or 

indirectly by the federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action [50 CFR § 

402.02]. The Action Area as written in Fish BA not only includes the immediate footprint of the harvest 

and road related activities, but any downstream reaches which may be affected indirectly. The ESA 

Action Area is also analyzed for Forest Service Sensitive Species.

The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) is located within portions of the South Fork Coquille River 5th field 

and the Middle Fork Coquille River 5th field. Timber harvest, timber hauling and new road construction 

would occur primarily in Coal Creek 6th Field watershed and in the upper headwaters of 6th Field 

Watersheds: Headwaters S. Fork Coquille River, Lower Rock Creek and Myrtle Creek. Only timber haul 

activities adjacent to units would occur within the headwaters of Mill Creek -South Fork Coquille 6th field 

watershed.

OC Steelhead (Sensitive)

On the RRSNF, Oregon Coast (OC) steelhead occurs within the South Fork Coquille River and Sixes 

River drainages. The OC steelhead trout distinct population segment (DPS) was proposed as threatened 

under the ESA on August 9, 1996 (61 FR 41541), but was found not warranted for listing. OC steelhead 

is currently listed as a species of concern by NMFS and as a Sensitive Species by USFS Region 6. 

Potential effects to these species from this project are similar in scope and level of impacts as those listed 

in the August 2011 ER Thin Fish Biological Assessment; refer to this document for complete analysis. 

Other Species (Sensitive)

The Western ridged mussel aquatic species have been found in the Coquille River and their habitat is 

typical of some of the stream channels found in the Planning Area. Haddock’s Rhyacophilan caddisfly 

and Namamyia plutonis are two aquatic species that fall within the Oregon coast range and may have 

existing habitat at any of the instream sites in within the Planning Area, but none of these aquatic species 

have been confirmed within the affected watersheds. Potential effects to these species from this project 

are similar in scope and level of impacts as those listed in the 2011 Biological Assessment. 

None of the other aquatic species in Table III-39 (above) have been found in either of the affected 

watersheds. SONCC Chinook salmon, PC chum salmon, highcap lanx, scale lanx, robust walker and 

pacific walker, are not known to occur or have suitable habitat within proximity to any of the proposed 

actions included within any of the Action Alternatives. As such, a No Impact determination is rendered 

and these species will not be discussed further within this document.

MAP III-6 (below) shows fish distribution, streams and stream class, proposed treatment units and areas 

for Alternative 2, roads and haul routes.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-152

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Description of Habitat Environmental Baseline

Information used in this analysis includes Geographic Information System data and Aquatic Habitat 

Inventories (Forest Service 2010). Properly Functioning Condition ratings are based on the NOAA Table 

of Population and Habitat Indicators, as modified by the Rogue River/South Coast Level 1 Team for the 

Klamath Province/Siskiyou Mountains.

Refer to Eden Ridge Timber Sales Biological Assessment, August 2011 for a complete description of the 

environmental baseline conditions.

This analysis evaluates the direct and indirect potential effects of proposed actions on Oregon Coast coho, 

CCH, EFH and OC steelhead trout. There is no potential to affect CCH 8.8 miles downstream, while 

there is potential to affect EFH and OC steelhead trout. EFH and OC steelhead are located in the Action 

Area, so any potential effect to one (i.e., EFH) would obviously result in an effect to the other (OC coho).

c. Effects Mechanisms

The actions of the project alternatives can be divided into five Project Elements:

1. Timber Felling and Yarding

2. Timber Hauling

3. Fuels Treatment

4. Road Maintenance, Temporary Road Construction and Decommissioning, Road 

Reconstruction, Landing Construction/Reconstruction, and New Road Construction

5. Other Enhancement Activities

Timber Felling and Yarding

Thinning treatments within Riparian Reserve are designed to enhance development of late seral 

conditions as recommended in the South Fork Coquille Watershed Analysis (1995) by moving stand 

structure forward by increasing tree growth through density management, creating structural diversity 

through skip and gap treatments, and to improve forest health and resistance to forest pathogens. 

Site-specific silvicultural prescriptions would be developed for each individual stand identified for 

treatment and address each land allocation classification (Matrix, Riparian Reserve) during 

implementation. Silvicultural prescriptions would describe the desired future condition; specify tree 

spacing, target residual density (RD), preferred species, canopy retention, post-harvest treatments and 

other key stand components. Final silvicultural prescriptions would be approved by a Region 6 certified 

silviculturist. 

Project Design Criteria for Riparian Reserves (PDCRR) (see FEIS Chapter II) are used to prevent shade 

reduction in riparian areas. Density management thinning is designed to improve stand health with 

treatments and/or commercial extraction while allowing attainment of or restoration of Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy (ACS) Objectives under the Northwest Forest Plan. Riparian buffers originally 

estimated were adjusted slightly wider for ephemeral and intermittent non-fish bearing streams with 

medium and heavy thin buffers, a change from 25 feet to 35 feet and 40 feet respectively, as suggested by 

NMFS. This buffer change reflects their concern for addressing activities in riparian areas in relation to 

riparian buffer adequacy and loss in the short-term of small wood contribution to streams. 

Exposure to direct solar radiation, as described in the PDCRR will often cause a dramatic increase in 

stream temperatures. When shaded throughout the entire day, far less heat energy would be transferred to 

the stream. The ability of riparian vegetation to shade the stream depends on vegetation height, density, 

stream width and position relative to the stream. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-153

Final Environmental Impact Statement

MAP III-6. Fish Distribution and Project Activities –Alternative 2
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-154

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Thinning can affect stream temperature by removing shade trees. The amount of shade lost depends on 

stream width, tree height and stream orientation. The following figure display thinning effects similar to 

those proposed under this project, for one mile of stream. Most daily solar radiation occurs between 

10am and 2pm. Trees that provide stream shade during this time are considered “primary shade trees”. 

Primary shade trees are inside the buffers and would not be removed and would remain on site. Figure 

III-4 displays buffer width as a function of angular canopy density for mature trees. A mature tree is 

defined as an individual tree that has reached most of its potential height growth. 

At a point the shade density increases very little as the sun’s angle decreases or the sun gets lower in the 

sky. This is the secondary shade zone. The primary shade tree zone for mature trees varies from 50 to 85 

feet in width (see discussion on updated TMDLs below). Very little additional shade is gained when the 

sun is low enough to intercept the secondary shade trees. Therefore, in dense stands such as the 

plantations proposed for treatment, trees outside the “Primary Shade Zone” can be thinned with a neutral 

effect on stream shade. 

Figure III-4. Buffer Widths and Angular Canopy Density

Project design features would follow direction provided in NWFP Temperature TMDL Implementation 

Strategies 20115. This involves protection, maintenance and enhancement of existing stream shade, and 

maintenance of the existing micro-climate, ambient air temperature, and air movement.

Timber Hauling

The only haul route segment adjacent to EFH with a gravel-surface is the remaining 200 feet of NFSL 

Road 5000 with a 12 percent slope, which parallels Coal Creek. This section of road is crowned, has two 

ditch relief culverts which drains into an 80 feet vegetated buffer. The remaining road segment of haul 

route coming from the gravel-surface road is a 50 feet asphalt-surfaced segment, which drains around a 

corner into a well vegetative buffer before reaching the stream. The haul routes from the units are gravel 

surfaced roads down to the paved NFSL Road 3300 adjacent the South Fork Coquille River. 

Table III-40 displays the amount of haul occurring over perennial stream crossings with the most impact 

being in the Coal Creek 6th Field. At the junction of the NFSL Road 5000 and NFSL Road 200, the entire 

haul merges into the NFSL Road 5000 for approximately one mile. The timber haul would average about 

14 truckloads daily from this location down the 5000 Road.

 

5 Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation strategies were updated in 2011 (Evaluation of the Northwest 

Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy and Associated Tools to achieve and maintain stream temperature water quality 

standards- USFS and BLM). Recommended Primary Shade Zone widths were increased over the September 9, 2005 version. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-155

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table III-40. Summary of Perennial Stream Crossings that would Occur during Haul

Watershed Number of Perennial Stream 

Crossings

South Fork Coquille 5th Field ,Headwater South Fork 6

th Field watershed 3

South Fork Coquille 5th Field, Coal Creek 6th Field watershed 22

South Fork Coquille 5th Field, Mill Creek 6th Field watershed 4

TOTAL 29

Fuels Treatment

Activity fuels treatment refers to the slash and accumulated fuel resulting from the proposed density 

management treatments. While there may be some slash from previous harvesting or from natural 

conditions, the majority of material would be generated through density management treatment and 

commercial removal. Activity fuels treatments proposed for this project include only those that are 

predicted to be necessary to obtain a resultant and acceptable fuels/fire risk. Several methods of activity 

fuels treatment are being proposed, and include the following: burning tree tops that were yarded to 

landing site, burning materials accumulated by harvest activity that is piled (by hand or mechanical 

equipment).

d. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives

No Action Alternative

With this alternative, no activities would occur; there would be no direct (or indirect) effects. The 

consequences of this alternative would be that riparian stands would continue to have natural suppression 

occurring, and younger non-dominant trees would continue to die off. The stands would continue on the 

same trajectory of attaining late-successional habitat characteristics of large diameter trees, multi-storied 

canopy, and a diverse species component, but it could take several hundred years for this to occur through 

the natural process of stand development.

Proposed Action (Alternative 2)

Road Maintenance, Temporary Road Construction and Decommissioning, Road Reconstruction, 

Landing Construction/Reconstruction, and New Road Construction

The Eden Ridge Planning Area currently has a minimal existing road network, because it has not been 

vegetatively managed for many decades, and when the logging that created the candidate stands of today 

were created, most of the area was logged by railroad systems. Most of the existing roads evolved from 

these early railroad grades but do not adequately serve the Planning Area for today’s needs and systems. 

The current existing road system within Eden Ridge, overall, is currently managed and maintained.

Refer to FEIS Chapter II for the general locations of road use, proposed reconstruction/road 

decommissioning, road reconstruction and maintenance needs associated with the 6th field watersheds. 

Under Alternative 2, there would be 23 Intermittent/Ephemeral Non Fish bearing crossings built and 12 

perennial crossings in the 3.19 miles of road activities that would occur in Riparian Reserve (Table III41).

In order to adequately and efficiently access the Planning Area for today’s management systems, there is 

a need for additional Classified roads. Given the current situation, these new access roads could not be 

developed without the need to cross some drainages designated as Riparian Reserve. A total of 

approximately 11.1 miles of new road construction is proposed. Of the 11.1 miles of road, 0.3 miles 

would be temporarily contructed, used then decommssioned. The remaining new road construction 

would include approximately 10.8 miles, in 43 segments, ranging from 0.11 miles to 1.93 miles. Most of 

the new roads would be managed as Maintenance Level 1 (closed until further need). New permanent 

roads within Riparian Reserve total 1.58 miles.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-156

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table III-41. Summary of All Road Activity in Riparian Reserves

Road System –

By Road Type

Road Number or 

Unit

Number of 

Intermittent/Ephemeral 

Non-fish Bearing

Road Crossings

Number of 

Perennial Road 

Crossings

Total

Road Segments 

Miles

Distance 

from 

CCH/EFH

Temporary Road (Access) Construction – New Roads to be Built in Riparian, No Existing Template. Decommission 

Afterwards

Q4 1 1 0.21 9.3/2.3

R 0 0 0.03 9.4/2.4

Total Crossings/Miles 1 1 0.25 Total Miles

Road Reconstruction

5000299 0 1 0.57 11.7/4.7

5000442 1 0 0.25 11.0/4.0

5000442.1 1 0 0.07 11.0/4/0

5000443 2 0 0.28 11.7/4.7

5000446 1 0 0.09 11.8/4.8

5000451 2 0 0.11 4.2/5.2

Total Crossings/Miles 7 1 1.36 Total Miles

New Permanent Road Construction

B 2 0 0.16 8.8/8.8

F 1 0 0.17 11.7/11.7

J 0 1 0.05 23.6/4.6

O4 4 0 0.10 14.5/7.5

S1 0 1 0.06 9.8/2.8

S3 0 1 0.06 9.7/2.7

S5 0 1 0.05 10.3/3.3

S6 1 0 0.06 10.3/3.3

S7 0 2 0.11 11.0/4.0

S8 1 0 0.04 10.3/3.3

S9 3 0 0.05 12.0/5.0

T 1 0 0.10 17.5/10.5

U 0 1 0.12 14.5/7.5

W 1 3 0.33 15.4/8.4

Z 1 0 0.13 15.6/8.6

Total 

Crossings/Miles 15 10 1.58 Total Miles

Grand Total – Proposed Crossings 

and Miles of Roads to be Built in 

Riparian Reserves

Intermittent/Ephemeral

Crossings

23

Perennial Road 

Crossings

12

Total Miles

3.19

All proposed new system roads would be rocked as needed to minimize erosion and allow for extended 

use during wet conditions. As specified Classified (system) roads, all new roads (including those crossing 

Riparian Reserve) would be engineered and designed to minimize environmental impacts. Designed 

roads constructed on NFSL would be accomplished to standards appropriate for the intended uses; 

considering safety, cost of transportation, and impacts on lands and resources. Designed roads would be 

constructed as stable and durable structures to facilitate maintenance during and after use and monitored 

every five years. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-157

Final Environmental Impact Statement

This design would include necessary drainage facilities, adequate erosion control, closure devices, and 

resource protection devices. Closure of all new construction of system roads would typically be 

accomplished via a road entrance closure of native materials (logs, earth, boulders) after timber sale 

activites had occurred, placing them into Maintenance Level 1 Status.

Other Enhancement Activities

Also included are Non-Commercial Treatments proposed for 363 acres within the ER Planning Area (see 

Table II-6 and MAP II-2); these hand treatments and associated fuel treatments are included in the 

discussion of effects from timber felling and fuel treatments above.

In areas where past management has resulted in a lack of large snags needed for cavity nesting species, 

snags may be created from live trees left in stands. Creation can be through girdling, topping the trees 

with chain saws, blasting, inoculation with heart rot fungi, or deliberate injury. 

Large woody material (LWM) fulfills a number of important ecological functions such as stabilizing 

surface soils, increasing organic content in soils over the long-term, providing habitat for the many 

organisms that depend on snags and down logs in various stages of decay, and ensuring adequate large 

woody material recruitment to meet the ecological needs of aquatic systems over time. Snags and down 

large wood would be retained to support forest function. This project would retain all down logs and 

large woody material left from historical railroad logging represents a unique situation and every effort to 

avoid disturbance and maintain this existing material would be made. 

The Eden Ridge Project proposes to place 150 large trees in stream channels and adjacent floodplains to 

increase channel stability, rearing habitat, pool formation, spawning gravel deposition, channel 

complexity, hiding cover, low velocity areas, and floodplain function. Live and dead trees may be 

removed from riparian areas to provide wood for enhancement projects, under special conditions 

described in the Design Criteria. This action would involve the use of log trucks and dump trucks for 

transport and excavator-type machinery, spyders, cable yarders, draft horses, or helicopters for placement. 

Plans and designs would be consistent with Forest Plan direction, funding opportunities, and watershed 

restoration plans (e.g., USDA FS 2006). 

Exposed mineral soil (landings and temporary roads) may be seeded with native grass seed to restore and 

improve forage for wildlife that benefit from grasses and forbs; e.g., deer, elk, mice, rabbits and their 

predators. Seeding may also reduce the opportunity for non-native plants (including noxious weeds) to 

invade disturbed sites and reduce erosion. 

Monitor and treat invasive plants within project area boundaries to reduce/eliminate current populations 

and reduce the future spread of non-native vegetation. Treatment would be completed in disturbed areas 

within the watersheds by hand pulling only.

Effects to Listed Aquatic Species and Habitats 

The overall effects of Alternative 2 have been analyzed for ESA listed coho salmon and its critical habitat 

and coho and Chinook Essential Fish Habitat in the 2011 Eden Ridge Timber Sales Biological 

Assessment. The effects for listed aquatic species and their habitat are similar to the effects for OC 

steelhead since they occupy similar habitat. The effects analysis from the Biological Assessment is 

summarized in this subsection; refer to the August 2011 ER Thin Fish Biological Assessment for a 

complete analysis. 

As stated earlier, the proposed activities under the ER Timber Sales were split into five project elements: 

1) Timber Felling and Yarding, 2) Timber Hauling, 3) Fuels Treatment, 4) Road Maintenance, Temporary 

Road Construction and Decommission, Road Reconstruction, Landing Construction/Reconstruction and 

New Road Construction, and 5) Other Enhancement Activities. Below is a table which displays 

proximity of project activities in relation to EFH.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-158

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table III-42. Proximity of Project Elements to EFH within Coal Creek 6th Field Watershed

Project Elements (PE) Distance to EFH*

Timber Felling and Yarding 1.8 miles > 10.5 miles 

Timber Hauling (Gravel Roads) *50 feet to100 feet > 10.5miles

Fuels Treatment 1.8 miles > 10.5 miles

Road Maintenance, Temporary Road Construction and Decommission, Road 

Reconstruction, Landing Construction/Reconstruction and New Road Construction

1.8 miles > 10.5 miles

Other Enhancement Activities 1.8 miles > 10.5 miles

*OC Steelhead habitat is one mile above EFH.

**This section of road is about 200 feet long and immediately leaves the EFH and travels up the ridge where it normally is 

about 1.8 mile > 10.5 miles above EFH.

The Proposed Action for Eden Ridge Timber Sales has only stream enhancement activities occurring 

directly within the stream channels that contain fish or fish habitat. The direct effects from the Proposed 

Action are expected to be on resident fish only (non-Endangered, Threatened, Proposed or Sensitive fish 

species). Therefore, there would be no direct impact to any Endangered, Threatened, Proposed or 

Sensitive fish species.

The Proposed Action for Eden Ridge Timber Sales would be removing some trees within the Riparian 

Reserve. In the Project Area, only Unit 309 is adjacent a fish bearing perennial stream channel in the 

Coal Creek Drainage. The harvesting that is occurring within this Riparian Reserve would be providing a 

25-foot Stream Channel Protection Zone and a 50-85 foot Primary Shade Zone for the Perennial Stream 

Channel. These zones would not allow any removal of vegetation for timber harvest. There is a small 

chance that during project implementation that a few trees may be felled within these two zones for 

skylines and road building. However, the project is designed to not allow tree removal within these two 

zones except the road crossings and skyline corridors. With the possibility that a few trees are removed 

from the Primary Shade Zone or the Stream Channel Protection Zone, it is unlikely to affect water 

temperatures in stream reaches. Much of the streams in the Project Area are small systems that are 

heavily vegetated, and have a large groundwater influence on water temperature. 

All the other units are upstream of the fish bearing perennial stream or they are located on non-fishbearing ephemeral or intermittent stream channels. The harvesting that is occurring within the Riparian 

Reserve would be at least providing a 25-foot Stream Channel Protection Zone for all channels, and a 50-

85 foot Primary Shade Zone for Perennial Stream Channels. These zones would not allow any removal of 

vegetation for timber harvest. 

The harvesting of timber within Riparian Reserves is designed to promote growth of larger trees as well 

as allow the growth of understory species to provide for diverse, healthy, riparian vegetation. By 

allowing other species to come in under the current Douglas-fir dominated stand, the project would put 

these stands on a trajectory of attaining late-successional characteristics sooner within the Riparian 

Reserve.

The Stream Channel Protection Zone (25 foot no cut buffer on either side of the channel) is a buffer 

designed to protect the actual riparian area that occur along stream channels. This buffer width provides 

protection from ground based activities and harvesting of vegetation. These buffers would protect all 

species that utilize the riparian areas within the project. 

This area of protection would ensure that water temperatures in these areas would not be affected, and 

that there would be a source of small woody material for aquatic species that depend upon the riparian 

areas, along with ensuring that groundwater flow would continue to maintain the riparian zones at the 

project (site) scale. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-159

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The proposed timber harvest would not impact shade producing trees that would have an effect on aquatic 

habitat, nor would it be impacting future large wood recruitment to fish habitat. The stream channels 

within the Project Area are on average 3 feet wide for ephemeral and intermittent channels and 8-feet 

wide for perennial stream channels. If any of the trees cut by thinning harvest were to fall into a channel, 

they are 10 times greater in length than the streams are wide, and would not move with the flows typically 

occurring in these channels. Much of these pieces of LWD would not have naturally made it downstream 

to stream reaches where fish are present. 

Effects Regarding Project Elements – Alternative 2

There is a causal mechanism for Timber Hauling and Road Maintenance since these activities would 

occur near EFH. Specifically, along the haul road (NFSL Road 5000) where two relief culverts are 

located along a rocked road that parallels EFH for about 200 feet. There are no stream crossings or 

bridges along the haul route in proximity of EFH. The haul route does cross perennial streams that flow 

into Coal Creek; which are well over two miles upstream of EFH if sediment from haul was to reach the 

stream the sediment would not move downstream to EFH. 

The remaining 11 miles of the haul route are not in proximity with EFH. There would be approximately

53 million board feet of timber that could be removed with this project. On average one truckload of 

timber would contain 5,000 board feet. This would equate to approximately 11,000 truckloads of timber 

to be hauled over the haul route that exits along Coal Creek over an approximate five year period 

(seasonal hauling of approximately 14 truckloads per day).

The activities of Timber Hauling and Road Maintenance are extremely unlikely to deliver sediment to 

EFH. The main haul route for the project consists of maintained, gravel surfaced roads with an 

engineered drainage system. These roads are designed for all-weather use and carry year-round truck 

traffic generated by private timber harvest. The Forest Service is currently implementing the Coastal 

Healthy Forest Treatments Project 2007 along this same haul route. Existing traffic levels have resulted 

in no known detrimental sediment contributions to Coal Creek. Haul traffic in support of the proposed 

action is well within the design limits of the haul route.

Approximately 200 feet of NFSL Road 5000 is adjacent to EFH. This section of road is relatively steep, 

well maintained gravel surfaced road, with a crown. Approximately 800 feet of the road in this section 

(which contains a tight switchback) receives surface water from itself and about six acres of adjacent 

hillside. Drainage of this area is provided by the two relief culverts onto naturally vegetated slopes 

adjacent to Coal Creek. These relief culverts on the crowned road, partially drain to vegetative buffers 

(50-80 feet), while the other part of the road crown drain onto steeply sloped dissipater transporting onto a 

steep slope that ends at the channel. Sediment delivery could occur from runoff during rain events and 

deliver to EFH. At this time, there is no indication that sediment is being delivered to the stream in the 

200 feet of the haul route that is adjacent Coal Creek. Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures 

(FEIS Chapter II, Section D, 3 and 10) would minimize road generated sediment entering EFH. 

The amount of sediment which could reach EFH would be insignificant and indistinguishable from 

background levels. Sediment derived from Timber Haul would be primarily directed to ditch lines and 

then out of the ditch lines via ditch relief culverts to the forest floor with little to no sediment above 

existing levels. Sediment could be transported to stream channels along the two hundred feet of road 

adjacent Coal Creek where the road and ditch line are connected to streams. Road Maintenance work 

completed prior to haul and Road Maintenance work conducted after haul would further reduce the 

amount of off-site sediment movement after hauling. Any sediment generated as a result of the proposed 

haul would be immeasurable. Lastly, a wet weather restriction on when log haul could occur would 

minimize sediment generation on the surface of the road where it could wash into the ditch lines. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-160

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Timber Hauling and Road Maintenance design criteria (FEIS Chapter II, Section D, 3 and 10) in 

conjunction with the distance from EFH would minimize sediment effects to OC coho. The criteria have 

been designed to minimize sediment delivery to EFH, however there is a chance during the first major 

storm event after operations have ceased there would be an initial input of sediment. Any sediment yield 

to Coal Creek from Timber Hauling and Road Maintenance under the Proposed Action would be 

undetectable from the small amounts already generated at this location, and therefore insignificant.

There is a causal mechanism for sediment generation on units since Temporary Road Construction and 

Decommission, Road Reconstruction, Landing Construction/Reconstruction, New Road Construction and 

Other Enhancement Activities are occurring near perennial streams approximately two miles to 11 miles 

above EFH. The stream enhancement component of Other Enhancement Activities would occur within 

Coal Creek approximately three to eight miles upstream of EFH. New Road Construction would consist 

of 12 perennial crossings and at least 23 intermittent channels crossings in the Coal Creek subwatershed. 

The closest perennial crossing associated with a proposed activity unit is over two miles above EFH. 

This crossing is on a small channel that is approximately two feet wide and flows intermittently below the 

road crossing for approximately 1,500 feet before flowing into Coal Creek approximately two miles 

above EFH. The remaining crossings are approximately three miles above EFH and the remaining nine 

perennial crossings are over two miles upstream from EFH and will not be further analyzed.

Landing Construction/Reconstruction would occur within Riparian Reserves at two locations, L-13 and 

L-14 (Units 308 & 309). L-13 is an existing landing site located mostly uphill (90%) of the main haul 

road, approximately 50 feet from a non-fish bearing perennial stream and two miles from EFH. HL-14 is 

new landing located immediately uphill of the main haul route road. Downhill of the main haul route is a 

resident fish bearing section of Coal Creek approx. 80 to 100 feet downslope, and 2.4 miles from EFH.

The activities of Temporary Road Construction and Decommission, Road Reconstruction, Landing 

Construction/Reconstruction, New Road Construction and Other Enhancement Activities are extremely 

unlikely to deliver sediment to EFH approximately two miles to 10.5 miles downstream to EFH in Coal 

Creek. The closest perennial crossing associated with a proposed road activity unit is over two miles 

above EFH. The next two closest crossings are approximately two miles above EFH and the remaining 

nine perennial crossings are over two miles upstream. There is no probability construction of roads 

would modify peak or base flows, because openings created by new roads would be of insufficient size to 

affect flows.

All but two landings would be located outside of the Riparian Reserves. Landing 

Construction/Reconstruction would have adequate vegetative cover or mulch material to prevent erosion 

and retain local sediment. The two landings for Units 308 and 309 are located inside of the Riparian 

Reserve have been field reviewed by a hydrologist and an engineer. These landings are not within areas 

occupied by flowing water or riparian-dependent vegetation. Trees yarded to the landings could disturb 

slopes of the landing and generate sediment that would wash into stream channels. In order to prevent 

this, landing slopes would be armored with logs or other woody material capable of protecting the slope 

surface. Landing surfaces would drain away from the stream channel during and after use, and, would be 

revegetated and mulched after use. All landings are subject to use restrictions. These design features in 

addition to the two mile+ distance from EFH ensure that sediment would not be delivered to EFH.

Temporary Road Construction and Decommission, Road Reconstruction, Landing 

Construction/Reconstruction, New Road Construction and Other Enhancement Activities design criteria 

(FEIS Chapter II, Section D, 3 and 10) in conjunction with the distance from EFH would minimize 

sediment effects to EFH. The criteria have been designed to minimize sediment delivery to EFH, 

however there is a chance during the first major storm event after operations have ceased there would be 

an initial input of sediment. Any sediment yield to Coal Creek from Temporary Road Construction and 

Decommission, Road Reconstruction, Landing Construction/Reconstruction, New Road Construction and 

Other Enhancement Activities under the Proposed Action would be undetectable from the small amounts 

already generated at this location, and therefore insignificant.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-161

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Overall, the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project Proposed Action has been designed to minimize impacts to 

aquatic habitats. Field reconnaissance during implementation by Interdisciplinary Team specialists would 

refine this project to only apply Riparian Reserve vegetation management where needed. Project Design 

Criteria and Mitigation Measures were developed to minimize impacts to water quality, Riparian 

Reserves, and aquatic habitats. 

Alternative 3 and 4

Alternative 3 and 4 for Eden Ridge Timber Sales would have only stream enhancement activities 

occurring directly within the stream channels that contain fish or fish habitat. The direct effects from 

these alternatives are expected to be on resident fish only (non-Endangered, Threatened, Proposed or 

Sensitive fish species). Therefore, there would be no impact to any Endangered, Threatened, Proposed or 

Sensitive fish species.

Indirect effects from these alternatives are expected to be similar to the effects of the Proposed Action. 

These alternatives would reduce the number of trucks hauling down the road but since the amount of 

sediment that may enter the stream channel due to log haul activities and road maintenance activities is 

not measurable, the effects are similar to the Proposed Action. 

There would be less riparian vegetation treated with Alternative 3 as compared to Alternative 2; even less 

for Alternative 4. Treating fewer riparian acres would promote less growth of larger trees as well as 

allow the growth of understory species to provide for diverse, healthy, riparian vegetation. By treating 

less riparian vegetation acres as compared to Alternative 2, other species would not come in under the 

current Douglas-fir dominated stand and would result in slowing down attainment of late-successional 

characteristics within the Riparian Reserve. This could result in an increase of future small diameter 

instream recruitment in perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams instead of mature, large woody 

material.

d. Cumulative Effects

Past activities that have occurred on National Forest System lands are documented in the Silvicultural 

Report (FEIS Appendix B). Table B-7 (of that report) lists previous commercial timber sale activity 

within the Planning Area (since historical railroad logging in the 1920s and 1930s). None of the 

candidate stands for Eden Ridge Timber Sales are located within these previous contemporary timber sale 

units.

The most recent activity is primarily commercial thinning and has not been observed to result in increased 

measurable sediment delivery to streams within the Coal Creek Watershed. These projects would have no 

adverse cumulative effects when combined with the effects of the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project. In 

general, there are several different types of foreseeable projects that occur across the landscape in these 

watersheds such as non-commercial thinning for fuels reduction and meadow restoration. These projects 

are designed to avoid treatments in Riparian Reserves. There would be some prescribed burning 

associated with these projects that would not impact Riparian Reserves or aquatic habitats. The 2007

Coastal Healthy Forest Treatments Project has one or two candidate stands within the Eden Ridge 

Planning Area that may be thinned (but is not as yet, planned or scheduled).

Activities that occur off forest are primarily timber harvests within private timberlands and are seen to be 

impacting upstream reaches of the Coal Creek Drainage. Under the Oregon Forest Practices Act, timber 

harvest is allowed to occur within riparian areas; however a one tree buffer is necessary along fish bearing 

streams. These restrictions reduce the amount of sedimentation that occurs on private lands. Some 

sedimentation may occur from areas where there are intermittent stream channels or where perennial nonfish bearing streams are found. This increase in sedimentation could impact fish habitat by filling in pool 

habitat and reducing spawning habitat. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-162

Final Environmental Impact Statement

In general, the Oregon Forest Practices Act provides direction for protection and maintenance of 

important aquatic habitats across the state. Currently on private lands, small landslides have been 

observed to be contributing sediment to the immediate channel but no observed sediment has been 

reaching listed species habitat.

Overall, cumulative effects on NFS and private lands from past and present project actions have impacted 

large woody material that would provide habitat to fish within these watersheds; the Eden Ridge Project 

does not propose to impact riparian areas adjacent to stream channels with listed species present. 

Although there is a slight chance that sediment might be delivered to fish habitat from roads and the haul 

route, the amount of sediment delivered is expected to be of a small quantity, and during a time of year 

when the amount of sediment being created by this project would not be measurable beyond background 

levels naturally within the stream channels. 

The overall predicted cumulative effect for the affected watersheds for all Action Alternatives would be 

an immeasurable contribution of sediment from landslides from private land and above Endangered, 

Threatened, Proposed or Sensitive fish species habitat. This effect is likely to occur only when the winter 

rains come and it would be part of the background sediment. 

e. Conclusions And Determinations

Table III-43. Comparison of Effects to Fish Species by Alternative and Activity Type

Alternative

Timber 

Felling and 

Yarding

Timber Hauling Fuels 

Treatment

Road Maintenance, 

Construction and 

Decommissioning

Stream 

Enhancement

1 Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral

2 Neutral Potential sediment from 

haul route Neutral Potential sediment from haul route Neutral

3 Neutral Potential sediment from 

haul route Neutral Potential sediment from haul route Neutral

4 Neutral Potential sediment from 

haul route Neutral Potential sediment from haul route Neutral

The No Action Alternative would not alter the Planning Area on National Forest System land. Thus, no 

effect to aquatic species or habitat would occur. 

All of the Action Alternatives, 2 through 4, would have a similar effect to Endangered, Threatened, 

Proposed or Sensitive aquatic species due to the potential of sediment entering the stream channel from 

the “Timber Hauling and Road Maintenance” activities along the haul route. This amount of sediment 

for all Action Alternatives is non-measurable. 

All of the Action Alternatives, 2 through 4, would have similar effects to aquatic habitats and a neutral 

effect on Endangered, Threatened, Proposed or Sensitive aquatic species from the “Stream Enhancement 

and Fuels Treatment” activities.

Specific to Alternatives 3 and 4, there would be less riparian vegetation treated from “Timber Falling” as 

compared to Alternative 2. Falling fewer trees in the riparian areas would promote less growth of larger 

trees as well as less growth of understory species to provide for diverse, healthy, riparian vegetation. By 

falling less riparian vegetation as compared to Alternative 2, other species would not come in under the 

current Douglas-fir dominated stand and this would result in a longer timeframe to attain late-successional 

habitat characteristics within the Riparian Reserve, when compared to Alternative 2. This could result in 

a smaller average size of future LWD recruited within the project’s perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral 

streams above fish habitat, when compared to Alternative 2.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-163

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Effects to Endangered, Threatened, Proposed or Sensitive aquatic species are similar under all of the 

Action Alternatives, 2 through 4. This is due to the same site specific design elements being included in 

all of these alternatives. The differences in activities between Action Alternatives are not large enough to 

create any measurable difference downstream on aquatic species.

Determinations - Action Alternatives

The indirect and cumulative effects from Alternative 2, 3 and 4 would result in an overall nonmeasureable negative sediment effect to OC coho salmon and its critical habitat and OC steelhead on the 

Powers Ranger District. Thus, a May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect determination is rendered 

for OC coho salmon, No Effect determination to OC coho salmon critical habitat, Will Not Adversely 

Affect Essential Fish Habitat for coho salmon or Chinook salmon and May Impact Individuals or 

Habitat, But Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of 

Viability to the Population or Species for OC steelhead trout due to the non-measureable sediment 

delivery of the hauling and road maintenance activities.

Conferencing and Consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has been completed

for Eden Ridge Timber Sales. Pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act and 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 402, the Forest Service prepared a Biological Assessment (disclosed 

as part of DEIS Appendix H). A Letter of Concurrence was received on February 27, 2012, that 

concurred with the Forest Service determination of “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

(NLAA)” for Oregon Coast coho salmon and their designated critical habitat (ref. 2011/03685). This 

letter also transmitted the results of analysis of the effects of Alternative 2 on Essential Fish Habitat 

EFH), pursuant to section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. NMFS concluded that the proposed actions would not 

adversely affect EFH designated for Pacific salmon, and that no additional conservation measures were 

provided. 

While alternatives were analyzed and consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service was based on 

the lessor Primary Shade Zone widths (who concurred with the Forest Service determination and effects), 

increasing these widths per the 2011 TMDLs would provide additional protection.

The Action Alternative would have a No Impact to Southern DPS green sturgeon, Southern DPS Pacific 

eulachon (or their Critical Habitat), SONCC Chinook salmon, PC chum salmon, western ridged mussel, 

highcap lanx, scale lanx, robust walker, Pacific walker, Haddock’s Rhyacophilan caddisfly, or A 

caddisfly (Namamyia plutonis) because these species are not known to occur or have suitable habitat

within proximity to any of the proposed activities.

13. THINNING SHOCK AND WINDTHROW POTENTIAL

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on 

changed environmental conditions for residual trees causing shock (change in light conditions), 

and/or leading to increased wind throw (trees broken off or uprooted by wind). 

This issue is based on the concern for residual trees remaining after treatments that reduce density, tree 

spacing and crown spacing that could cause trees to experience a change in light conditions, causing 

shock (or death), and/or break off or be uprooted by wind (termed windthrow).

a. Background

Any treatments that open up currently dense stands, could cause the residual trees in these stands to 

experience poor health, due to change in light conditions, for which these trees are not adapted. This 

change could cause shock or death to individual or groups of trees.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-164

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Windthrow and effects from shock are an indirect effect of density management treatments; there are no 

direct effects regarding this issue. The risk of windthrow increases as stands become more open on 

landforms more exposed to prevailing winds, particularly on shallow soils, that are subjected to increased 

wind flow conditions following stand treatments.

Candidate stands with mapped soils in General Soil Map Unit 15F - Umpcoos-Rock Outcrop-Digger (see 

MAP III-3, Section D, 4, this Chapter and Appendix B) have hazard of windthrow (USDA SCS, 1989). 

The Umpcoos-Rock Outcrop map unit in particular is described as having potential for windthrow due to 

shallow soil depths and is associated with the presence of rock outcrops and steeper slopes. 

Root rot infection caused by laminated root (Phellinus weirii) contributes more localized pockets of down 

wood particularly in the northern half of the ER Planning Area. Infected areas resemble between 1-DF-3 

and 2-DF-3 in the Pacific Northwest photo series (Maxwell 1980) which estimates 59 to 111 tons per acre 

of forest residue respectively. Laminated root rot centers are more susceptible to windthrow (Hadfield et 

al., 1986) and may supply important concentrations of down woody material as infected dead trees do not 

remain standing for very long. 

Disease infection extensively decays roots of susceptible host trees and either makes them susceptible to 

windthrow or causes mortality by destroying the tree’s ability to take up water and nutrients (Hadfield et 

al., 1986). Windthrow is more common with laminated root rot than other root pathogens. Laminated 

root rot spreads by root contact between uninfected trees when living roots penetrate infected roots. In 

pole-sized and larger trees, the root disease can spread outwards an average rate of one (1) foot per year. 

This pathogen can live saprophytically in infected dead roots for fifty (50) years or more. 

In addition to laminated root rot centers, existing windthrown trees are evident along the perimeter of the 

Planning Area adjacent to large openings created by timber harvest on private timber company lands. 

Windthrow creates pockets of variable-sized down wood; particularly where susceptible forest stands 

have a high percentage of western hemlock in the overstory tree species composition (e.g., Unit 213). 

b. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no additional concern or effects due to density 

management which could open up stands to shock and/or windthrow potential. Overly dense stands tend 

to develop conditions that make them less stable during wind events; the risk of windthrow remains in unthinned stands.

Under the Action Alternatives, increased risk of windthrow along ridges may be a concern. If shallow 

rooted species (e.g., western hemlock) are present, site-specific prescriptions would favor leaving 

Douglas-fir or hardwoods and increasing the number of trees to be retained.

Thinning shock and windthrow are not expected to be a substantial concern due to consideration for 

feathering and special treatments along the edges of stands, leaving all hardwoods where possible, and 

thinning to a higher relative density to allow residual trees to become more wind firm. Threat of insect 

and disease is expected to be reduced by decreasing stand densities, overall increased vigor of the 

vegetation, and treatment of activity fuels with fire. 

Under the Action Alternatives, thinning shock and windthrow are not expected to be substantial as 

associated with dominant tree release or gap development, as openings would be irregular shaped with 

topographic exposure, proximity to existing openings and thinning intensity being considered in the 

surrounding stand. All treatments include an overriding objective of leaving the larger residual stems 

within the entire stand; these trees would most likely be the healthiest and most wind-firm trees in the 

stand, and would ameliorate the potential for windthrow.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-165

Final Environmental Impact Statement

14. POTENTIAL WILDERNESS AND OTHER UNDEVELOPED AREAS

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions within 

any potentially undeveloped areas generally free of forest roads or evidence of timber harvest, 

and/or areas that may have undeveloped character as potential wilderness. 

The potential for uninventoried roadless areas is analyzed at a project specific level to determine the 

effects to wilderness characteristics. Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12, Chapter 70, sets forth the 

guidance on inventorying areas that may be considered as Potential Wilderness Areas. 

In addition to potential wilderness, there may be acres of other undeveloped areas. These are areas that 

are not IRAs and do not meet the Forest Service’s definition of potential wilderness. However, these 

areas may have special resource values due to their undeveloped character and are most commonly 

identified and evaluated within project-specific NEPA. 

Comments received during scoping suggested that some of the Eden Ridge Planning Area may contain 

areas that possess “undeveloped” character or unique values provided by unroaded areas such as 

watershed protection, snag recruitment, carbon storage, and natural successional development.

This issue evaluates conditions and character associated with Potential Wilderness Areas or potential 

unroaded or undeveloped areas within the Eden Ridge Planning Area, and if they may be affected by 

proposed actions.

a. Background

Wilderness

A wilderness area is designated by congressional action under the Wilderness Act of 1964 and other 

wilderness acts. The Wilderness Act of 1964, Section 2(c) defines wilderness, in part, as: 

[A]n area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without 

permanent improvements of human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its 

natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of 

nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities 

for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; ...

In the 37+ years since the completion of RARE II, Congress has designated some areas to Wilderness or 

other protective status, including portions of the Powers Ranger District. The southern-most edge of the 

overall Eden Ridge Planning Area is approximately four air-miles north of the Wild Rogue Wilderness 

Area (FS and BLM) and approximately 15 air-miles north-west of the Grassy Knob Wilderness Area. 

There are no lands designated as Wilderness within or adjacent to the Eden Ridge Timber Sales 

Planning Area.

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Roadless area management became a national issue in 1972 when the Forest Service initiated a review of 

National Forest System Lands (NFSL) greater than 5,000 acres to determine their suitability for inclusion 

in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) were most recently 

identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in a set of inventoried roadless area maps, 

contained in Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental Impact Statement, volume 

2, dated November 2000, which are held at the National headquarters office of the Forest Service, or any 

subsequent update or revision of those maps (36 CFR 294.11). 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-166

Final Environmental Impact Statement

These areas were set aside through administrative rulemaking and have provisions, within the context of 

multiple use management, for the protection of inventoried roadless areas. Most IRA boundaries are 

substantially identical to those identified as “roadless areas” referred to in the 1982 planning rule (36 CFR 

219.17) and identified by the appropriate Forest Plan, FEIS, Appendix C; however some localized, minor 

differences in boundaries may exist.

The Eden Ridge Timber Sales Planning Area is approximately 6 air miles from the Mule Creek IRA, 

approximately 14miles from the Grassy Knob IRA, and approximately 11 miles from the Copper 

Mountain IRA. There are no lands designated or inventoried as Roadless within or adjacent to the 

Eden Ridge Timber Sales Planning Area.

Potential Wilderness Areas

Potential Wilderness Areas (PWAs) are not a land designation decision, (does not change current land 

management allocations), they do not imply or impart any particular level of management direction or 

protection, they are not an evaluation of potential wilderness (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 72), and they are not 

preliminary administrative recommendations for wilderness designation (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 73). The 

inventory of PWAs does not change the administrative boundary of any IRA or any congressionally 

designated wilderness. The original designated management area (e.g., Matrix) would remain the land 

designation even if areas within the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Planning Area meet the handbook criteria 

for PWAs. PWAs are evaluated during the development or revision of land management plans, in other 

words at the forest planning level and not at the project planning level.

Other Undeveloped Areas

The term “Other Undeveloped Areas” is a generic catch-all term often loosely used to describe areas that 

are generally free of developments such as forest roads or timber harvest units. These are areas that are 

not IRAs and do not meet the Forest Service’s definition of potential wilderness. However, these areas 

may have special resource values due to their undeveloped character and are most commonly identified 

and evaluated within project-specific NEPA. This term is not nationally defined or endorsed, but the term 

does facilitate discussion of this concept in this project scale NEPA evaluation. This term is used as part 

of a project-level NEPA analysis and reflects the concerns and values expressed during project scoping.

A working definition for this term is areas that are generally free of developments such as forest roads or 

timber harvest units, but are not Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) and also do not meet FSH criteria for 

Potential Wilderness. It is recognized that these areas may have special resource values due to their 

undeveloped character that may cause an evaluation the resources and project effects on those resources 

differently than in other parts of the Panning Area. The discussion of “Other Undeveloped Areas” also 

allows consideration and documentation of areas mapped by external parties.

Scoping Comments

During Scoping (2010), comments were provided (by Oregon Wild) that portions of the Eden Ridge 

Planning Area, and areas proposed for treatment are within an undeveloped area. The comment provided 

a photo (Figure III-5, shown below) and called the shaded area Coal Ridge Creek. The comment further 

called for avoidance of logging in this area, or full disclosure the adverse impacts of logging on the 

unique values provided by unroaded areas such as watershed protection, snag recruitment, carbon storage, 

and natural successional development.

The area referenced is within the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Planning Area, but was found to currently 

contain several unclassified roads, previously existing spur roads, skid roads, and/or old railroad grades. 

Further, this area was clearly part of the intensive clear-cut harvest associated with historical railroad 

logging. As seen in the photo below (Figure III-5), much of the Eden Ridge Planning Area appears to be

heavily forested and existing roads are difficult to see. This reflects the actual current conditions of a 

heavily stocked and well-growing second growth forest; the thinning of which is the subject of the Eden 

Ridge Proposed Action.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-167

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure III-5. Potential Undeveloped Area Identified During Scoping

Other comments received during Scoping suggested that since much of the area was railroad logged, 

damaging aspects of roads are absent. It was claimed that the old railroad corridors do not have road-side

ditches, culverts, cutbanks, or other aspects of roads, so that some roadless area characteristics are 

retained. The comment suggested consideration of any area over 1,000 acres without roads as important 

interior habitat, even if it contains old railroad lines.

Oregon Wild continues to recommend portions of the Eden Ridge Planning Area as proposed Wilderness. 

Their internet website includes maps (at a large state-wide scale) of their recommendations for proposed 

wilderness. In November of 2011, upon request, Oregon Wild provided GIS files that allowed a more 

precise location for their proposed wilderness. This area is shown in purple on MAP III-7 (below).

b. Effects Mechanisms and Analysis Framework

Methodology for Identification of Potential Wilderness Areas

Inventory criteria were applied in a different order than appears in Chapter 71, but all criteria were 

considered and accounted for as described below. The scope of this potential wilderness inventory 

included all acres contained within the Eden Ridge Planning Area boundary. The Forest Service used 

professional judgment and local knowledge regarding the unique, site-specific conditions of each area 

being considered for placement on an inventory of potential wilderness, 

The Potential Wilderness Areas considered for this analysis are not areas that were identified as ‘roadless 

areas’ neither in Appendix C of the 1989 Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

nor in the ‘inventoried roadless areas’ identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. There is 

no previous or existing inventory of Potential Wilderness (use FSH criteria: 1909.12 Chap 70).
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-168

Final Environmental Impact Statement

This was not conducted as an official inventory. Official inventories of potential wilderness areas are 

completed during forest planning. This document considers Potential Wilderness Areas only for purposes 

of assessing potential effects from Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project activities on wilderness 

characteristics.

Potential Wilderness Areas qualify for placement on an inventory if they meet one or more of the 

following criteria (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 71):

1) The area contains 5,000 acres or more.

2) Areas contain less than 5,000 acres, but can meet one or more of the following criteria:

a. Area can be preserved due to physical terrain and natural conditions.

b. Areas are self-contained ecosystems, such as an island, that can be effectively managed as a 

separate unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System.

c. Areas are contiguous to existing wilderness, primitive areas, Administration endorsed wilderness, 

or potential wilderness in other Federal ownership, regardless of their size.

3) Areas do not contain forest roads (36 CFR 212.1) or other permanently authorized roads, except as 

permitted in areas east of the 100th meridian.

Areas may meet either criteria 1 and 3, or criteria 2 and 3. If the criteria in section 71.1 are met, criteria 

in section 71.11 (criteria for including improvements) must also be met. For this analysis, the ID Team 

used the following project specific criteria to consider or identify areas as Potential Wilderness Areas.

Potential Wilderness Areas Analysis

The basis of this analysis is the Eden Ridge Planning Area. As discussed in Chapter I, the Planning Area 

includes a total of 6,515 acres of NFSL. As seen on Planning Area maps, this area is not contiguous to 

other portions of the NFSL, and is somewhat what of an “Island” being surrounded by privately owned 

and managed timberlands.

The analysis of a Potential Wilderness Area is the consideration whether the project is adjacent to and/or 

could it affect an area with 5,000 acres that does not contain forest roads? Is the project adjacent and/or 

could it affect an area with less than 5,000 acres but which is contiguous to existing Wilderness, primitive 

areas, administration-endorsed wilderness, or potential wilderness in other federal ownership, regardless 

of size? 

As noted above, the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project and its Planning Area does not contain nor is 

adjacent to any designated Wilderness Area. The Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project and its Planning 

Area does not contain nor is adjacent to any Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA). 

Is the project adjacent and/or could it affect an area that can be preserved due to physical terrain and 

natural conditions? Examples of this type of an area are: deep canyons, mountain peaks, etc. Is the 

project adjacent to a State or National Park and could it affect any values associated with that area? Is the 

project adjacent and/or could it affect a Wild or Scenic river corridor?

The Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project and its Planning Area do not contain substantial areas of 

outstanding physical terrain or natural conditions, is not adjacent to a State or National Park, and is 

not adjacent to a Wild or Scenic River. While essentially an “island” of NFSL, separate and noncontiguous to the main portion of NFSL (to the south), the Planning Area contains many classified 

and unclassified roads and facilities (e.g., Fire Lookout with roaded access). 

Roads (as defined in 36 CFR 212.1) are present within the Planning Area and were excluded per FSH 

1909.12, section 71.1. Mapped areas were considered if they were at least 300 feet from NFS roads. This 

distance was selected because tree harvest is permitted within 300 feet of open forest roads for personaluse firewood. In addition, danger tree removal occurs at various distances from open forest roads 

depending on tree height, topographic slope, and other factors.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-169

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Timber harvest areas were considered where logging, as evidenced by stumps, and prior skid trails or 

roads are substantially unrecognizable or areas where clear-cuts have regenerated to the degree that 

canopy closure is similar to surrounding uncut areas per FSH 1909.12, section 71.11.

-For purposes of this analysis, “substantially unrecognizable” is defined as regenerated timber 

stands from over 80-years ago. Areas should not include any areas that were managed as 

regeneration in the last 80 years (e.g., clear-cut silvicultural treatments). Almost all of the Planning 

Area was clear-cut harvested via historical railroad systems in the 1920s through 1940s.

- Roads, such as skid trails and other routes, are defined as “substantially unrecognizable” when 

established native trees and/or shrubs on the majority of the roadbed and having reached a minimum 

height similar to the surrounding second growth regenerated areas. Analysis determined that within 

the Eden Ridge Planning Area, existing roads, old railroad lines, broken-down trestles and facilities, 

and old donkey skid trails are present and observable within almost the entire area. There are almost 

no areas that remain uncut (see MAP III-7 below) and stumps, yarding facilities, historical logging

debris and evidence of management (logging) are highly evident throughout the area.

Analysis determined that there would be no areas of 5,000 acres or greater without roads within the 

6,515 acres, and could not be effectively managed as a unit of the National Wilderness Preservation 

System. Areas that contained less than 5,000 acres were determined to not meet one or more of the 

criteria stated above (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 71). The result of this analysis is displayed on MAP III-7.

MAP III-7. Eden Ridge Planning Area Roads, Late Seral Stands and Oregon Wild Proposed 

Wilderness (2011)
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-170

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other Undeveloped Area Analysis

Other undeveloped areas were considered because they may contain special resource values that warrant 

an evaluation differently than other parts of the Planning Area. Identification of these areas is project 

specific and situational. Key factors to consider are whether the size, shape, location, and landscape scale 

context of these undeveloped areas provide it with some special values that should receive attention in 

project-scale NEPA.

For the Eden Ridge Planning Area, unmanaged and uncut areas remaining from historical railroad logging 

have been identified as a special resource value. In terms of forest stand conditions; this has been 

determined to be stands ages of approximately 120 – 140 years or more. Forest structure should include 

some multi-layering. Densities should be at or greater than 100 square feet of basal area and have 

approximately 50% in overstory crown closure as well as late seral forest characteristics. Unique 

vegetative areas can also include contiguous natural, non-forested or sparse vegetation types and plant 

communities, e.g., meadows.

-GIS analysis determined that there are some small areas on NFSL within the Eden Ridge Planning 

Area that were not affected by historical railroad logging, and currently have few or no classified 

roads. These areas were determined to be late seral condition or areas with natural, non-forested or 

sparse vegetation types. The total area of these is less than 200 acres (MAP III-7 shows two late

seral areas (in green shading) totaling 25 acres).

Discussion

Based on the above criteria, there were no areas located of any reasonable size for any one individual 

area, non-contiguous to any other area. Existing roads, grades or skid trails were found to bisect even the 

larger areas. Many of the old railroad grades have evolved or have been turned into vehicle access roads. 

Within the entire Planning Area, only a few areas (200 contiguous acres or less) were found to have not 

been affected by historical clear-cut railroad logging; only 25 acres were determined to be at or near to 

late seral or late-successional habitat conditions. Almost all of the Planning Area was clear-cut during the 

1920s through 1940s for its large old-growth timber, and railroad logging activities are still readily 

apparent today. The conditions that created this situation are readily apparent as seen in the 1943 aerial 

photos (MAP III-8).

Differences between Oregon Wilds Recommendation and the Forest’s Analysis

Oregon Wild maps from 2010 and 2011 differ in their locations and recommendations. The latest Oregon 

Wild internet website identifies potential wilderness as unroaded, undeveloped and pristine. Analysis and 

the 1943 aerial photos show that the areas identified do not possess these characteristics.

The effects of railroad logging, roads and skid trails are clearly evident with road-side ditches, culverts, 

cutbanks, and other aspects of roads (or engineered railroad grades) are clearly evident (see Heritage 

Resources, Section E, 15, below). Hard rock cuts and fills, and extensive trestling represent textbook 

examples of civil engineering and railroad construction (Tonsfeldt 2012). No undeveloped area 

characteristics remain. Analysis determined there are no areas over 1,000 acres within the Planning Area 

without roads. 

As seen in MAP III-7 (above), the “roadless” area identified by Oregon Wild appears to have used a 100-

foot buffer on Forest roads (the Forest used 300 feet) and included some areas that have been harvested 

within the past 80 years (the Forest did not). The disclosure of effects on hydrologic conditions, soils, 

snag recruitment, wildlife habitat and carbon storage, are discussed in other sections of this chapter.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-171

Final Environmental Impact Statement

MAP III-8. Composite of 1943 Aerial Photos and Eden Ridge Planning Area

c. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives

Commonly associated with roadless area interests is the interest by some in lands spoken of as being 

unroaded, undeveloped or potential wilderness. Analysis as documented above has determined that there 

are no large contiguous areas within the Eden Ridge Planning Area that were not identified in the RARE 

II inventory but currently have few or no classified roads, or lack evidence of past management that 

would meet the criteria for Potential Wilderness Areas. 

There are some small areas within portions of the Planning Area that were not intensively regenerated via 

historical railroad logging. The total of these, however, is only about 200 acres, would not be affected 

under any proposed actions under Eden Ridge Timber Sales, and none are contiguous with any designated 

Wilderness or Inventoried Roadless Areas. 

Since there are no Potential Wilderness Areas or undeveloped areas (of any substantial size), there is no 

cause/effect relationship that can occur regarding this issue. There would be an overall direct effect to 

current vegetative conditions (thinning) from the Action Alternatives that would change eventual 

vegetative succession. The Planning Area could see additional roads or improvement to existing roads 

under the various Action Alternatives. The area is primarily allocated to Matrix, with no current 

emphasis or management direction to change or allow the area to become exclusively late-successional 

forest or roadless in the future.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-172

Final Environmental Impact Statement

15. HERITAGE RESOURCES

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on 

Heritage (cultural) resources.

FEIS Appendix J includes a complete Heritage Specialist Report (incorporated by reference) that contains 

more detail on the history of the Eden Ridge Planning Area and management requirements for heritage 

resources.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies, such as the 

Forest Service, to take into account the effects of their actions, or undertakings, on historic or 

archaeological properties. This act also establishes the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation 

(ACHP) as the oversight agency which consults with federal agencies to review undertakings which have 

the potential to affect significant historic properties, although generally, this consultation and review 

capacity is delegated to State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO). The NHPA also provides for Native 

American groups to be included in consultations where prehistoric sites are involved.

In addition, other federal laws and regulations also direct the Forest to consult with federally-recognized 

Tribes who may have concerns about federal actions that may affect religious practice, traditional uses 

and cultural resource sites and remains associated with American Indian ancestors.

a. Background and Analysis Framework

Project area inventories and consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA must be completed prior to 

project implementation. In some cases the consultation process has been streamlined or by-passed by 

agreement to facilitate project completion when certain conditions are met. Generally, these conditions 

include adequate inventories where no sites are located in a project's area of potential effect (APE), or 

particular site and project types which have recurring similar impacts which have allowed predetermined 

mitigation measures to be developed by agreement with SHPO, or projects with a low likelihood to 

impact historic properties. Documentation under these agreements are submitted to the SHPO in an 

annual report, and may or may not be submitted prior to project implementation. 

Both NHPA and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) prohibit the disclosure of the 

nature and location of cultural resource sites where a likelihood of harm to the sites could occur through 

disclosure. The intent of this prohibition is to protect sites from vandalism and looting, and to retain 

confidentiality of sites culturally significant to American Indian Tribes. ARPA also establishes civil and 

criminal penalties for individuals removing or damaging archaeological resources on federal lands.

The Forest Service has a government-to-government responsibility to all federally-recognized Tribes. In 

addition, American Indian Tribes are afforded consideration under the National Historic Preservation Act 

(Section 2), NEPA, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), and the 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) among other Executive orders and policy. Federal 

guidelines direct Federal agencies to consult with modern American Indian tribal representatives who 

may have concerns regarding Federal actions that may affect religious practices, and other traditional 

cultural uses, as well as cultural resource sites and remains associated with American Indian heritage. 

Federally-recognized Tribes whose aboriginal territory falls within a project area are afforded the 

opportunity to voice concerns for issues governed by NHPA, NAGPRA, or AIRFA.

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) protects the “inherent right of the freedom to 

believe, express, and exercise their traditional religions” (P.L. 95-442, 92 Stat. 1065; 7 U.S.C. 2269). 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-173

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Forest has identified the Coquille Indian Tribe as having general concerns about the management of 

activities within the Planning Area. These concerns include, but are not limited to, access to sites, use and 

possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to practice sacred worship ceremonies.

Analysis Methods

The analysis methods used for cultural resources consist of a review and synthesis of all pertinent 

literature, records, and documentation available on the history and prehistory of the project and 

surrounding areas, and generally bounded by the Planning Area. This information includes not only that 

available from a variety of generalized sources, but also that information resulting from several years’ 

worth of Forest Service heritage resource inventories conducted within and adjacent to the Planning Area, 

as well as any information that might be received through consultation with the Tribe . The information 

on the results of these previous inventories and previously documented cultural resources also allows 

some idea of the type, frequency and location of cultural resources likely to be found within the Planning 

Area.

This synthesis of past data is then used during field inventories conducted of the proposed activities’ areas 

of potential effect (APE) and adjacent areas of high site probability. Information from past inventories 

may be used to cover a current APE if upon review it meets current inventory standards. Additional 

inventory is then conducted of the APE in areas where no previous inventory was conducted, where 

previous inventory was not adequate or around known sites to relocate and verify their location.

When no cultural resources are located within the project’s area of potential effect or when the project 

meets specific terms, the project may proceed under the terms of the Programmatic Agreement among the 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6), the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Oregon State Historical Preservation Officer 

Regarding Cultural Resource Management in the State of Oregon by the USDA Forest Service (R6 PA), 

2004. Should survey results locate cultural sites or indicate adverse effects, this agreement requires full

case-by-case consultation with SHPO under Section 106 of the NHPA.

Under case-by-case consultation, once field inventory is complete, identified cultural resources within the 

project’s APE are analyzed to determine their eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) as historic properties. This analysis may also consider whether individual features are 

contributing or non-contributing to the eligibility for large or multi-featured sites. For those sites 

considered eligible, the potential effects of the project on that historic property are analyzed. Where 

adverse effects may occur to a historic property, measures are designed to mitigate these effects. The 

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is consulted for concurrence on each of these three steps. The 

consultation on all three steps is usually conducted simultaneously. Federally-recognized tribes are 

included in these consultations where Native American sites are involved.

Cultural Resource Surveys and Sites

Past inventories and site reports are on file at the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Medford, 

Oregon and in the appropriate district offices. These reports potentially contain information on the nature 

and location of archaeological or historic sites which is confidential in nature and may not be available 

under the Freedom of Information Act (FSH 6209.13 11.22). The purpose of this exemption is to protect 

sites from harm, and to retain the confidentiality of sites culturally significant to American Indian tribes. 

Past cultural work within the Eden Ridge Planning Area includes two project inventories which recorded 

some of the remains from the Eden Ridge railroad logging activities. The sites recorded were described 

as highly degraded by ongoing use, fire, logging and natural deterioration, and were found not eligible to 

the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). These surveys did not record the entire rail system 

within the Eden Ridge Tract, and were conducted when the whole system was not yet 50 years old, the 

standard age at which sites are analyzed as historic.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-174

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The current inventory documented the entire Smith-Powers logging railroad at Eden Ridge as a system 

including over eighteen miles of railroad grade, camps, day-use activity areas, and skid trails. Taken 

altogether as a railroad logging system, the Smith-Powers Logging Railroad was found to convey the 

historic activities that occurred at Eden Ridge. The site is eligible to the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) because of its association with the early logging of the Pacific Northwest as it influenced 

the development of Coos Bay and the nearby town of Powers (criterion A). In addition, certain features 

within the system may also be eligible under criteria C and D of the NRHP (36 CFR 60.4). 

 Criterion A considers a site’s association with events that have made a significant contribution to 

the broad pattern of our history. The whole railroad logging system is related to the early logging 

and economic development of the Pacific Northwest and Coos Bay. 

 Criterion C considers how a site might embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or 

method of construction. This applies to many of the railroad features that exhibit engineering 

techniques specific to railroads and historic logging methods such as railroad grades and skid 

trails with donkey sets.

 Criterion D considers sites that have or may be likely to yield information important in history or 

prehistory. This applies to many of the camps and day-use activity areas which could yield 

further information about the daily lives of the loggers and the technologies being used to build 

the logging system.

While the Smith-Powers Logging Railroad system is considered eligible, the integrity of individual 

features is also taken into consideration. During the site recordation process of the Smith-Powers 

Logging Railroad, each recorded feature was rated for its integrity and ability to convey the historic 

activities in the Eden Ridge Tract. Those considered to have integrity, are considered contributing 

features. Features that lack integrity, by either past impacts or natural deterioration, were found noncontributing. While both contributing and non-contributing features are a part of the site, the effects 

analysis could yield different determinations for each given the same impact. Effects to contributing 

features would require mitigation measures, while effects to non-contributing features may not.

Of the over eighteen miles of railroad grade that ran through the Eden Ridge tract, about ten have already 

been converted to classified roads. These roads largely run in the old railroad grades following the 

original grades and curvature of the railroad, with some detours around former trestles and draws. Many 

of the other railroad-specific features of these grades have been altered or destroyed by road maintenance 

activities, but taken as a whole, these roads still convey the original railroad system within the Eden 

Ridge Tract. 

Intact railroad grades, and even some of the grades that have been converted to roads already, still retain 

some of the engineering features distinctive to the railroad logging systems built by Smith-Powers. 

Tonsfeldt (2012) states, “The railroads built by Smith-Powers and its successor firms on the Eden Ridge 

represent textbook examples of civil engineering and railroad construction of a quality and sophistication 

seldom found on railroad logging systems. Hard rock cuts and fills, and extensive trestling made this 

system expensive to build, but the quality of earthwork and ballasting insured that it would be durable. 

Indeed, much of the main line grade is successfully re-used as forest roads.” 

Other features of the site include camps, donkey sleds, trestle and skid trail remains. The remains of the 

Doe Swamp Camp are still evident in a cut over area on a private land in-holding within the Eden Ridge 

area, most of the buildings are collapsed and the few buildings remaining are failing. Many other 

buildings related to these logging activities are to be found in the town of Powers itself. The other camps 

have largely been salvaged at the end of the logging activities with many of the buildings and other 

materials removed. Day-use activity areas have the remains of several activities including skidding, 

equipment maintenance and living activities. Many of the camps or day-use activity areas may yield 

more information about the lives of the loggers, their living conditions, or the industrial construction 

activities at Eden Ridge. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-175

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The remains of numerous trestles lie along the railroad grades, and in some case alongside the current 

classified road system. The conditions of the trestles range from failed with upright bents still in place, to 

nearly indiscernible with only a few timbers or spikes sticking out of the vegetation to indicate the past. 

Taken along with the grade, these remains still show the original location of the railroad on the landscape. 

While many of the skid trails were visible on the 1943 aerial photographs, on the ground the condition of 

these trails varies with some having donkey mounds spaced along the trail, along with anchor trees, 

stumps, or down log features.

b. Effects Mechanisms 

The measurement indicators for cultural resources are the effects to historic properties. These effects may 

be beneficial or adverse. Beneficial effects could include stabilizing a historic property such as 

controlling erosion through an archaeological site, restoring and maintaining a historic building, or 

reducing fuel concentrations around a historic property to reduce the potential for a wildfire to impact it. 

As management actions beneficial effects are designed and agreed upon through consultation conducted 

under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) with the State Historic Preservation 

Officer (SHPO).

Adverse effects are impacts to the integrity of the property, destroying a portion or all of the historic 

property and the information that it could yield, or destroying characteristic features or integrity of the 

historic property. A direct adverse impact occurs during the activity itself, such as when a road is built 

through a historic property and the construction process destroys the site. 

An indirect adverse impact can occur as a side effect of the activity or after the activity is complete, such 

as runoff from a road that eventually erodes a historic property adjacent to it. In some cases where a 

beneficial action is possible, a no action determination that does not implement the beneficial action could 

be adverse if it allows greater degradation or deterioration of the historic property.

The effects on cultural resource sites may vary with the type of site, as well as the type of project. 

Subsurface cultural materials may be more protected than standing structures, or cultural materials lying 

on top of the surface. In addition, all sites may be impacted by activities which draw people into an area, 

increasing the likelihood of vandalism, looting or incidental damage done through use of an area. 

Where avoidance of a significant cultural resource site is not possible, measures are developed to mitigate 

or limit the effects of the project. These measures include Project Design Criteria and Mitigation 

Measures (discussed below and in FEIS Chapter II and FEIS Appendix J, Heritage Report) specially 

developed for the Eden Ridge Project. 

Where the loss of the site, or a portion of the site would occur, the loss can mitigated by data recovery or 

interpretation of the history of the site. Data recovery generally includes a synthesis of known 

information about the site, and a plan for further research to retrieve further information from the site. 

Further information may be retrieved through excavation and analysis of the results, or researching and 

documenting the relevant records and histories about the site. Interpretation of the site is generally 

intended to inform the public about the history of the area to provide greater enjoyment of their cultural 

environment. Limiting the extent of disturbance to a site could include modifying the operating season of 

a project so that soil disturbance is kept to a minimum, directional felling of trees, using certain 

techniques or technology, or limiting the area where operations can take place to only a portion of the site.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-176

Final Environmental Impact Statement

c. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives

Alternative 1

Under this alternative, no actions are proposed and any previously recorded, or as yet undiscovered sites 

or railroad grades; they would remain undisturbed. There are no identified on-going impacts to historic 

properties that would continue because of no-action.

Action Alternatives

The three Action Alternatives all propose to convert some of the railroad grades to classified roads, an 

adverse effect to an eligible historic property. Alternative 2 would have the greatest effect, 

converting 4.4 miles of railroad grade; Alternative 3 has the next greatest effect converting 3 miles, 

and Alternative 4 converts one mile of railroad grade. Mitigation Measures specific to conversion of 

the contributing railroad grades roads include:

 Limiting road-building impacts to a single-lane road with designated turnouts;

 Avoiding railroad construction features such as fill, cut and borrows;

 Archaeological monitoring of road-construction activities and documentation of any 

additional findings; and

 Development of products interpreting the history of the Smith-Powers Logging Railroad at 

Eden Ridge including a Passport in Time (PIT) volunteer opportunity, a popular article, and a 

traveling exhibit.

In addition, based on the number of acres affected, Alternative 2 would have the greatest affect to 

existing sites, followed by Alternative 3. Alternative 4 would have the least effect on sites. 

However, the effects based on acreages would be mitigated by avoiding contributing site features 

during project implementation. Mitigation Measures specific to sites include:

 Avoiding contributing features such as skid trails, day-use activity areas and camps; and

 Limiting crossings of linear features such as skid trails.

All Mitigation Measures for project impacts to contributing features have been developed in 

consultation with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. A Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) has been developed between the Forest and SHPO describing the mitigation provisions (see 

FEIS Chapter II, Section D, 10, i). 

If additional sites are encountered in the course of additional inventory or during project implementation, 

Forest specialists would consult with the State Historic Preservation Office, as required by law, to 

determine the significance of the discovery and the effects of the project upon them. The Coquille Indian 

Tribe would be included in these discussions where Native American sites are involved. Mitigation 

would be accomplished and may include avoidance of the sites, or scientific investigation.

Similar and/or Related Actions are included under the Action Alternatives; they are designed as 

resource enhancement, restoration, or improvements, and are described in detail in FEIS Chapter II, 

Section D, 2, h. These actions would occur in proximity to commercial and silvicultural stand treatments. 

Included are Non-Commercial Treatments proposed for 363 acres within the ER Planning Area (see Table 

II-6 and MAP II-2), Snag/Down Wood Creation, Meadow Enhancement, Stream Enhancement, Native 

Grass/Forb Seeding, Invasive Plant Treatments, and Other Wildlife Opportunities. The effects from these 

actions are minor in scope and context, and would minimally add to the consequences of the Action 

Alternatives. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-177

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Consultations 

The Forest has consulted with SHPO under the R6 PA Stipulation III (B)6: Historic Properties 

Adversely Affected which requires case-by-case review of the project under the National Historic 

Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.5). The Forest has developed measures with SHPO to mitigate the adverse 

effects of the project on the Smith-Powers Logging Railroad at Eden Ridge. These measures have been 

incorporated into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with SHPO that documents these measures; a 

copy of this MOA is attached to FEIS Appendix J. 

A Notification of Adverse Effect has been submitted to the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation 

(ACHP) with no response received.

The Forest has consulted with the Coquille Indian Tribe to solicit their concerns regarding the Planning 

Area and this project throughout the NEPA process with no response received.

d. Cumulative Effects

Before the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 was implemented, project planning did 

not include consideration of impacts to historic properties. Any projects such as timber harvest, road 

building, fire suppression activities etc. that occurred prior to this, had the potential to adversely impact 

historic properties, and many of these projects occurred in areas considered high probability for cultural 

resources.

Since the 1970s, cultural resource inventories have been conducted to locate cultural resources prior to 

project implementation. The knowledge of sites found during earlier inventories, and the refinement of 

the inventory process to locate properties, currently allows impacts from projects to be avoided or 

mitigated. While natural deterioration is ongoing, the current condition and trend of the historic record is 

that historic properties are being protected from project impacts. Information from the sites, their location 

and nature help to inform about the history of the area. Knowledge of the location and condition of 

historic properties also allows the potential for management action to abate or mitigate natural processes 

which affect the historical record.

Wild fire and suppression activities may impact cultural resources. Public actions on Forest Service lands 

have the potential to impact heritage resources. Generally these impacts are minimal because they are 

dispersed. However, when actions begin to concentrate impacts to known heritage resources, 

management actions can be taken to mitigate those impacts.

Cumulatively, this project would continue the impacts to the railroad grades of converting them into the 

current road system. Most of the major railroad grades with the most railroad-related engineering would 

be converted at the end of this project. The Mitigation Measures that would limit road-building activities 

to singles lanes, and avoid impacting related features such as borrow pits, cuts and fill grades, would 

allow many of these engineering features to remain after the project. Other features such as camps, dayuse areas and skid trails that are contributing features would also be avoided. Interpretive products could 

bring the history of the Smith-Powers Logging Railroad to a larger audience.

16. RECREATION/HUMAN SAFETY

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on 

recreation opportunities, and/or human safety conditions. 

The Eden Ridge Planning Area has a limited current or past history of dispersed and developed 

recreational camping, hunting, hiking and site seeing. This issue also addresses public conflicts with 

operational activities associated with the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project, and compliance with assigned 

Visual Quality Objectives (SNF LRMP, 1989)
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-178

Final Environmental Impact Statement

a. Background and Analysis Framework

Recreation

The Analysis Area for recreation resources consists of the Eden Ridge Planning Area (see Map I-1). The 

most common recreation opportunities in the Eden Ridge Planning Area include dispersed camping, 

hunting, off-highway vehicle riding and sightseeing. Public participation in hiking and horseback riding 

activities is generally nonexistent in this area due to limited access, no designated trails, and the presence 

of adjacent industrial timberlands and heavy log truck traffic that surrounds the Planning Area. 

Public access to the Planning Area is limited to National Forest System Road 5000 at two entrance points. 

The western portion of this road is locked by Plum Creek Timberlands, Inc. during times of logging 

inactivity, while the portion along Wooden Rock Creek that accesses the southern end of the Planning 

Area is open year-round.

The Powers Ranger District has issued three outfitter/guide Special Use Permits to hunt for big game

(district-wide), but most of their activity has historically been outside of the Planning Area due to 

adjacent private property and locked gates. There are no designated dispersed campsites and no 

developed recreation sites within the Planning Area. 

Visual Resource Management

The Planning Area is primarily allocated to Matrix (General Forest) which is assigned a visual quality 

objective of Modification and Maximum Modification., under the (1989) SNF LRMP. These Visual 

Quality Objectives are within areas that would be affected by variable density management and connected 

actions. As stated in SNF LRMP Standard and Guideline 14-1, page IV-140:

“The VQOs are Modification and Maximum Modification. Activities of vegetative and landform 

alternation must borrow from naturally established form, line, color, and texture so completely, and at 

such a scale that its visual characteristics are those of natural occurrence within the surrounding 

character type. Impact should be mitigation within five year after project completion.”

As stated in SNF LRMP Standard and Guideline 11-2, page IV-140 (for Riparian):

“Management activities shall be planned to meet or exceed the VQOs of individual areas as 

appropriate for allocations of adjacent areas. For example, a riparian area dissecting an area allocated 

to Retention should meet retention, but if the adjacent area is allocated to General Forest, the VQO 

would be Modification or Maximum Modification.”

b. Effects Mechanisms 

This issue summarizes current recreation resources in the affected area and those components with the 

potential to be affected by the proposed actions. Resources with no potential to be affected may be 

identified, but need not be analyzed. The potential effect to recreation resources caused by each 

alternative focuses on public access to recreation opportunities within the Eden Ridge Planning Area and 

effects to the visitors’ recreational experience

Operational activities associated with the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project may cause some short term 

disruption to recreation activities. Some recreations activities can be curtailed to accommodate i.e., 

temporarily closing roads or access until the operation activities are complete. The proposed activities 

would not directly affect developed recreation sites. Active dispersed sites are not associated with project 

activity areas. Commercial product haul may occur in proximity to dispersed recreation sites; this effect 

would be mitigated by public notification, partial closures, etc. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-179

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Historically, the Eden Ridge Planning Area has received occasional use by off road four-wheel drive 

vehicles and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs); which are referred to as Off-Highway Vehicles (OHVs). While 

this existing use is minor, a concern is that thinning the forest stands and constructing roads would create 

conditions where OHV use would expand into this and other areas and cause additional resource damage.

The primary effect to recreationists in the long-term after project activities would be a slight change in the 

visual character along roads and trails. Currently, many of these areas are bordered by dense tree stands 

and downed woody material that tend to enclose or envelop the trail or road. Under the proposed actions, 

these stands would be opened up through cutting and removal of trees resulting in a more open forest.

c. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives

Under Alternative 1 (No-Action), there would be no commercial logging operations in the Eden Ridge 

Timber Sales Planning Area. There would be no change to the limited current, publically accessible 

recreation opportunities in the area and no effects to visitors’ experiences of the recreation resources. 

One consequence of this alternative is that there would not be any new road construction, which 

potentially restricts travel to and exploration of areas that are currently difficult to access. By not 

conducting development and operations this area, it is possible that land would not be opened to more 

productive big game hunting opportunities. 

Under No-Action, there would be no density management treatments, and therefore no mechanism to 

affect the amount of OHV use and any undesirable effects in the area: current conditions would continue.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) calls for the maximum extent of proposed treatments and connected 

actions. Public access to the Planning Area would be restricted at times during operations and in some 

areas where new road construction would be occurring. In addition, visitors would need to be aware that 

more log trucks and passenger vehicles than usual would be travelling down the roads before, during, and 

after operations. There would be new roads constructed and although during non-use, they would be 

closed to motorized access (Maintenance Level 1 status); they could provide for more exploration and 

dispersed non-motorized recreation opportunities. Treated areas may also provide access to big game 

hunting grounds in the future.

Alternative 3 proposes fewer new roads constructed and treated areas than the Proposed Action and 

includes helicopter logging. This alternative would have nearly the same effects to the recreation 

resources as Alternative 2 with a few differences. One exception is that fewer new roads would be 

constructed, which could slightly decrease the number of dispersed recreation and exploration 

opportunities. There may also be fewer treated areas that could potentially benefit big game hunting. 

Visitors to the area could also lose their sense of solitude while recreating due to the presence of 

helicopter logging operations.

Alternative 4 proposes no new roads constructed, less treated areas and includes more helicopter logging. 

This alternative would have the same effects as Alternative 3, with the exceptions that there would be 

even fewer areas opened up to exploration and dispersed recreation opportunities due to no new road 

construction, and more helicopter logging operations. There could also be fewer treated areas that could 

benefit big game hunting productivity.

All Action Alternatives may indirectly affect dispersed recreation sites temporarily, due to personnel 

using these sites while working on contracts associated with fuel reduction treatments. This effect would

be mitigated and managed, and would not result in any long-term adverse effects to dispersed recreation

sites.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-180

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The primary effects to recreationists during the short-term implementation phase would involve 

temporary road closures (for safety reasons), noise (chain saws, heavy equipment, and helicopters), 

smoke, and increased vehicle traffic. This direct effect would degrade the recreation experience for some 

users who have come to expect a quiet experience. Since not all areas would be receiving treatments at 

the same time, most areas would remain open while implementation activities occur. 

Some operation landing sites may be located in proximity to established roads. These landing sites would 

preclude public use during logging operations. It is expected that most users would accept short-term 

inconveniences to their accustomed habits. For some users, the recreation experience may be enhanced 

through viewing and observing project implementation associated with forest management. 

OHV use has been limited to specific areas due to the nature of favorable conditions. Though treatment 

units are located along some existing and proposed new roads, the forested areas would only be thinned 

and a natural understory of vegetation would develop over time. A more open forest might increase the 

potential for a small portion of the public to encroach on these areas with off-road vehicle use. 

This potential is anticipated to be very minor in areas associated with density management (thinning) 

treatments and other connected actions. New roads would be closed to public motorized use after their 

commercial use. Residual forest conditions would not provide for a favorable OHV experience and OHV 

use would not be expected to expand into other forested areas. Motorized use on Maintenance Level 1 

roads would not be authorized and would be an illegal use under forest-wide travel management rules. 

New roads would not have the potential to develop a “loop system” as the roads would be constructed to 

access landing locations. These roads would be closed and rehabilitated after use (Maintenance Level 1 

status). Such measures would not allow for OHV access onto these road locations.

Standard mitigation measures designed for placing roads into Maintenance Level 1 status to protect soil 

and water resource would be applied. These measures would minimize the risk of potential OHV use 

expansion and have been developed over time and are typically incorporated into timber sale contracts. 

These measures have been found to be implementable and effective to restrict OHV use within 

commercial thinning treatment areas similar to conditions associated with the Eden Ridge Planning Area. 

Mitigation measures would include: construction of water bars, scarification, scattering of slash and 

debris within disturbed areas, seeding and permanently barricading/closing the road entrance with native 

materials.

Visual Resources

The primary effect to recreationists in the long-term after project activities would be a slight change in the 

visual character along many roads. Currently, many of these areas are bordered by dense tree stands and 

downed woody material that tend to enclose or envelop the road. Under the Action Alternatives, these 

stands would be opened up through cutting and removal of generally small diameter trees resulting in a 

more open forest. User’s reaction to this change in character is difficult to predict. 

It is anticipated that many would welcome a more open forest with greater vistas and the opportunity to 

see more of what they are surrounded by. Others may prefer the more closed feeling of dense stands 

associated with the current condition. 

All treatments and connected actions would be in compliance with Forest Plan Visual Quality 

Objectives for the allocation affected (Modification and Maximum Modification). Density 

management would not reduce canopy cover to less than 50%. Any new roads would be minimal width 

and managed as Maintenance Level 1 (closed to motorized use). Activities of vegetative and landform 

alternation would be designed to borrow from naturally established form, line, color, and texture, and at 

such a scale that its visual characteristics are those of natural occurrence within the surrounding character 

type. Resulting management activities may visually dominate the immediate characteristic landscape, yet 

borrow from existing and adjacent densely stocked forest, occasional openings and existing land patterns.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-181

Final Environmental Impact Statement

d. Cumulative Effects

There may be some minor cumulative effects from other timber or forest management activities occurring 

within the Planning Area and potentially utilizing the same roads, however these effects are expected to 

be minor and of short duration (see wildlife cumulative effects discussions for identification of these other 

activities).

17. CLIMATE CHANGE

Effects of variable density management (thinning) treatments and other connected actions on 

climate change (greenhouse gas emissions and carbon cycling) and effects from global climate 

change on this proposal. 

Former Forest Service Chief Abigail R. Kimbell characterized the Agency’s response to the challenges 

presented by climate change as “one of the most urgent tasks facing the Forest Service” and stressed that 

“as a science-based organization, we need to be aware of this information and to consider it any time we 

make a decision regarding resource management, technical assistance, business operations, or any other 

aspect of our mission.”6

a. Background

Regional and National Forest Service direction and guidance regarding climate change and analysis in 

NEPA at the Project Scale was released in April of 2008. More specific National direction for Climate 

Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis was released on January 13, 2009.

The agency direction released in January 2009 provides Forest Service guidance on how to consider 

climate change in project-level National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and documentation. 

It introduces the agency position on climate change. Ongoing climate change research has been 

summarized in reports by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (www.ipcc.ch), 

US Climate Change Science Program’s Science Synthesis and Assessment Products and the US Global 

Change Research Program. 

Climate change studies specific to the Pacific Northwest have been conducted by the Climate Impacts 

Group at the University of Washington. These reports concluded that climate is already changing; that 

the change will accelerate in the future; and that human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, primarily 

carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), are the main source of accelerated climate change.

Projected global climate change impacts include air temperature increases, sea level rise, changes in the 

timing, location and quantity of precipitation, and increased frequency of extreme weather events such as 

heat waves, droughts, and floods. These changes will vary regionally and affect renewable resources, 

aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and agriculture. While uncertainties will remain regarding the timing 

and magnitude of climate change impacts, the scientific evidence predicts that continued increases in 

greenhouse gas emissions leads to increased climate change.

 

6 Abigail R. Kimbell, former Chief, USDA Forest Service, February 15, 2008, letter to Forest Service National Leadership Team
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-182

Final Environmental Impact Statement

The following are the basic concepts outlined in the January 13, 2009 direction:

1) Climate change effects include the effects of agency action on global climate change and the effects 

of climate change on a proposed project.

2) The Agency may propose projects to increase the adaptive capacity of ecosystems it manages, 

mitigate climate change effects on those ecosystems, or to sequester carbon.

3) It is not currently feasible to quantify the indirect effects of individual or multiple projects on 

global climate change and therefore determining significant effects of those projects or project 

alternatives on global climate change cannot be made at any scale.

4) Some project proposals may present choices based on quantifiable differences in carbon storage 

and GHG emissions between alternatives.

While uncertainties will remain regarding the timing and magnitude of climate change impacts, the 

scientific evidence predicts that continued increases in greenhouse gas emissions leads to increased 

climate change.

b. Analysis Framework

As noted in Forest Service guidance, there are two types of climate change effects for proposed projects 

to consider, as appropriate: 

 The effect of a proposed project on climate change (greenhouse gas emissions and carbon cycling). 

Examples include: short-term greenhouse gas emissions and alteration to the carbon cycle caused by 

hazardous fuels reduction projects, greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas field development, and 

avoiding large greenhouse gas emissions pulses and effects to the carbon cycle by thinning 

overstocked stands to increase forest resilience and decrease the potential for large scale wildfire.

 The effect of climate change on a proposed project. Examples include: effects of expected shifts in 

rainfall and temperature patterns on the seed stock selection for reforestation after timber harvest and 

effects of decreased snow fall on a ski area expansion proposal at a marginal geographic location, 

such as a southern aspect or low elevation.

Determining whether there is a cause-effect relationship is the first step in identifying a potential issue. 

Consideration was given as to whether some element of the proposal would result in direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects on greenhouse gas emissions or the carbon cycle and the direction of effects (e.g., 

increase, decrease, or combination of both). 

Scoping was used to determine if climate change issues are specifically related to the Proposed Action. 

For Eden Ridge Timber Sales, it was determined that there may be a minor cause-effect relationship 

regarding the potential effect of the proposed project on climate change (i.e., short-term GHG emissions 

and alteration to the carbon cycle caused by density management thinning and fuels reduction treatments). 

While the effect of climate change on this proposed project was not dismissed as “outside the scope” of 

the analysis, the Interdisciplinary Team identified only minor potential for a cause-effect relationships 

between climate change and its potential effect on this proposal. 

As discussed in the FS guidance, an analysis of GHG emissions and carbon cycles is not always 

appropriate for every NEPA document. As with any environmental impact, GHG emissions and carbon 

cycling should be considered in proportion to the nature and scope of the Federal action in question and 

its potential to either affect emissions or be affected by climate change impacts. As with any 

environmental effects analysis, the scope of effects needs to be established in timing and geography 

relative to the scope of the actions being considered in the alternatives. There will be some situations 

where quantitative analysis will be useful and others where qualitative analysis will best serve decision 

making. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-183

Final Environmental Impact Statement

c. Effects Mechanisms

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has summarized the contributions to climate change of 

global human activity sectors in its Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007). The top three anthropogenic 

(human-caused) contributors to greenhouse gas emissions (from 1970-2004) are: fossil fuel combustion 

(56.6% of global total), deforestation (17.3%), and agriculture/waste/energy (14.3%). IPCC subdivides 

the deforestation category into land use conversions, and large scale deforestation. Deforestation is 

defined as removal of all trees, most notably the conversion of forest and grassland into agricultural land 

or developed landscapes (IPCC 2000). 

Eden Ridge Timber Sales does not fall within any of these main contributors of GHG. Forested land 

would not be converted into a developed or agricultural condition. In fact, forest stands would be retained 

and thinned to maintain a vigorous forested condition that can continue to support trees and sequester 

carbon long-term.

Timber management projects can influence carbon dioxide sequestration in three main ways: (1) by 

increasing new forests (afforestation), (2) by avoiding their damage or destruction (avoided 

deforestation), and (3) by manipulating existing forest cover (managed forests). Land-use changes, 

specifically deforestation and regrowth, are by far the biggest factors on a global scale in forests’ role as 

sources or sinks of carbon dioxide, respectively (IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 

2000). Projects that create forests or improve forest conditions and capacity to grow trees are positive 

factors in carbon sequestration. Action Alternatives under Eden Ridge Timber Sales fall into this 

category.

Quantitative Analysis of Projects on GHG Emissions & Carbon Cycle Climate Change 

Many proposed projects and programs will emit greenhouse gases (direct effect) and, thus, contribute to 

the global concentration of greenhouse gases that affect climate (indirect effect). 

Because greenhouse gases mix readily into the global pool of greenhouse gases, it is not currently 

possible to ascertain the indirect effects of emissions from single or multiple sources (projects). Also, 

because the large majority of Forest Service projects are extremely small in the global atmospheric CO2 

context, it is not presently possible to conduct quantitative analysis of actual climate change effects based 

on individual or multiple projects. 

Currently the Agency does not have an accepted tool for analyzing all GHG emissions. Models used by 

the Agency such as FOFEM 5.57 and Consume 3.08can estimate the conversion of fuel loads into 

emissions (CO2, methane, nitrogen oxide (NO2)), though these tools are for projects which include 

prescribed burning of vegetation only. These two models are not used to estimate emissions for other 

project categories.

Other models that are being or have been developed include carbon life cycle calculators. For example, 

the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) is a forest growth and yield model that can produce per acre 

estimates of total stand carbon and removed carbon over time and under various management scenarios 

and forest disturbances such as fire, insects, and disease. The FVS also tracks how much of the 

merchantable carbon is stored in products or is emitted with or without energy capture. 

 

7 FOFEM 5.5. is First Order Fire Effects Model, a public domain computer program for predicting tree mortality, fuel 

consumption, smoke production, and soil heating caused by prescribed fire or 

http://www.fire.org/index.php?option=content&task=category§ionid=2&id=12&Itemid=31. 

8 Consume v. 3.0 is a software application used to predict fuel consumption, pollutant emissions, and heat release based on a 

number of factors including fuel loadings, fuel moisture, and other environmental factors 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/fera/research/smoke/consume/index.shtml.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-184

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Efforts are under way to make FVS growth projections sensitive to changes in climate. Guidance and 

analysis methods will continue to be developed for estimating GHG emissions and carbon sequestration 

from activities by federal, state and local governments, and non-governmental organizations which the 

Agency will continue to evaluate for applicability to its environmental analysis. 

It is not necessary to calculate GHG emissions for most projects; however, in situations where the 

responsible official finds the information useful for decision making, such data and conclusions 

developed through quantitative analysis would normally only be used for comparing alternatives related 

to direct effects or addressing any applicable regulatory requirements related to GHG emissions. Without 

enough scientific understanding to draw conclusions about the significance of the quantitative results, 

qualitative discussions about the potential for greenhouse gases sequestered and emitted are more 

appropriate for disclosing climate change implications. 

Under NEPA, it is appropriate to consider the effects of no action frames, the effects tradeoffs of the 

Proposed Action and Action Alternatives on GHGs emissions. The projected environmental baseline of 

the No-Action Alternative can be used to compare quantitative impacts of the alternatives with respect to 

GHG emissions (when applicable); however, because it is not possible to predict the actual effects of a 

particular project on global climate change, a baseline comparison cannot be made using the No-Action 

Alternative relative to climate change. 

Qualitative Analysis: GHG Emissions & Carbon Cycle 

Qualitative effects disclosure for a project’s impacts on GHG emissions and carbon sequestration should 

be couched in the ecosystem’s role in the carbon cycle. In this context, descriptions of qualitative impacts 

should disclose the nature and direction (short-term and long-term) of the impact as opposed to the 

specific magnitude of the impact. 

Forests play a major role in the carbon cycle. The carbon stored in live biomass, dead plant material, and 

soil represents the balance between CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere and its release through 

respiration, decomposition, and burning. Over longer time periods, indeed as long as forests exist, they 

will continue to absorb carbon. Qualitative discussions about these relationships can show the 

implications of agency decisions about climate change. 

d. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives

Effects of Project on Climate Change

The Proposed Action (the alternative that affects the most acres) under Eden Ridge Timber Sales would 

potentially affect 3,314 acres of second growth forest by commercially thinning smaller trees from the 

stand, retaining a residual stand of about 40-50 percent of the original stand by canopy cover. This scope 

and degree of change would be minor relative to the amount of forested land within the 6,516 Planning 

Area. A project of this magnitude would have such minimal contributions of greenhouse gasses that its 

impact on global climate change would be infinitesimal. Therefore, at the global scale, the Proposed 

Action’s direct and indirect contribution to greenhouse gasses and climate change would be negligible. 

Because the Proposed Action was identified to have minor cause-effect relationships to greenhouse gas 

emissions or the carbon cycle, and was determined to be of such a minor scale at the global or even 

regional scale, the direct effects would be meaningless to a reasonable decision regarding this project.

The carbon stored in live biomass, dead plant material, and soil represents the balance between CO2

absorbed from the atmosphere and its release through respiration, decomposition, and burning. Over 

longer time periods, indeed as long as forests exist, they will continue to absorb carbon. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-185

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Thinning treatments under the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project would likely not occur within a given 

watershed all in one year, treatments would likely be spread over 3-5 years or more. It is also highly 

likely that the total extent of acres within candidate stands would not be treated, because of the potential 

for areas to be excluded with application of the Project Design Criteria, as well as the fact that portions of 

many stands may not be overly dense and in need of density management at this time. The direct and 

indirect effects regarding these relationships are insignificant because there would be minor amounts of 

vegetation treatments and disposal of brush and slash would be minimal at the scale of affected 

watersheds.

This project is also consistent with IPCC recommendations for land use to help mitigate climate change. 

The 2007 IPCC report summarizes sector-specific key mitigation "technologies". For the forestry sector, 

the report recommends forest management including management to "improve tree species" and increase 

biomass. The Proposed Action is consistent with these recommendations because it would enact tree 

stocking level control that would reduce stand densities through intermediate harvest thinning treatments 

to sustain or increase tree growth and improve forest vigor and resiliency. Treatments would develop 

more sustainable, full yield timber (biomass) production on suitable lands. Density management would 

release remaining trees from inter-tree competition for sunlight, water and soil nutrients when compared 

to untreated areas. Minor portions of the Planning Area infected with root diseases would be managed to 

harvest trees predisposed to pathogen infection and retain or plant resistant tree species to improve forest 

health.

NEPA guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality 

On February 18, 2010, The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) provided draft guidance 

memorandum for public consideration and comment on the ways in which Federal agencies can improve 

their consideration of the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions’ and climate change in their 

evaluation of proposals for Federal actions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 

U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. This draft guidance is intended to help explain how agencies of the federal 

government should analyze the environmental effects of GHG emissions and climate change when they 

describe the environmental effects of a proposed agency action in accordance with Section 102 of NEPA 

and the CEQ Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA, 40 C.F.R. parts 1500-

1508. 

This guidance was found to be similar to and in accord with existing Forest Service direction on 

assessment of climate change in project level NEPA. It reiterates the same context as Forest Service 

direction. Of note, on page 3 is the threshold for evaluation for specifically calculating emissions for 

proposed actions that would directly emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas 

emission on an annual basis. It is estimated that it would take over 600 acres of burning in the Douglasfir/Hemlock fuel type to approach 25,000 metric tons of emissions (per year). It would be highly unlikely 

that Eden Ridge Timber Sales would generate this quantity of greenhouse gas emissions annually in 

regard to this threshold. 

Effects of Climate Change on Project

While there is ongoing research on the potential impacts of global climate change in the region and while 

no specific forest management recommendations have been published regarding global climate change, a 

brief review of climate change research in the region was conducted to assess predicted changes in 

climate and relate the changes to impacts climate change may have on the desired outcomes of, and the 

potential impacts from, this project. 

Although El Niño/Southern Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation comprise the primary factors 

for climate variability in the Pacific Northwest (Climate Impacts Group, 2006), the influence from global 

climate change is a growing concern. According to the Climate Impacts Group, based out of the 

University of Washington, climate modeling for the Pacific Northwest predict a future rate of warming of 

approximately 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit per decade for the Pacific Northwest through at least 2050, relative 

to the 1970-1999 average temperature (2006). 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-186

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Temperatures are projected to increase across all seasons, although most models project the largest 

temperature increases in summer (June-August), and the average temperatures could increase beyond the 

year-to-year variability observed in the Pacific Northwest during the 20th century as early as the 2020s. 

Nakawatase and Peterson (2006) studied the effects of climate variability on forest growth across the 

western and northeastern Olympic Mountains. Their results suggest that warmer temperatures predicted 

for the Olympic Mountains would result in decreased productivity at high elevations (i.e., subalpine forest 

types) in the northeastern region of the Olympic Mountains as a result of decreased summer soil moisture. 

Growth in low- to mid-elevation Douglas-fir and western hemlock forests, however, would depend on the 

combined effect of potential decreases in precipitation and increased temperature in the summer. 

Whether and how increasing temperatures resulting from global climate change would alter predicted 

forest response to the proposed commercial thinning under any of the Action Alternatives would depend 

on specific site conditions in relation to temperature and soil moisture availability on tree growth. If 

temperature were to increase while precipitation changes minimally, as predicted by the Climate Impacts 

Group, tree evapotransportation would increase nonlinearly, leading to more frequent drought stress. 

Douglas-fir, in particular, is sensitive to low soil moisture (Climate Impacts Group 2004). A moderate 

density commercial thinning could decrease competition for water during the summer while limiting 

additional evaporation from the soil and transpiration from the understory in the summer (Littell 2007, 

pers. comm.). Such thinning could also maximize the duration of snowpack in spring by having an open 

enough canopy that more snow accumulates in the ground rather than on the forest canopy, yet, is still 

shaded from melting by the sun in the spring. The resulting increased available moisture, in turn, could 

reduce the risk of dead or drought-stressed trees created by increasing temperatures and changes in 

precipitation caused by climate change and that would be susceptible to fire and disease in the near-term. 

Comments provided during public scoping raised the concern that climate change may increase the risk of 

roads causing landslides and downstream flooding. According to the Climate Impacts Group (2006, 

2007), however, while changes in precipitation are less certain than changes in temperature, most models 

predict modest changes in regional precipitation through the mid-century. Models suggest that there will 

be slight decreases in summer precipitation and slight increases in winter changes, but little change in the 

annual mean by mid-century. Winter precipitation changes are predicted to be largest in December –

February, but still within the range of year-to-year variability observed during the 20th century. A larger 

percent of the precipitation, however, will fall as rain rather than snow with the warmer temperatures, but 

natural year-to-year and decade-to-decade fluctuations in precipitation are likely to be more noticeable 

than longer term trends associated with climate change. While an increased likelihood of extreme 

precipitation events may also be a result of climate change, there is little information to confirm the 

increased risk for the Pacific Northwest region. Global climate change is not expected to discernibly 

increase the risk of the roads used in this project causing landslides and downstream flooding. 

e. Cumulative Effects 

Because the direct and indirect effects would be negligible, the Proposed Action’s contribution to 

cumulative effects on greenhouse gasses and climate change would also be negligible. 

As greenhouse gas emissions are integrated across the global atmosphere, it is not possible to determine 

the incremental cumulative impact on global climate from emissions associated with any number of 

particular projects. Nor is it expected that such disclosure would provide a practical or meaningful effects 

analysis for local project decisions. Uncertainty in climate change effects is expected since it is not 

possible to meaningfully link individual project actions to quantitative effects on climatic patterns. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-187

Final Environmental Impact Statement

It is recognized that global climate change may affect human health, that there is scientific controversy 

surrounding the effects of human activity on climate change, and that there is uncertainty and unknown 

risks associated with global climate change. The ultimate effects on climate change are indeed the results 

of incremental cumulative effects of many actions, most of which are outside of the Agency’s control.

F. OTHER EFFECTS, LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS

This Section deals with those effects for which disclosure is required by National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) regulations, Forest Service policy or regulation, various Executive Orders, or other laws and 

direction covering environmental analysis and documentation. In many cases, the information found here 

is also located elsewhere in this Chapter and this FEIS document. In other cases, the effects are not 

necessarily connected to any particular resource area. All effects were determined to be consistent within 

the Standards and Guidelines associated with the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan, as amended.

Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided

Implementation of any Action Alternative would result in some adverse environmental effects that cannot 

be avoided. For example: timber harvest and road construction activities would have some adverse 

effects on hydrologic conditions, soil productivity and vegetation. The magnitude of these effects relative 

to the extent of the proposed project, however, is minor and within prescribed Standards and Guidelines. 

The degree of adverse effects is substantially reduced by following Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines 

and by including the Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures outlined in Chapter II. See the 

Significant and Other Issues discussed earlier in this chapter, by resource area, for more information.

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

Maintaining long-term site productivity is the basis for the ecosystem being able to meet the needs of the 

land and people through time. The maintenance of productivity is required through legislation: the 

Organic Act of 1897, the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969, and the National Forest Management Act of 1976.

Long-term productivity and sustainability is the inherent potential of the land (ecosystem) to produce a 

certain level of vegetation and associated processes, such as wildlife, water, and clean air, indefinitely 

into the future.

Fixed components influencing productivity include local climate, topographic features, and soil type. 

Components affecting productivity that can be changed include: soil volume, porosity, water availability, 

chemistry, and biology. Factors that can affect these components include: compaction and soil 

displacement from timber harvest and fuels treatment activities; loss of soil organic matter; modification 

of the water table or moisture-holding capacity; and reductions in the functioning of soil organisms from 

compaction or displacement.

As detailed in this Chapter, Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) would treat the most acres and thus have the 

highest level of short-term uses of natural and depletable Forest resources of the alternatives, and it would 

also result in the greatest potential impact to long-term productivity. All of the alternatives would 

authorize various amounts of silvicultural and fuels treatments, and they would have varying impacts to 

short-term uses and long-term productivity within the Planning Area. 

Analysis indicates that short-term density management thinning and commodity extraction would not 

adversely affect long-term productivity. Long-term productivity and health of young forested stands 

would be expected to increase because of vegetation management actions.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-188

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Irreversible and Irretrievable Effects

“Irreversible” commitment of resources refers to a loss of future options with nonrenewable resources. 

An “Irretrievable” commitment of resources refers to loss of opportunity due to a particular choice of 

resource uses.

The soil and water protection measures identified in the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Project 

Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures in Chapter II of this document and Best Management Practices 

are designed to avoid or minimize the potential for irreversible losses from the proposed management 

actions.

With all alternatives: tree removal would result in an irretrievable loss of the value of removed trees for 

wildlife habitat, soil productivity, and other values. Minimal irreversible loss of soil should occur due to 

Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures associated with timber harvest (see Chapter II).

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential

Some form of energy would be necessary for projects using mechanized equipment. Silvicultural 

treatments and commercial extraction would involve both heavy and small machines for yarding logs. 

Fuels treatments and road construction, reconstruction and maintenance would also require use of 

machinery. Both possibilities would result in various amounts of fossil fuels (more fuel consumption for 

helicopter logging systems), and human labor to be expended. Fossil fuel energy would not be 

retrievable. However, fossil fuel energy is not in short supply and their use for this project would not 

have an adverse effect upon continued availability of these resources. 

Clean Air Act Amendments, 1977

The Action Alternatives are designed to meet the National Ambient Air quality standards through 

avoidance of practices that degrade air quality below health and visibility standards. The project would 

be consistent with the 1990 Clean Air Act and the 1977 Clean Air Act and its amendments (see Air 

Quality section).

The Clean Water Act, 1987

This act establishes a non-degradation policy for all federally proposed projects. Compliance with the 

Clean Water Act would be accomplished through planning, application, and monitoring Best 

Management Practices (BMPs). Based on the analysis presented in this FEIS, TMDL requirements 

would be met in each alternative (see Hydrologic Conditions and Water Quality subsections).

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low Income Populations,” directs federal agencies to integrate environmental justice considerations into 

federal programs and activities. Environmental justice means that, to the greatest extent practical and 

permitted by law, all populations are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered 

or are allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a 

disproportionately high and adverse manner by government programs and activities affecting human 

health or the environment.

One goal of Executive Order 12898 is to provide, to the greatest extent practicable, the opportunity for 

minority and low-income populations to participate in planning, analysis, and decision-making that 

affects their health or environment, including identification of program needs and designs. The public 

involvement process for the Proposed Action has been conducted under Departmental regulation 5600-2, 

December 15, 1997, including the Environmental Justice Flowchart (Appendix E of the regulation). The 

Proposed Action, its Purpose and Need, and area of potential effect have been clearly defined.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-189

Final Environmental Impact Statement

There would be no adverse effects to human health and no alternative has been determined to 

disproportionately affect minority or low income populations. The alternatives do not appear to have a 

disproportionately high or adverse effect on minority or low-income populations. Scoping did not reveal 

any issues or concerns associated with the principles of Environmental Justice. No mitigation measures 

to offset or ameliorate adverse effects to these populations have been identified. All interested and 

affected parties will continue to be involved with the public involvement and decision making process.

USDA Civil Rights Policy

The Civil Rights Policy for the USDA, Departmental Regulation 4300-4 dated May 30, 2003, states that 

the following are among the civil rights strategic goals: (1) managers, supervisors, and other employees 

are held accountable for ensuring that USDA customers are treated fairly and equitably, with dignity and 

respect; and (2) equal access is assured and equal treatment is provided in the delivery of USDA 

programs and services for all customers. This is the standard for service to all customers regardless of 

race, sex, national origin, age, or disabilities.

Disparate impact, a theory of discrimination, has been applied to the Eden Ridge Project’s planning 

process in order to reveal any such adverse effects that may unfairly and inequitably impact beneficiaries 

regarding program development, administration, and delivery. The objectives of this review and analysis 

are to prevent disparate treatment and minimize discrimination against minorities, women and persons 

with disabilities and to ensure compliance with all civil rights statutes, Federal regulations, and USDA 

policies and procedures.

Persons with Disabilities

Under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, no person with a disability can be denied 

participation in a Federal program that is available to all other people solely because of his or her 

disability. No groups or classes or persons were found to be disproportionately adversely affected by this 

proposal. This project would apply equally to all members of the public, and therefore is not 

discriminatory to any person or group.

Determination that a Civil Rights Impact Analysis (CRIA) is not needed

It is the policy of the Forest Service that the Responsible Forest Service Official (FSM 1704) review 

proposed actions for civil rights impacts and take either of the following actions in compliance with DR 

4300-4 and 1010-1 (FSM 1730.1): prepare a Civil Rights Impact Analysis and statement of its findings 

for any proposed policy or organizational action which may have a major civil rights impact, or document 

the determination that a civil rights impact analysis and a statement of findings are not needed. 

In April of 2010, the formal process under NEPA was initiated. Scoping letters were mailed on 4/13/10 

to all known interested publics having been involved in the initial sensing process, describing the 

Proposed Action and Purpose and Need for the Project. A Legal Notice for Scoping was published in the 

Coos Bay World, Newspaper of Record, on 4/16/10. In addition, Scoping Letters were sent to other 

agencies such as Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Forestry, NOAA 

Fisheries, Bureau of Land Management, and various city and county government entities in coastal 

southwest Oregon. Government-to-Government consultation letters were mailed to the Coquille Tribal 

Council; no response was received. 

The Scoping process for this project officially began with the issuance of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to 

prepare an Environmental Impact Statement published in the Federal Register on April 26, 2010 (FR page 

21577-21579). Written and electronic responses to the Scoping Letter were received through June 10, 

2010. Eight sources of substantial input were received from interested individuals, environmental interest 

groups, industry representatives, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-190

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Due to the length of time that had passed since the original NOI was published, refinement of the 

Proposed Action, and a change in the Responsible Official, a second (corrected) Notice of Intent was sent 

to the Federal Register and was published on January 18, 2012 (FR Vol. 77, No. 11, page 2508-2510). 

Notification was provided to the initial scoping respondents to notify them of the corrected NOI.

People self-select to participate and are not required to provide any information concerning individual 

demographic information. Based on public comment, there were no issues raised that would suggest, or 

from which one may infer, that planning or implementation of the Eden Ridge Timber Sales Project 

would affect groups or classes of persons, adversely, because of one or more prohibited bases.

Local Social/Economic Effects

The availability of natural resources contributes to the quality of life for many Coos County residents. 

Many communities are closely tied to the forest in work and recreation. These communities are directly 

influenced by changes in the supply of resources produced from the forest, and by the forest production of 

firewood, game, scenic resources, and recreational opportunities. 

Executive Order 13186 – Migratory Birds

A Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the USFS and USFWS to complement the 

January 2001, Executive Order. There are several bird species recognized as neo-tropical migrants on the 

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. The Eden Ridge Timber Sales may contain populations of 

migratory landbirds typical of coniferous forest and oak woodlands. See the “Neo-Tropical Migratory 

Birds” subsection above for further discussion of effects.

Executive Order 13443 - Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation

This August 17, 2007 Executive Order requires Federal agencies “to facilitate the expansion and 

enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat.” The 

proposed creation and enhancement of some early seral habitat in the alternatives would improve forage 

for game species and proposed harvest actions and access development would provide better hunting 

opportunities for the public.

************************************************************************************
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page III-191

Final Environmental Impact Statement

This page is intentionally left blank
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page IV-1

Final Environmental Impact Statement

IV. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

A. PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was prepared by the USDA Forest Service, Rogue 

River-Siskiyou National Forest, Powers Ranger District. A Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) 

developed the Proposed Action and alternatives, conducted analysis, prepared the FEIS document, and 

conducted technical review of analysis and documentation. This Chapter identifies the coordinators and 

resource specialists who participated in the overall preparation of the FEIS for Eden Ridge Timber Sales.

1. Forest Service Project Leadership and Interdisciplinary Team

The following Rogue River–Siskiyou National Forest personnel (including contractors and former 

employees) provided leadership and input for this FEIS. Responsibilities included development of the 

Proposed Action and alternatives, conducting the environmental analysis process, public involvement, 

organization of specialist input, and preparation of documentation for the DEIS and FEIS under the 

provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). MIO refers to the Medford Interagency 

Office, i.e., the Forest Supervisor’s Office. GPIO refers to the Grants Pass Interagency Office. RD refers 

to Ranger District. GIS is Geographic Information Systems.

CONTRIBUTOR CONTRIBUTION

Rob MacWhorter

Forest Supervisor, MIO Responsible Official

Jennifer Eberlien

Acting Forest Supervisor

(March 2012; now transferred)

Acting Responsible Official.

Jessie Berner

Powers District Ranger (since September 2011) Management of NEPA process, IDT Team and public involvement.

Carl Linderman

Former Powers District Ranger (retired)

Responsible Official; project development, management of NEPA process, 

initial scoping. Approval of purpose and need, issues and alternatives.

Robert Davies

Acting Powers District Ranger

Management of NEPA process; facilitator for public participation; 

timeframe and checkpoints.

Steve Boyer

Zone Silviculturist; Gold Beach & Powers RD

IDT Leader, Scoping process, stand exams, identification of candidate 

stands and silvicultural treatment prescriptions and modeling; Port-OrfordCedar disease analysis; Preliminary Silvicultural Diagnosis and PortOrford–Cedar Report; overall writing/editing and review.

Wesley Crum

Forester, Powers RD

IDT Leader, public involvement, finalization of Proposed Action; field 

verification of candidate stands and proposed roads, logging systems;

economic analysis, and overall writing/editing and review.

Ken Grigsby

NEPA Contractor

(former Forest Planner; retired 2009)

NEPA process specialist; co-IDT leadership, document compilation and 

managing editor. Initial development of Proposed Action. NEPA process 

and alternative documentation; logging system planning and Roads 

Analysis, PWA and other undeveloped areas, and climate change.

Karen Gamble

GIS Specialist: DRM/CSA 2 (now transferred)

Geographic documentation of Proposed Action and alternatives, 

quantification of proposed units, proposed and existing roads, and 

development of EIS maps (all chapters)

Maureen Joplin

Hydrologist (retired)

Assistance with initial development of Proposed Action candidate stands 

(GIS). Hydrologic and water quality analysis and cumulative watershed 

effects; Hydrology Report.

Chris Park

Hydrologist, GPIO

Forest-level review of hydrology, ACS Objectives and Riparian Reserve 

Project Design Criteria and compliance with Standards and Guidelines.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page IV-2

Final Environmental Impact Statement

CONTRIBUTOR CONTRIBUTION

Joni Brazier

Soil Scientist, GPIO

Geology, soils and site productivity analysis; Geology and Soils Report. 

SF Coquille Key Watershed road decommissioning analysis, report and 

overall document review.

Richard MacDonald

Fire Management Officer, Powers RD (retired)

Fire, fuels treatments and air quality analysis; Fire/Fuels and Air Quality 

Report

Clint Emerson

Botanist, Gold Beach & Powers RD

Botanical and invasive species analysis; Botanical Resources Report and 

Biological Evaluation

John Lowe

Wildlife Biologist, Powers RD (now transferred)

Threatened terrestrial wildlife species and critical habitat, FS Service 

Sensitive terrestrial wildlife species & habitats, wildlife management 

indicator species, rare and uncommon terrestrial wildlife species, and neotropical migratory birds; Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation.

Karla Cottom

Fisheries Biologist, Powers RD

Analysis of aquatic species and habitats: Aquatic Biota Report and 

Biological Evaluation. Consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service.

Kristin Hauge

Archaeologist, Gold Beach & Powers RD Heritage (Cultural Resources) analysis; Heritage Resources Report

Wade Christy

Natural Resource Specialist, Gold Beach & 

Powers RD (now transferred)

Recreation and human safety; visual resource analysis.

2. Other Resource Specialists and Contributors

The following Rogue River–Siskiyou National Forest personnel (including contractors and former 

employees) provided input, analysis, consultation and/or documentation review for this DEIS. 

CONTRIBUTOR CONTRIBUTION

Frank Betlejewski

Interregional Port-Orford-Cedar Program Manager, SW

Oregon Forest Insect & Disease Service Center (retired)

Consultation and review of Port-Orford-Cedar Report and 

analysis.

Amy Lowe

Sale Administrator, Powers RD (now transferred)

Logging feasibility, contract mitigations and implementation 

review

Robin McAlpin

Operations Manager, Powers RD (retired)

Existing and proposed roads analysis, Cost Share Roads 

analysis, road construction costs, economic analysis and 

review, road decommissioning SF Coquille.

Brent Hasty

GIS Specialist-DRM/CSA 2

Development of Modified Alternative 2; GIS analysis and 

mapping.

Holly Witt

Environmental Coordinator (Wildlife Biologist), Gold Beach 

& Powers RD

Wildlife updates and revisions. Project review, coordination, 

and consultation on Forest Service policies.

Mike Dearborn

Environmental Coord., Gold Beach & Powers RD (retired)

Initial project coordination; project initiation and development, 

logging systems paper planning.

Eric Martz

Former Silviculturist, Gold Beach & Powers RD (retired) Silvicultural consultation and historical background.

Dave Clayton

Forest Wildlife Biologist, MIO

Forest-level review of Wildlife Report and Biological 

Evaluation.

Susan Maiyo

Forest Fisheries Biologist, MIO

Forest-level review of Biological Assessment and Aquatic 

Biota Report.

Steve Brazier

Fisheries Biologist, GPIO Consultation and review of Aquatic Biota Report.

Steve Rheinburger

Forester, Logging Engineer; TEAMS Enterprise Logging systems and transportation paper panning and report.

Patrick Murphy

Forester (former Gold Beach RD) Initial logging and transportation paper planning.

Cole Belongie

GIS Specialist-DRM/CSA 2

Compilation and analysis of road data for cumulative effects 

analysis.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page IV-3

Final Environmental Impact Statement

B. DISTRIBUTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) have been distributed to the following 

organizations and government agencies in the form of a hard copy, compact disc, or a notification that the 

document is available on the Internet. Individuals specifically requesting a copy of the FEIS have also 

been mailed a hard copy or compact disc. 

Copies of the FEIS are available for review at the following locations:

Rogue River–Siskiyou National Forest

Powers Ranger District

Powers Ranger Station

42861 Highway 242

Powers, OR 97466

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

Supervisor’s Office

Medford Interagency Office

3040 Biddle Road

Medford, OR 97501

FEDERAL AGENCIES

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Agriculture, U.S. Department of

APHIS PPD/EAD

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Regional Office

National Agricultural Library

Natural Resource Conservation Service

Commerce, U.S. Department of

NOAA Fisheries Service, Northwest Region

Defense, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Northwestern Division

Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Activities, EIS Filing Section

Region 10, EIS Review Coordinator

Homeland Security, U. S. Coast Guard

Office of Environmental Management
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Page IV-4

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Interior, U.S. Department of the 

Bureau of Land Management

Medford District Office

Coos Bay District office

Fish and Wildlife Service, Roseburg Field Office

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

STATE AGENCIES

State of Oregon

Natural Resources Office

NATIVE AMERICANS

Coquille Tribal Council

ELECTED OFFICIALS

Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber

U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley (Oregon)

U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (Oregon)

U.S. Representative Peter DeFazio (Oregon)

U.S. Representative Greg Walden (Oregon)

COUNTY

Curry County Board of Commissioners

Coos County Board of Commissioners

LIBRARIES

Southern Oregon University

ORGANIZATIONS

Columbia Helicopters, Inc.

Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center

Cascadia Wildlands

American Forest Resource Council

Oregon Wild

Umpqua Watersheds
Eden Ridge Timber Sales References Page V-1

Final Environmental Impact Statement

CHAPTER V - REFERENCES

FEIS Chapter I

Atzet, T., Wheeler, D. 1989. USDA Forest Service. Key Species for Plant Associations on the Rogue River, 

Siskiyou, and Umpqua National Forests. Compiled by Anita Seda. R6-TM-TP-009-89. Updated 1997. R6-NRECOL-TP-026-97.

Crum, Wes. 2011. Personal communication on observed stand age, ER candidate stands.

Curtis, R.O. 1982. A Simple Index of Stand Density for Douglas-fir. Forest Sci., Vol. 28, No. 1, pp 92-94.

Daniel, T.W., Helms, J.A., Baker, F.S. 1979. Principles of Silviculture (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Book Company. 

New York. 500 pp.

Ellen, Dave. 1984. Curtis’ Relative Density in Practical Use. An unpublished, informal paper, Estacada Ranger 

District, Mt. Hood National Forest.

Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook. Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15. September 10, 2010. 

Washington, DC. 

Hadfield, J. S.; Goheen, D. J.; Filip, G. M.; Schmitt, C. L.; and Harvey, R. D. 1986. Root Diseases in Oregon and 

Washington Conifers. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Forest Pest Management. R6-FPM-250-

86. Page 7; 27 pp.

Hansen, E.M. 2000. Final Report on Demographics of Port-Orford-cedar on Sites Infested with P. lateralis for 

Many Years. Unpublished report. Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, Corvallis.

5 pp.

Hauge, Kristen. 2011. Historical compilation of railroad logging and history of Eden Ridge area.

Maxwell, W.G., Franklin, W.R. 1980. USDA Forest Service. Photo Series for Quantifying Natural Forest Residues 

in Common Vegetation Types of the Pacific Northwest.

Larsen, D.R. 2001. Stand Density Index. Table 1. Suggested maximum SDI by species and source.

Lutz, J.A., and C. B. Halpern. 2006. Tree mortality during early forest development: a long-term study of rates, 

causes, and consequences. Ecological Monographs 76(2):257-275.

Oliver, C.D., Larsen, B.C. 1996. Forest Stand Dynamics. Updated Version. John Wiley & Sons Inc. IBSN 0-471-

13833-9. 520 pp.

Pabst, R.J., T.A. Spies, M.N. Goslin, and S.L. Garmin. 2003. Development of late-successional forest structures 

after thinning young stands: A simulation study for the Oregon Coast Range. Poster presented at 2003 meeting of 

the North American Forest Ecology Workshop, Corvallis, OR.

Reineke, L.H. 1933. Perfecting a stand density index for even-aged forests. Journal of Agricultural Research 46 

(7): 627-638.

Spies, Pollock, Reeves, Beechie. 2012. The Science of Thinning to Meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives 

in Northwest Forest Plan Riparian Reserves. Workshop held October 30, 2012 at La Sells Stewart Center on the 

OSU campus, Corvallis, Oregon.

Roth, L.F., Harvey, R.D., and Kliejunas, J.T. 1987. Port-Orford-cedar root disease. R6-FPM-PR-010-91. USDA 

Forest Service, PNW Region. 11 pp. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales References Page V-2

Final Environmental Impact Statement

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement, and Land and Resource Management Plan, 

Siskiyou National Forest. Pacific Northwest Region. Grants Pass, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 1993. Determining the Risk of Cumulative Watershed Effects Resulting from Multiple 

Activities.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Record of Decision and Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment for 

Management of Port-Orford-cedar in Southwest Oregon, Siskiyou National Forest. Portland, Oregon. 485 pp. 

USDA-Forest Service. 2005. FEIS and Record of Decision. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program: 

Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Environmental Assessment and Decision Notice, Coastal Healthy Forest Treatments, 

Chetco, Gold Beach and Powers Ranger Districts. Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest. 17 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Environmental Assessment and Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant 

Impact and Finding of Non-significant Forest Plan Amendments (2010): Fire Use Amendment.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement published in 

the Federal Register on April 26, 2010 (FR page 21577-21579).

USDA Forest Service. 2012. (Corrected) Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 

was published the Federal Register on January 18, 2012 (FR Vol. 77, No. 11, page 2508-250). 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of Decision for amendments to Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. 

Portland, OR. Includes standards and guidelines for management of late-successional – old-growth dependent 

species within the range of the northern spotted owl. (aka. Northwest Forest Plan). US Government Printing Office, 

Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Federal Agency Guide for Pilot Watershed 

Analysis.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. Watershed Analyses:

 Myrtlewood Resource Area, Coos Bay District, Bureau of Land Management, 1994

Middle Fork Coquille Analytical Watershed. (Lower) Rock Creek and Myrtle Creek subwatersheds

 Powers Ranger District, Siskiyou National Forest, USDA Forest Service, 1995

South Fork Coquille Watershed Analysis. Coal Creek, Headwaters South Fork Coquille (Wooden Rock 

Creek), and Mill Creek subwatersheds

Zobel, D.B.; Roth, L.F.; Hawk, G.M. 1985 Ecology, Pathology, and Management of Port-Orford-Cedar 

(Chamaecyparis lawsoniana). USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Experiment Station General Technical 

Report PNW-181. 161 pp.

FEIS Chapter II

Atzet, T., Wheeler, D. 1989. USDA Forest Service. Key Species for Plant Associations on the Rogue River, 

Siskiyou, and Umpqua National Forests. Compiled by Anita Seda. R6-TM-TP-009-89. Updated 1997. R6-NRECOL-TP-026-97.

Brodie, Douglas J. 1981. General economic considerations in selecting regeneration systems for the multi-site 

multi-species conditions of southwestern Oregon Paper presented at FIR regeneration conference, June 8, Roseburg, 

OR 5 p.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales References Page V-3

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Burns, Russell M, (Tech compiler). 1983. Silvicultural systems for the major forest types of the United States.

Carey, A.B.; Lippke, B.R.; Sessions, J. 1999. Intentional systems management: managing forests for biodiversity. 

Journal of Sustainable Forestry, Vol. 9 (3/4).

Carey, A.B. 2003. Restoration of landscape function: reserves or active management; biocomplexity and 

restoration of biodiversity in temperate coniferous forest: inducing spatial heterogeneity with variable density 

thinning [2 papers in same journal]. Forestry, Vol. 76, No. 2.

Chan, S.S.; Larson, D.; Anderson, P.D. 2004. Microclimate patterns associated with density management and 

riparian buffers. Corvallis, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Chan, S.S.; Anderson P.; Cissel, J.; Larsen, L.; Thompson, C. 2004. Variable density management in riparian 

reserves: lessons learned from an operational study in managed forests of western Oregon, USA. For. Snow Landsc. 

Res., 151-172.

Craig, David W. 1984. Managed yield tables for the Siskiyou National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Siskiyou 

National Forest, Grants Pass, OR.

Curtis, R.O. 1982. A Simple Index of Stand Density for Douglas-fir. Forest Sci., Vol. 28, No. 1, pp 92-94.

Daniel, T.W., Helms, J.A., Baker, F.S. 1979. Principles of Silviculture (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Book Company. 

New York. 500 pp.

Drew, J.T. and Flewelling, J.W. 1979. Stand density management: An alternative approach and its application to 

Douglas-fir plantations. Forest Science. 25, pp. 518–532.

Ellen, Dave. 1984. Curtis’ Relative Density in Practical Use. An unpublished, informal paper, Estacada Ranger 

District, Mt. Hood National Forest.

Johnson, D.H., O’Neil, T.A. 2001. Wildlife –Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State 

University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. .736 pp.

Long, J.N. 1985. A Practical Approach to Density Management. College of Natural Resources, Utah State 

University. Logan, Utah. Agricultural Experiment Station. Journal Paper No. 2939. 

Luce, C.H. and Black T.A. 2001. Effects of Traffic and Ditch Maintenance on Forest Road Sediment Productions, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Boise, Idaho. 

Mellen-McLean, Kim, Bruce G. Marcot, Janet L. Ohmann, Karen Waddell, Susan A. Livingston, Elizabeth A. 

Willhite, Bruce B. Hostetler, Catherine Ogden, and Tina Dreisbach. 2009. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for 

managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of Washington and Oregon. 

Version 2.1. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest Research Station; USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office; Portland, Oregon. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/index.shtml

Minore, Don and Duane Kingsley. 1983. Mixed confers of southwestern Oregon In: Silvicultural systems for the 

major forest types of the United States. Russell M. Burns, (Tech. compiler). USDA Forest Service Agricultural 

Handbook 445 rev. 191 p.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012. Letter of Concurrence, for determination of “May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect (NLAA)” for Oregon Coast coho salmon and their designated critical habitat (ref. 2011/03685). 

February 27, 2012.

Oliver, C.D., Larsen, B.C. 1996. Forest Stand Dynamics. Updated Version. John Wiley & Sons Inc. IBSN 0-471-

13833-9. 520 pp.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales References Page V-4

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Rose, C. L., B. G. Marcot, T. K. Mellen, J. L. Ohmann, K. L. Waddell, D.L. Lindley, and B. Schreiber. 2001. 

Decaying wood in Pacific Northwest forests: concepts and tools for habitat management. Pp. 580-623 in: D.H. 

Johnson and T. A. O'Neil, ed. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University 

Press, Corvallis OR.

Smith, David Manyn. 1962. The practice of silviculture. 7th Edition John Wiley & Sons. 578 p,

Tappeiner, J.C.; Huffman, D.; Marshall, D. [and others]. 1997. Density, ages and growth ratios in old-growth and 

young-growth forests in coastal Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 27:638-648.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Formal Consultation on Timber Harvest, Meadow Restoration and Quarry

Activities proposed by the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2014 (BO-13420-

2009-F-0146). August 27, 2009. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Roseburg Field Office, Roseburg, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Land and Resource Management Plan. Siskiyou National Forest, Pacific Northwest 

Region, Grants Pass, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1993. Determining the Risk of Cumulative Watershed Effects Resulting from Multiple 

Activities.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. South Fork Coquille Watershed Analysis. Iteration1.0. Powers Ranger District, 

Siskiyou National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 1996, 1997, 2001. Webb, L., White, D. Siskiyou National Forest Siskiyou Supplement –

Guidelines for Harvest Prescriptions (Large Woody Material, Green Tree Retention, Wildlife Reserve Tree (Snag) 

Retention. Unpublished.

USDA Forest Service. 2000 (approx.). White, D. Down Wood and Snag Guide for Southwestern Oregon, Plant 

Association Group Membership. Unpublished.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Record of Decision and Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment for 

Management of Port-Orford-cedar in Southwest Oregon, Siskiyou National Forest. Portland, Oregon. 485 pp. 

USDA-Forest Service. 2005. FEIS and Record of Decision. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program: 

Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Meadow Restoration and Enhancement 

Decision Memo; signed in November. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Environmental Assessment and Decision Notice, Coastal Healthy Forest Treatments, 

Chetco, Gold Beach and Powers Ranger Districts. Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest. 17 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Environmental Assessment and Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant 

Impact and Finding of Non-significant Forest Plan Amendments (2010): Fire Use Amendment.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. (Corrected) Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 

was published the Federal Register on January 18, 2012 (FR Vol. 77, No. 11, page 2508-250). 

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National 

Forest System Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. FS-990a. April 2012. 165 pg.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of Decision for amendments to Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. 

Portland, OR. Includes standards and guidelines for management of late-successional – old-growth dependent 

species within the range of the northern spotted owl. (aka. Northwest Forest Plan). US Government Printing Office, 

Portland, OR.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales References Page V-5

Final Environmental Impact Statement

USDA Forest Service and BLM. 2011. Evaluation of the Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy and 

Associated Tools to achieve and maintain stream temperature water quality standards (update of 2005 Primary 

Shade Zone widths)

Woodall, C.W., Westfall, J.A. 2009. Relationships between the stocking levels of live trees and dead tree attributes 

in forests of the United States. USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Stations.

FEIS Chapter III

PURPOSE AND NEED/SILVICULTURE/PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR/WINDTHROW

Bloomberg, W.J., Reynolds, G. 1985. Growth loss and mortality in laminated root rot infection centers in secondgrowth Douglas-fir on Vancouver Island. Forest Science. 31: 497-508.

Brasier C., T. Jung and W. Osswald (eds.). 2006. Progress in Research on Phytophthora Diseases of Forest Trees. 

In: Proceedings of the Third International IUFRO Working Party 07.02.09., September 11-18, 2004, Freising, 

Germany. Forest Research, Farnham, UK. 188 pp. 

Daniel, T.W., Helms, J.A., Baker, F.S. 1979. Principles of Silviculture (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Book Company. 

New York. 500 pp.

Dixon, Gary E. comp. 2002 (revised frequently). Essential FVS: A user’s guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. 

Internal Rep. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center. 

CA Variant:

Drew, J.T. and Flewelling, J.W. 1979. Stand density management: An alternative approach and its application to 

Douglas-fir plantations. Forest Science. 25, pp. 518–532.

Ellen, Dave. 1984. Curtis’ Relative Density in Practical Use. An unpublished, informal paper, Estacada Ranger 

District, Mt. Hood National Forest.

Erwin, D.C. and O.K. Ribeiro. 1996. Phytophthora Diseases Worldwide. The American Phytopathological 

Society. APS Press, St. Paul, MN. 562 pp.

Goheen, D.J., Hansen, E.M. 1993. Effects of pathogens and bark beetles on forests. In: Schowalter, T.B., Filip, 

G.M., eds. Beetle-pathogen interactions in conifer forests. London: Academic Press: 175-196. 

Hadfield, J. S.; Goheen, D. J.; Filip, G. M.; Schmitt, C. L.; and Harvey, R. D. 1986. Root Diseases in Oregon and 

Washington Conifers. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Forest Pest Management. R6-FPM-250-

86. Page 7; 27 pp.

Hansen, E.M. 2000. Final Report on Demographics of Port-Orford-cedar on Sites Infested with P. lateralis for 

Many Years. Unpublished report. Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 5 

pp.

Keyser, Chad E. comp. 2008 (revised October 4, 2011). Inland California and Southern Cascades (CA) Variant 

Overview – Forest Vegetation Simulator. Internal Rep. Fort Collins, CO: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Forest Management Service Center. 56p.

Lutz, J.A., and C. B. Halpern. 2006. Tree mortality during early forest development: a long-term study of rates, 

causes, and consequences. Ecological Monographs 76(2):257-275.

Maxwell, W.G., Franklin, W.R. 1980. USDA Forest Service. Photo Series for Quantifying Natural Forest Residues 

in Common Vegetation Types of the Pacific Northwest. GTR##.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales References Page V-6

Final Environmental Impact Statement

McGaughey, R. J. 1997. Visualizing forest stand dynamics using the stand visualization system. In: Proceedings, 

1997 ASPRS-ACSM-RTI Spring Convention. 1997 April 7-10. Seattle, WA. Bethesda, MD: American Congress 

on Surveying and Mapping 4:248-257.

Pabst, R.J., T.A. Spies, M.N. Goslin, and S.L. Garmin. 2003. Development of late-successional forest structures 

after thinning young stands: A simulation study for the Oregon Coast Range. Poster presented at 2003 meeting of 

the North American Forest Ecology Workshop, Corvallis, OR.

Roth, L.F., Harvey, R.D., and Kliejunas, J.T. 1987. Port-Orford-cedar root disease. R6-FPM-PR-010-91. USDA 

Forest Service, PNW Region. 11 pp. 

Spies, Pollock, Reeves, Beechie. 2012. The Science of Thinning to Meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives 

in Northwest Forest Plan Riparian Reserves. Workshop held October 30, 2012 at La Sells Stewart Center on the 

OSU campus, Corvallis, Oregon.

Thies, W. G. 1983. Determination of growth reduction in Douglas-fir infected by Phellinus weirii. Forest Science. 

29: 305-315. 

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Land and Resource Management Plan. Siskiyou National Forest, Pacific Northwest 

Region, Grants Pass, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. South Fork Coquille Watershed Analysis; Iteration1.0. Powers Ranger District, 

Siskiyou National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Record of Decision and Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment for 

Management of Port-Orford-cedar in Southwest Oregon, Siskiyou National Forest. Portland, Oregon. 485 pp. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Watershed Analysis Middle Fork Coquille Analytical Watershed. 

BLM, Coos Bay District, Myrtlewood Resource Area.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of Decision for amendments to Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. 

Portland, OR. Includes standards and guidelines for management of late-successional – old-growth dependent 

species within the range of the northern spotted owl. (aka. Northwest Forest Plan). US Government Printing Office, 

Portland, OR.

USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1989. Soil Survey of Coos County, Oregon. 269 pp.

Zobel, D.B.; Roth, L.F.; Hawk, G.M. 1985. Ecology, Pathology, and Management of Port-Orford-Cedar 

(Chamaecyparis lawsoniana). USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Experiment Station General Technical 

Report PNW-181. 161 pp.

HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY/CUMULATIVE WATERSHED EFFECTS, ACS

Beschta, R. L., Dilby, G.W., Brown, G.W., Holtby, L.B., and Hodstra, T.D. 1987. Stream Temperature and 

Aquatic Habitat, Fisheries and Forestry Interactions, pp 192-232. University of Washington.

Beschta, R. L., and J. Weathered. 1984. "TEMP-84: a computer model for predicting stream temperatures resulting 

from the management of stream vegetation." United States Department of Agriculture report WSDGAD 9 

Boyd, Matthew, and Debra Sturdevant. 1997. Scientific Basis for Oregon's Stream Temperature Standard: 

Common Questions and Straight Answers. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

Brown, G.W. 1972. An improved temperature model for small streams. Water Resources Research Institute 

Report 16. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales References Page V-7

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chen, G. K. 1991. South Fork Coquille Basin: Fisheries Summary. USDA Forest Service. Siskiyou National 

Forest, Powers Ranger District. Powers, Oregon. 17 pp.

DEQ, Coos Bay. 1993. Unpublished turbidity measurements.

Dott, R.H. 1971. Geology of the Southwestern Oregon Coast, west of the 124th Meridian: State of Oregon, 

Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Bulletin 69.

Elliot, William J.; Hall, David E.; and Scheele, Dayna L. 1999. WEPP:Road; WEPP Interface for Predicting Forest 

Road Runoff, Erosion and Sediment Delivery. Technical Documentation. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station and San Dimas Technology and Development Center. 

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/wepproaddoc.html

Flint, A.J., and Childs, S.W. 1987. Calculation of solar radiation in mountainous terrain. Agriculture and Forest 

Meteorology, Volume 40 Issue 3. Pp 233-249. Dept. of Soil Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Furniss, M.J., Roelofs, T.D., Yee, C.S. 1991. Chapter 8, Road construction and maintenance. In: Meehan, W.R., 

ed. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries 

Society Special Publication 19:297-323.

Grant, Gordon E., Sarah L. Lewis, Frederick J. Swanson, John H. Cissel, and Jeffrey J. McDonnell. 2008. Effects 

of forest practices on peak flows and consequent channel response in western Oregon: a state-of-science report. 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report.

Johnson, S.L. 2011. Factors influencing stream temperatures in small streams: substrate effects and a shading 

experiment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2004, 61(6): 913-923, 10.1139/f04-040.

Leinenbach, Peter. – US EPA Region 10. 2013. Effects of Riparian Management Strategies on Stream 

Temperature; Science Review Team Temperature Subgroup: - In June 6, 2013 BLM/FS/FWS/NOAA FisheriesMemorandum.

May, Christine L. and Gresswell, Robert E. 2003. Processes and rates of wood accumulation in headwater streams 

of the Oregon Coast Range, USA; Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 28, pp. 409-424.

May, Christine L., and Gresswell, Robert E. 2003. Large wood recruitment and redistribution in headwater streams 

in the southern Oregon Coast Range, USA; Canadian Journal of Forest Research, v. 38, pp. 1352-1362.

Moore, D. and S. Wondzell. 2005. Physical Hydrology and the Effects of Forest Harvesting in the Pacific 

Northwest: A Review. Journal of the American Water Resources Association.

Moore, R., D. L. Spittlehouse, and Anthony Story. 2005. "Riparian Microclimate And Stream Temperature 

Response To Forest Harvesting: A Review1." JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41.4: 

813-834.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2001. South Fork Coquille River Total Maximum Daily Load 

Allocation and Water Quality Management Plan

Oregon DEQ, 2004/2006. Oregon’s 2006 Water Quality Status Assessment Report. Department of Environmental 

Quality, Portland, OR. 

Park, C. 1993. Shadow: Stream temperature management program user’s manual. Siskiyou National Forest, Grants 

Pass, Oregon. Version 2.3.

Reid, L.M. 1993. Research and cumulative watershed effects. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-141. Albany, CA: 

USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales References Page V-8

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Rosgen, David. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Copyright Wildland Hydrology Inc., Hilton Lee Silvey. Printed 

by Printed Media Companies, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Sakals, M.F.; Innes, J.L.;Wilford, D.J.; Sidle, R.C.; Grant, G.E. 2006. The role of forests in reducing 

hydrogeomorphic hazards. Forest, Snow and Landscape Research. 80(1):11-22.

Sellers, W.D. 1965. Physical climatology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 272 pp. In Progress in 

Physical Geography February 2009 33: 130-132,

Sidle, R.C.; Pearce, A.J.; O’Loughin, C.L. 1985. Hillslope stability and land use. Water Resources Monograph No. 

11. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. 

Sinokrot, B. A., and Stefan, H.G. 1993. Stream temperature dynamics: Measurements and modeling. Water 

Resources Research: Volume 29, Issue 7, pages 2299–2312.

Spies, T. Pollock, M. and G. Reeves. 2013. Effects of Riparian Thinning on Wood Recruitment: A Scientific 

Synthesis. June 6, 2013 BLM/FS/FWS/NOAA Fisheries-Memorandum.

Stinson, Rennay. 1995. Oral communications with Max Yager, Powers Ranger District, Siskiyou National Forest.

Townsend. Curt. 1995. Oral communication with Joe Hallett and Cindy Ticks (written documentation)” Powers 

ranger District, Siskiyou National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 1989. “Land and Resource Management Plan for the Siskiyou National Forest. 

UDA Forest Service. 1989, 1992. Stream Surveys.

USDA Forest Service. 1993. “Determining the Risk of Cumulative Watershed Effects Resulting from Multiple 

Activities”.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Powers Ranger District, Siskiyou National Forest, South Fork Coquille Watershed 

Analysis.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. “Aquatic Restoration Plan, South Fork Coquille Watershed”.

USDA Forest service. 2010. Coal Creek Level II Stream Survey, August 2010

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National 

Forest System Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. FS-990a. April 2012. 165 pg.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Stream Inventory Handbook; LEVEL I & II. Pacific Northwest Region. Version 

2.12.

USDA Forest Service; Joni Brazier. 2012. Eden Ridge Timber Sales: Appendix D, Geology and Soils Report. 

Rogue River Siskiyou National Forest.

USDA Forest Service; Karla Cotton. 2012. Eden Ridge Timber Sales: Appendix H, Aquatic Biota Report and 

Biological Evaluation. Rogue River Siskiyou National Forest.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to 

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted 

Owl. 

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, ODEQ. 2005. Northwest Forest Plan Temperature 

TMDL Implementation Strategies, Pacific Northwest.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales References Page V-9

Final Environmental Impact Statement

USDA Forest Service and BLM. 2011. Evaluation of the Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy and 

Associated Tools to achieve and maintain stream temperature water quality standards (update of 2005 Primary 

Shade Zone widths)

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Myrtlewood Resource Area, Coos Bay District, Middle Fork Coquille 

Analytical Watershed.

Wemple, B.C.; Jones, J.A.; Grant, G.E. 1996. Channel network extension by logging roads in two basins, western 

Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin. 32: 1195-1207.

Wemple, B.C.; Swanson, F.J.; Jones, J.A. 2001. Forest roads and geomorphic process interactions, Cascade Range, 

Oregon. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 26(2): 191–204.

Wunderlich, T.E. 1972. Heat and mass transfer between a water surface and the atmosphere. Water Research 

Laboratory, Tennessee Valley Authority. Report No. 14, Norris Tennessee. Pp. 4.20.

Yager, Max. 1995. Oral communication regarding visual observations of turbidity: Powers ranger District, 

Siskiyou National Forest.

Website References

Wikipedia: “Coquille River, Oregon” and “Powers, Oregon”

Oregon Department of Forestry: LocatOR website).

Oregon Climate Service: Average Annual Precipitation; www.wrcc.dri.edu/pcpn/or.gif

Oregon’s 2004/2006 Integrated Report Database: 

www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt0406

Oregon’s 2010 Integrated Report DEQ website www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/assessment.htm

GEOLOGY/SOILS

Amaranthus, M. P., J. M. Trappe, and R. J. Molina. 1989. Long-Term Forest Productivity and the Living Soil. P. 

36-52 in Maintaining the long-term productivity of Pacific Northwest forest ecosystems, Perry, D. A., et al. (eds.). 

Timber Press, Portland, OR.

Atzet, T., R.F. Powers, D.H. McNabb, M.P. Amaranthus, and E.R. Gross. 1989. Maintaining long-term forest 

productivity in Southwest Oregon and northern California. P. 185-201 in Maintaining the long-term productivity of 

Pacific Northwest forest ecosystems, Perry, D.A., et al. (eds.). Timber Press, Portland, OR.

Beaulieu, John D. 1971. Geologic Formations of Western Oregon (West of Longitude 121o30’). State of Oregon 

Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Bulletin 70. 72 pg.

Farve, R., and C. Napper. 2009. Biomass Fuels and Whole Tree Harvesting Impacts on Soil Productivity – Review 

of Literature. USDA, Forest Service, National Technology and Development Program. 2000-Inventory & 

Monitoring 0920 1803-SDTDC, May 2009. 60 p.

Floch, R.F. 1988. Shovel logging and soil compaction: A case study. Master’s Thesis, Oregon State Univ., 

Corvallis, OR. May 1988. 

Goodman, D.M. and J.A. Trofymow. 1998. Comparison of communities of ectomycorrhizal fungi in old-growth 

and mature stands of Douglas-fir at two sites on southern Vancouver Island. Can. J. For. Res. 28: 574-581. 

Keslick, J.A. Jr. 1997. Fact Sheets: “Dozer” blight. One absorptive structure, mycorrhiza. How to kill a tree. 

Megahan, W.F. 1986. Recent studies on erosion and its control in forest lands in the United States. In: Richard, F., 

ed. Range basin sediment delivery: Proceedings; 1986 August; Albuquerque, NM. IAHS Pub 159, Wallingford, 

Oxon, United Kingdom: 178-189.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales References Page V-10

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Meyer, LeRoy C. and Michael P. Amaranthus. 1979. Siskiyou National Forest Soil Resource Inventory. 258 pg.

Neary, Daniel G.; Ryan, Kevin C.; DeBano, Leonard F., eds. 2005. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on 

soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol.4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 250 p.

Oregon Department of Geologic and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI). 2009. Oregon Geologic Data Compilation 

(OGDC) – Release 5.

Orr, E.L.; Orr, W.N.; and E.M. Baldwin. 1992. Geology of Oregon, Fourth Edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing

Company. Dubuque, Iowa. 254 pg.

Sidle, R.C. 1980. Slope Stability on Forest Land. Pacific Northwest External Publication PNW209, Oregon State 

University: Corvallis; 23 pg.

Siskiyou National Forest. 1989. Land and Resource Management Plan, Siskiyou National Forest. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Region Six.

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil 

Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1988. General Water Quality Best Management Practices. Pacific 

Northwest Region. 86 pg.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. South Fork Coquille Watershed Analysis, Iteration 1.0. 

Siskiyou National Forest, Powers Ranger District.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998. FSM 2520 – Watershed Protection and Management, R-6 

Supplement No. 2500-98-1. Region 6, Portland, Oregon. 6 pg.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2010. FSM 2500 – Watershed and Air Management, Chapter 2550 

– Soil Management, Amendment No. 2500-2010-1. Effective November 23, 2010. National Headquarters (WO), 

Washington D.C. 20 pg.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality 

Management on National Forest System Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. FS-990a. April 

2012. 165 pg.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1989. Soil Survey of Coos County, Oregon. 269 pg.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Watershed Analysis, Middle Fork Coquille 

Analytical Watershed. Coos Bay District, Myrtlewood Resource Area. 80 pg.

Ziemer, R.R. 1981a. Root Strength (Botany), 1981 McGraw-Hill Yearbook of Science and Technology.

Ziemer, R.R. 1981b. Some Effects of Silvicultural Options on the Stability of Slopes. New York, N.Y.: Natl. 

Counc. Paper Ind. For Air and Stream Improv.: 1981; Stream Improv. Tech. Bull. 344.

FIRE/FUELS/AIR QUALITY

Agee, James K.; Skinner, Carl N. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and 

Management 211 83-96

Anderson H.E. 1982. Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior. USDA USFS. GTR-INT122. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales References Page V-11

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Omi, P.N., Martinson, E.J. 2002. Effects of fuels treatments on wildfire severity. Final report, Joint Fire Sciences 

Program. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Peterson, David L.; Johnson, Morris C.; Agee, James K.; Jain, Theresa B.; McKenzie, Donald; Reinhardt, Elizabeth 

D. 2005 Forest structure and fire hazard in dry western forests of the Western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-628. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 30p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. South Fork Coquille Watershed Analysis, Iteration 1.0. 

Siskiyou National Forest, Powers Ranger District.

BOTANICAL RESOURCES

Castellano, M.A., J. E. Smith, T. O’Dell, E. Cázares and S. Nugent. 1999. Handbook to Strategy 1 Fungal Species 

in the Northwest Forest Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-476.

Chen, J., Franklin, J., Spies, T.; Vegetation Responses to Edge Environments in Old-Growth Douglas-Fir Forests;

Ecological Applications, 2(4). 1992. pp. 387-396 1992. 

Christy, J. A. and D. H. Wagner. 1996. Guide for the identification of rare, threatened or sensitive bryophytes in 

the range of the northern spotted owl, western Washington, western Oregon and northwestern California. USDIBureau of Land Management, Eugene District; USDA-Forest Service, Siuslaw National Forest; The Nature 

Conservancy; and The Northwest Botanical Institute.

Ferriel, J. 2005. Draft Conservation Assessment for Bensoniella oregana. USDA Forest Service. Rogue RiverSiskiyou National Forest, Gold Beach, Oregon.

Hickman, James C. 1993. The Jepson Manual Higher Plants of California. University of California Press. 

Berkeley, CA. 1,400 pp.

Hitchcock, C. L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, 

Washington.

Interagency Special Status and Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP); 2011 http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/

Kranabetter, J.M. and P. Kroeger. 2001. Ectomycorrhizal mushroom response to partial cutting in a western 

hemlock-western redcedar forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31: 978-987.

Lawton, E. 1971. Moss Flora of the Pacific Northwest. The Hattori Botanical Laboratory. Nichinan, Japan.

Lehmkuhl, J.F., L.E. Gould, E. Cázares, and D.R. Hosford. 2004. Truffle abundance and mycophagy by northern 

flying squirrels in eastern Washington forests. Forest Ecology and Management 200(1-3):49-65.

Luoma, D., Eberhart, J., Molina, R., Amaranthus, M.; Response of ectomycorrhizal fungus sporocarp production to 

varying levels of green tree retention. Forest Ecology and Management 202 (2004) 337–354.

McCune, B. and L. Geiser. 1997. Macrolichens of the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, 

Oregon.

Mullens, L. and Showalter, R. 2007. Rare Plants of Southwest Oregon, USDA Forest Service & USDI Bureau of 

Land Management. Grants Pass, Oregon.

Ninth Circuit’s opinion, U.S. Court of Appeals for Case 11-35729 (April 25, 2013). 

Oregon Natural Heritage Program Data Base. 2006. Portland, Oregon.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales References Page V-12

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Smith, J. E., R. Molina, M. M. P. Huso, D. L. Luoma, D. McKay, M. A. Castellano, T. Lebel, and Y. Valachovic 

2002. Species richness, abundance, and composition of hypogeous and epigeous ectomycorrhizal fungal sporocarps 

in young, rotation-age, and old-growth stands in Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) in the Cascade Range of 

Oregon, USA. Canadian Journal of Botany 80: 186-204.

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan 

(LRMP), Siskiyou National Forest. Siskiyou National Forest, Grants Pass.

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Forest Service Manual: wildlife, fish, and sensitive plant management (Section 

2670), WO Amendment 2600-91-3, effective 5/31/91.

USDA/USDI. 1994. Final supplemental environmental impact statement on management of habitat for latesuccessional and old growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Forest 

Service/Bureau of Land Management. Portland, Oregon.

USDA-Forest Service/USDI-Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to 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.

USDA-Forest Service/USDI-Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Record of Decision and Standards and 

Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards 

and Guidelines. Portland, OR. 135 pp.

USDA-Forest Service/USDI-Bureau of Land Management. 2004. Record of Decision to Remove or Modify the 

Survey and Manage Mitigation Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. 

USDA-Forest Service. 2007. Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Standards and 

Guidelines From Forest Lands and Resource Management Plans Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.

USDA Forest Service. 1978- 2008. Sensitive and endemic plant records and plant survey records on file at Gold 

Beach RD, Gold Beach, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan 

(LRMP), Siskiyou National Forest. Grants Pass, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Forest Service Manual: Series 2000 - National Forest Resource Management, WO 

Amendment 2000-95-5, effective 11/29/95 - Invasive Plant Management.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Current Management Direction for Invasive Plants, Forest Service Manual 2080, 

Amendment No. 2000-95-5, effective November 29, 1995. Washington DC

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Pistol River Watershed Analysis. Gold Beach Ranger District. Gold Beach, OR.

USDA-Forest Service/USDI-Bureau of Land Management. ISSSSP Conservation Planning Tools. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/planning-tools/

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Pacific Northwest Invasive Plant Program Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Region 6, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Current Management Direction for Native Plant Revegetation, Forest Service Manual 

2070, 2070.3 and 2070.46, effective February 13, 2008. Washington DC.

USDA Plants Database. http://plants.usda.gov 2008.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales References Page V-13

Final Environmental Impact Statement

TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE

Anthony, R. G. 2013. The Effects of Riparian Thinning on Marbled Murrelets and Northern Spotted Owls. June 6, 

2013 BLM/FS/FWS/NOAA Fisheries-Memorandum; (28 January 2013). 

Anthony, R., & Isaacs, F. 1989. Characteristics of Bald Eagle Nest Sites in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife 

Management, 53(1), 148-159. The Wildlife Society. 

Anthony, R.G., R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, B.R. McClelland, and J.I. Hodges. 1982. Habitat use by nesting and 

roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Res. Conf. 47:332-342.

Aubry, K.B. and C. Raley. 2006. Ecological characteristics of fishers (Martes pennanti) in the southern Oregon 

Cascade Range. USDA Forest Service. Olympia Forestry Sciences Laboratory. Olympia, WA.

Aubry, K.B., C.M. Raley, T.J. Catton, and G.W. Tomb. 2002. Ecological characteristics of fishers in the southern 

Oregon Cascade Range: final progress report: 1 June, 2002. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Olympia, WA.

Aubry, K. B., M. J. Crites, and S. D. West. 1991. Regional patterns of small mammal abundance and community 

composition in Oregon and Washington. Pages 285-294 in Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, AL. B. Carey, and M. H. 

Huff, editors. 1991. Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-285.

Barrett, N.M. 2008. Wildlife Biologist. Rogue River National Forest, Prospect, OR. Personal communications.

Bellrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, geese and swans of North America. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA.

Bock, C. E., V. A. Saab, T. D. Rich, and D. S. Dobkin. 1993. Effects of livestock grazing on neotropical migratory 

landbirds in Western North America. Pages 296–309 in D. M. Finch and P. W. Stangel, editors. Status and 

management of neotropical migratory birds. U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station General Technical Report RM-229.

Brown, H.A., R.B. Bury, D.M. Darda, L.V. Diller, C.R. Peterson, and R.M. Storm. 1995. Reptiles of Washington 

and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA.

Brown, E. R. (ed). 1985. Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitats in Forest of Western Oregon and Washington 

(two volumes). USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. R6-F&WL-192-1985.

Bruner, H.J. 1997. Habitat use and productivity in the central Cascade Range of Oregon. Master’s Thesis, Oregon 

State University, Corvallis, OR.

Bull, E.L., Heater, T.W., Youngblood, A. 2004. Arboreal Squirrel Response to Silvicultural Treatments for Dwarf 

Mistletoe Control in Northeastern Oregon. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 19, 133-141.

Burger, Alan E. 2002. Conservation assessment of marbled murrelets in British Columbia, a review of biology, 

populations, habitat associations and conservation. Pacific and Yukon Region, Canadian Wildlife Service. 168 

pages.

Buskirk, S.W. 1992. Conserving circumboreal forests for martens and fishers. Conservation Biology. 6:318-320.

Buskirk, S.W. and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. In: Buskirk, S.W., 

Harestad, A.S., Raphael, M.G., Powell, R.A. (Eds.), Martens, Sables, and Fishers: Biology and Conservation. 

Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 283-296.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales References Page V-14

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Buskirk, S.W. and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994 American marten. Pages 38 -73 in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. 

Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski, eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores; American marten, 

fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. General Technical Report RM-254. US Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Carey, Andrew B. 1991. The biology of arboreal rodents in Douglas-fir forests. United States Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-276. Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Portland, Oregon. 45 p.

Carey, A.B., C.C. Maguire, B.L. Biswell, and T.M. Wilson. 1999. Distribution and abundance of Neotoma in 

western Oregon and Washington. Northwest Science, Vol. 73, No. 2.

Carey, A.B. 2000. Effects of New Forest Management Strategies on Squirrel Populations. Ecological Applications 

10, 248-257.

Carey, A.B. 2001. Experimental manipulation of spatial heterogeneity in Douglas-fir forests: effects on squirrels. 

Forest Ecology and Management 152, 13-30.

Center for Biological Diversity. 2000. Petition to list the fisher (Martes pennanti) as an endangered species in its 

west coast range. Center for Biological Diversity, Tucson, Arizona, USA.

Carter, Harry R.; Erickson, Richard A. 1992. Status and conservation of the Marbled Murrelet in California, 1892-

1987. In: Carter, Harry R.; Morrison, Michael L., eds. Status and conservation of the Marbled Murrelet in North 

America. Proceedings of the Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology 5(1): 92-108.

Christensen, A. G., L.J. Lyon, and J.W. Unsworth. 1993. Elk management in the Northern Region: considerations 

in forest plan updates or revisions. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-303. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Research Station. 10 p.

Clayton, D. 2008. Wildlife Biologist. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Roseburg, OR. Personal communications.

Cole, E.K., M.D. Pope, and R.G. Anthony. 1997. Effects of road management on movement and survival of 

Roosevelt elk. Journal of Wildlife Management 61: 1115-1126.

Cook, J.G, L.L. Irwin, L.D. Bryant, R.A. Riggs, and J.W. Thomas. 2004. Thermal cover needs of large ungulates: 

A review of hypothesis tests in Transactions of the 69th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference: 708-726.

Cooper, J.M, and Wright, K.G. 1998. Inventory Methods for Riverine Birds: Harlequin Duck, Belted Kingfisher 

and American Dipper. Version 2.0. 

Corn, P. S., and R. B. Bury. 1991. Small mammal communities in the Oregon Coast Range. Pages 241-254 in

Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, A. B. Carey, and M. H. Huff, editors. 1991. Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged 

Douglas-fir forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. General Technical 

Rpt. PNW-GTR-285.

Corkran, C. C., and C. T. Thoms. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia: a field 

identification guide. Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton, Alberta.

Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin, J.F. 

Franklin, R.J. Gutiérrez, J.M. Marzluff, L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern 

spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. Portland, Oregon. September 2004.

Csuti, B., AL. J. Kimerling, T. AL. O’Neil, M. M. Shaughnessy, E. P. Gaines, and M. M. P. Huso. 1997. Atlas of 

Oregon wildlife. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Delaney, D.K., T.G. Grubb, P. Beier, L.L Pater, and M.H. Reiser. 1999. Effects of helicopter noise on Mexican 

spotted owls. J. Wildlife Management 63(1):60-76. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales References Page V-15

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Dillingham, C. P., R. C. Miller, and L. O. Webb. 1995. Marbled Murrelet distribution in the Siskiyou National 

Forest of southwestern Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist 76:33–39.

Dillingham,C. P., D.P. Vroman, and P. W. Dillingham. 2008. Breeding Bird Responses to Silvicultural Treatments 

in the Klamath Province of Oregon. Northwest Naturalist 89: 33-45. 

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/30136799?uid=3739856&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&

sid=56081570783

Dowlan, S. 1996. The breeding status and distribution of Harlequin Ducks in Oregon: a summary of observations 

and survey efforts. Oregon Birds 22:42-47. In Marshall, D.B., M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, Eds. 2003. Birds 

of Oregon: A General Reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 Pp.

Evans Mack, D., W. P. Ritchie, S. K. Nelson, E. Kuo-Harrison, P. Harrison, and T. E. Hamer. 2003. Methods for 

surveying marbled murrelets in forests: a revised protocol for land management and research. Pacific Seabird Group 

Technical Publication Number 2. 

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, 

economic, and social assessment. US Government Printing Office 1993-793-071

Forsman, E.D., E.C. Meslow, and H.M. Wight. 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted owl in Oregon. 

Wildlife Monographs 87:1-64.

Forsman, E. D., K. M, Horn, and W. AL. Neitro. 1982. Spotted owl research and management in the Pacific 

Northwest. Proceedings of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 47:323-331.

Gaines, W.L., P.H. Singleton, and R.C. Ross. 2003. Assessing the Cumulative Effects of Linear Recreation Routes 

on Wildlife Habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, General Technical Report PNW GTR-586.

Garrett, M. G., J. W. Watson, and R. G. Anthony. 1993. Bald eagle home range and habitat use in the Columbia 

River estuary. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:19-27.

Gilbert, F. F., and R. Allwine. 1991. Small mammal communities in the Oregon Cascade Range. Pages 257-267 in

Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, A. B. Carey, and M. H. Huff, editors. 1991. Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged 

Douglas-fir forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. General Technical 

Rpt PNW-GTR-285.

Gilligan, Jeff, Mark Smith, Dennis Rogers, and Alan Contraras. 1994. Birds of Oregon – Status and Distribution. 

Cinclus Press. 330 pp.

Gomez, D.M., R.G. Anthony, and J.P. Hayes. 2005. Influence of thinning of Douglas-fir forests on population 

parameters and diet of northern flying squirrels. Journal of Wildlife Management. 69: 1670-1682. 

Hamer, T. E., and S. K. Nelson. 1995. Nesting chronology of the marbled murrelet. Pages 49-56 in Ralph, C. J., G. 

L. Hunt Jr., M. G. Raphael, and J. F. Piatt, editors. Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, General Technical Report 

PSW-GTR-152.

Happe Patti, Jeff Lewis, and Kurt Jenkins. 2008. Olympic Fisher Reintroduction Update. 6 March 2008. Olympic 

National Park, National Park Service.

Hargis, C.D., J.A. Bissonette, and D.L. Turner. 1999. The influence of forest fragmentation and landscape pattern 

on American martens. Journal of Applied Ecology 36. p.157-172.

Hartwig C. L., Eastman D. S. & Harestad A. S. 2004 Characteristics of pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) 

cavity trees and their patches on southeastern Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada. For. Ecol. Manage.

187, 225–34.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales References Page V-16

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Haynes, Richard W.; Bormann, Bernard T.; Lee, Danny C.; Martin, Jon R., tech. eds. 2006. Northwest Forest 

Plan—the first 10 years (1994-2003): synthesis of monitoring and research results. General Technical Report PNWGTR-651. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 292 p. 

Heiken, D. 2010. Dead Wood Response to Thinning: Some Examples from Modeling Work. . 

http://www.slideshare.net/dougoh/effects-of-logging-on-dead-wood-habitat. 

Herbers, J., Klenner, W. 2007. Effects of logging pattern and intensity on squirrel demography. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 71, 2655-2663.

Holland, D. C. 1994. The western pond turtle: habitat and history - final report. U.S. Department of Energy, 

Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.

Holloway, G.L., Malcolm, J.R. 2006. Sciurid habitat relationships in forests managed under selection and 

shelterwood silviculture in Ontario. Journal of Wildlife Management 70, 1735-1745.

Holloway, G.L., Smith, W.P. 2011. A Meta-Analysis of Forest Age and Structure Effects on Northern Flying 

Squirrel Densities. Journal of Wildlife Management 75, 668-674.

Huff, M.H. (Ed.). 2005. Northwest Forest Plan: The First 10 years (1994–2003): Status and Trend of Populations 

and Nesting Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-646. US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, 142 pp.

Janes, Stewart, John Kemper, Norman Barrett, Richard Cronberg, Jim Livaudias, Marjorie Moore, Thomas Phillips, 

Howard Sands, Gary Shaffer, Joseph Shelton, and Pepper Trail. 2002. The birds of Jackson County, Oregon –

Distribution and Abundance. 28 pp.

Johnson, D.H. 1992. Spotted owls, great horned owls, and forest fragmentation in the Central Oregon Cascades. 

M.S. thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. . in Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, 

J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin, J.F. Franklin, R.J. Gutiérrez, J.M. Marzluff, L. Sztukowski. 2004. 

Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. Portland, Oregon. 

September 2004.

Johnsgard, P. A. 1990. Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons of North America. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington 

DC.

Jones, J .L. and E. O. Garton. 1994. Selection of successional stages by fishers in north-central Idaho. In: Buskirk, 

S.W., Harestad, A.S., Raphael, M.G., Powell, R.A. (Eds.), Martens, Sables, and Fishers: Biology and Conservation. 

Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 377-387.

Kerwin, A.E. and R. Huff. 2007. Conservation assessment for the Mardon skipper butterfly (Polites mardon). 

USDA Forest Service Region 6, California, Oregon and Washington. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon 

and Washington.

Knight, R. L., and S. A. Temple. 1995. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management. Pages 327-

333 in R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through research and 

management. Island Press, Covelo, Calif. 372pp.

LaHaye WS, Gutiérrez RJ. 1999. Nest Sites and Nesting habitat of the Northern Spotted Owl in Northwestern 

California. The Condor: Vol. 101, No. 2 pp. 324–330.

Lehmkuhl, J.F., K.D. Kistler and J.S. Begley. 2006. Bushy-tailed woodrat abundance in dry forests of eastern 

Washington. Journal of Mammalogy 87:371–379.

Lehmkuhl, J.F., K.D. Kistler, J.S. Begley and J. Boulanger. 2006. Demography of northern flying squirrels informs 

ecosystem management of western interior forests. Ecological Applications 16:584–600.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales References Page V-17

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Long, L. L. & Ralph, C.J. 1998. Regulation and observations of human disturbance near nesting Marbled 

Murrelets. Technical Report, Northwest Forest Plan, U.S.D.A Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 

Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, California.

Lowe, J. 2007. Wildlife Biologist. U.S. Forest Service. Powers, OR. Personal communications.

Lowe, J. 2011. Wildlife Biologist. U.S. Forest Service. Powers, OR. Personal communications.

Lyon, L. Jack. 1983. Road density models describing habitat effectiveness for elk. Journal of Forestry. 81(9): 592-

594, 613.

Manning, T., J.C. Hagar, and B.C. McComb. 2011. Thinning of Young Douglas-fir Forests Decreases Density of 

Northern Flying Squirrels in the Oregon Cascades. http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/handle/1957/25772

Marshall, D. B. 1988. Status of the Marbled Murrelet in North America: with Special Emphasis on California, 

Oregon and Washington. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88(30).

Marshall, D.B., M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, Eds. 2003. Birds of Oregon: A General Reference. Oregon State 

University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 Pp.

Maser, Chris. 1998. Mammals of the Pacific Northwest: from the coast to the high Cascades. Oregon State 

University Press, Corvallis. 406 p.

Maser, C.,B. R. Mate, J. F. Franklin, and C. T. Dryness. 1981. Natural history of Oregon coast mammals. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-133. Pacific Northwest Region, Forest 

and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon. 496p.

Mellen, T. Kim. 1987. Home range and habitat use of pileated woodpeckers, western Oregon. M.S. Thesis, Oregon 

State Univ., Corvallis. 96 pp.

Mellen, T. K., E. C. Meslow, and R. W. Mannan. 1992. Summertime home range and habitat use of pileated 

woodpeckers in western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:96-103.

Mellen-McLean, Kim, Bruce G. Marcot, Janet L. Ohmann, Karen Waddell, Susan A. Livingston, Elizabeth A. 

Willhite, Bruce B. Hostetler, Catherine Ogden, and Tina Dreisbach. 2009. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for 

managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of Washington and Oregon. 

Version 2.1. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest Research Station; USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office; Portland, Oregon. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/index.shtml

Meyer, M.D., Kelt, D.A., North, M.P. 2007. Microhabitat Associations of Northern Flying Squirrels in Burned and 

Thinned Forest Stands of the Sierra Nevada. American Midland Naturalist 157, 202-211.

Miller, G.S. 1989. Dispersal of Juvenile Northern Spotted Owls in Western Oregon. M.S. thesis, Oregon State 

University, Corvallis, OR.

Miller J.C. and P. C. Hammond. 2007. Butterflies and moths of Pacific Northwest forests and woodlands: rare, 

endangered, and management-sensitive species. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service.

Millspaugh J.J., Woods R.J., Hunt KE, Raedeke K.J., Brundige G.C., Washburn B.E., Wasser S.K. 2001. Fecal 

glucocorticoid assays and the physiological stress response of elk. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:899-907

NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. 

NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: June 7, 2011 ). 

Nelson, S. K., T. E. Hamer, A. K. Wilson, and d. J. Meekins. 2003. Marbled murrelet nest tree and nest site 

selection in the Pacific Northwest. Pacific Seabirds. 30:51-52.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales References Page V-18

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Ninth Circuit’s opinion, U.S. Court of Appeals for Case 11-35729 (April 25, 2013). 

Noss, R.F. , and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving Nature's Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. 

Defenders of Wildlife and Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Nussbaum, R.A., E.D. Brodie Jr., and R.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. 

University of Idaho Press. Moscow, ID

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2003. Oregon’s Elk Management Plan. Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife. Salem, OR.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2008. Draft Oregon Black-Tailed Deer Management Plan. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Salem, OR.

Olsen, J., and P. Olsen. 1980. Alleviating the impact of human disturbance on the breeding peregrine falcon II. 

Public and recreational lands. Corella 4:54-57. in Richardson, C.T, AND C. K. Miller. 1997. Recommendations for 

protecting raptors from human disturbance: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: 34-638.

Pagel, J.E. 1991. In Press. Management and monitoring of peregrine falcon nest sites in northern California and 

Oregon. In Memoria de Tercer Congreso Internacional de Recursos Naturales y Vida Silvestre, The Wildlife 

Society of Mexico.

Partners in Flight. 1999. Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and 

Washington. Version 1.0, Prepared by Bob Altman for Oregon - Washington Partners in Flight, 111 pp.

Pierson, E.D., M.C. Wackenhut, J.S. Altenbach, P. Bradley, P. Call, D.L. Genter, C.E. Harris, B.L. Keller, B. 

Lengus, L. Lewis, B. Luce, K.W. Navo, J.M. Perkins, S. Smith, and L. Welch. 1999. Species conservation 

assessment and strategy for Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii and Corynorhinus 

townsendii pallescens). Idaho Conservation Effort, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. 

Platt, M. and R. Goggans. 1991. Report on breeding season observations of Great Gray Owls on the Willamette 

National Forest. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Potter, A., Fleckenstein, J. and Feen, J. 2002. Mardon Skipper Range and Distribution in Washington in Relation to 

State and Federal Highways with a Habitat Description and Survey Method Guidelines, Final Report to Washington 

Department of Transportation.

Powell, R.A. 1993. The fisher: life history, ecology and behavior. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota 

Press.

Powell, R.A. 1994. Effects of scale on habitat selection and foraging behavior of fishers in winter. Journal of 

Mammology 75 (2):349-356.

Powell, R.A. and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher. Pages 38-73 in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, and W.J. 

Zielinski, editors. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and 

wolverine. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, 

USA.

Pyle, R.M. 2002. The Butterflies of Cascadia. A Field Guide to all the Species of Washington, Oregon, and 

Surrounding Territories. Seattle Audubon Society. 420 pp.

Raley, C. M. and K. B. Aubry. 2006. Foraging ecology of pileated woodpeckers in coastal forests of Washington.

Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1266–1275.

Ralph, C. John; Hunt, George L., Jr.; Raphael, Martin G.; Piatt, John F., technical editors. 1995. Ecology and 

conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-152. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station; 420 p.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales References Page V-19

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Raphael, Martin G., and L.L.C. Jones. 1997. Characteristics of resting and denning sites of American martens in 

central Oregon and western Washington. Pp.146-165 in G. Proulx, H.N. Bryant, and P.M. Woodard, eds., Martes: 

taxonomy, ecology, techniques, and management. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Ransome, D.B., Sullivan, T.B. 2002. Short-term population dynamics of Glaucomys sabrinus and Tamiasciurus 

douglasii in commercially thinned and unthinned stands of coastal coniferous forest. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research 32, 2043-2050.

Ransome, D.B., Lindgren, P.M.F., Sullivan, D.S., Sullivan, T.P. 2004. Long-term responses of ecosystem 

components to stand thinning in young lodgepole pine forest. Population dynamics of northern flying squirrels and 

red squirrels. Forest Ecology and Management 202, 355-367.

Regehr, H.M., C.M. Smith, B. Arquilla, and F. Cooke. 2001. Post-fledging broods of migratory Harlequin Ducks 

accompany females to wintering areas. Condor 103:408-412.

Robertson, G.J. and R.I. Goudie. 1999. Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus). In: The Birds of North 

America. No. 466. A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Ross, Dana. 2007. 2007 Surveys for Costal Populations of Mardon Skipper: A Report to the Bureau of Land 

Management, Coos Bay District. July 31, 2007. 

Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson, and J.G. Kie. 2000. Elk distribution and modeling in relation to 

roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(3):672-684.

Rowland, M.W.; Wisdom, M.J., Bruce K., Penninger, M.A. 2004. Effects of roads on elk: implications for 

management in forested ecosystems. In: Transactions of the 69th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference: 491-508.

Saul, S. M., M. Swisher, C. Oakley, and others. 1977. A survey of bat populations and their habitat preferences in 

southern Oregon. A student-oriented studies project funded by National Science Foundation through Southern 

Oregon State College, Ashland. 89 p.

Slauson, K. M. and W. J. Zielinski. 2009. Characteristics of summer and fall resting structures used by American 

martens in coastal northwestern California. Northwest Science 83(1):35-45.

Smith, W.P., Gende, S.M., Nichols, J.V. 2004. Ecological correlates of flying squirrel microhabitat use and density 

in temperate rainforests of southeastern Alaska. Journal of Mammalogy 85, 663-674.

Spahr, R., L. Armstrong, D. Atwood, and M. Rath. 1991. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species of the 

Intermountain Region. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT. 

Spies, T. Pollock, M. and G. Reeves. 2013. Effects of Riparian Thinning on Wood Recruitment: A Scientific 

Synthesis. June 6, 2013 BLM/FS/FWS/NOAA Fisheries-Memorandum.

Stalmaster, M. V. 1987. The bald eagle. Universe Books, New York.

Stebbins, R. C. 1985. A field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Peterson Field Guild Series #16, 

Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Mass.

Street, R. 1999. "Histrionicus histrionicus" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. 

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Histrionicus_histrionicus.html

Suter, G. W., II, and J. L. Joness. 1981. Features for golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, and prairie falcon nest site 

protection. Rap-tor Res. 15:12-18.

Swarthout, E.C.H. and R.J. Steidl. 2001. Flush responses of Mexican spotted owls to recreationists. J. Wildlife 

Management 65(2):312-317.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales References Page V-20

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Thomas, J.W.; Raphael, M.G.; Anthony, R.G.; Forsman, E.D.; Gunderson, A.G.; Holthausen, R.S.; Marcot, B.G.; 

Reeves, G.H.; Sedell, J.R.; Solis, D.M. 1993. Viability assessments and management considerations for species 

associated with late-successional and old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Government Printing Office. 530 p.

Thomas, J.W., E.D., Forsman, J.B. Lint, E.C. Meslow, B.R. Noon, and J. Verner. 1990. A conservation strategy for 

the northern spotted owl: A report of the Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the 

northern spotted owl. USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. Portland, Oregon. 427 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Siskiyou National Forest, Land and Resource Management Plan. United States 

Department of Agriculture. Pacific Northwest Region. Grants Pass, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Forest Service Manual: Series 2600 - Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat 

Management, Section 2670 - Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals, WO Amendment 2600-

2600-95-7, Effective June 23, 1995.

USDA Forest Service. 1996. The Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve Assessment. Rogue River National 

Forest. Ashland Ranger District. Ashland, OR. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2007. Conservation Assessment for the Mardon 

Skipper (Polites Mardon). Version 1.0, May 2007.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Environmental Assessment and Decision Notice, Coastal Healthy Forest Treatments, 

Chetco, Gold Beach and Powers Ranger Districts. Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest. 17 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Regional Forester’s Sensitive species list

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Management Indicator Species - Forest-Wide Environmental Baseline and Species 

Account for the Siskiyou National Forest (portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest). Habitat use and 

ecology, distribution of the species, Forest-level habitat evaluations, and viability assessments for Management 

Indicator Species. Final February 17, 2012.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Record of Decision and Standards and 

Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards 

and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the 

Northern Spotted Owl. US Government Printing Office, Portland, OR.

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. Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related 

Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

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 forests related species within the range of 

the northern spotted owl. U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Southwest Oregon Late Successional 

Reserve Assessment. Siskiyou National Forest, Grants Pass, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Memorandum of Understanding Between the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service To Promote the Conservation 

of Migratory Birds. FS Agreement #08-MU-1113-2400-264. December 8, 2008.

USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. 2011. 2011 Settlement Agreement in Litigation 

over the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure in Conservation Northwest et al. v. Sherman et al., Case No. 08-

1067-JCC (W.D. Wash.)
Eden Ridge Timber Sales References Page V-21

Final Environmental Impact Statement

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1967. Endangered species list - 1967. Federal Register 32:4001.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR. 160 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: determination of threatened 

status for the northern spotted owl: final rule. Federal Register, 50 CFR 17:26,114-26,194. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of critical 

habitat for the northern spotted owl; Final rule.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992b. Draft final recovery plan for the northern spotted owl. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Recovery Plan for the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in 

Washington, Oregon, and California. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Monitoring Plan for the American Peregrine Falcon, A Species Recovered 

Under the Endangered Species Act. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Divisions of Endangered Species and 

Migratory Birds and State Programs, Pacific Region, Portland, OR. 53 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 12-month finding for 

petition to list the West Coast distinct population segment of the fisher (Martes pennanti); Proposed Rule. Federal 

Register, 50 CFR 17:69. p.18, 769-18,792.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008a. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. [Online version 

available at <http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/>]. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008b. Final recovery plan for the northern spotted owl, May 2008. Portland, 

Oregon.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Formal Consultation on Timber Harvest, Meadow Restoration and Quarry 

Activities proposed by the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2014 (BO-13420-

2009-F-0146). August 27, 2009. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Roseburg Field Office, Roseburg, Oregon. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Marbled Murrelet 5-Year Review, June 2009. Lacey, Washington.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Draft revised recovery plan for the northern spotted owl, Strix occidentalis 

caurina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. xii + 163 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis 

caurina). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. Xvi + 258 pp.

Verts, B.J., and L.N. Carraway. 1998. Land mammals of Oregon. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.

Warren, A.D. 2005. Butterflies of Oregon: Their Taxonomy, Distribution, and Biology. Lepidoptera of North 

America 6. Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity. Colorado State University, Fort 

Collins, CO. 408 pp.

Waters, J.R., Zabel, C.J. 1995. Northern flying squirrel densities in fir forests of northeastern California. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 59, 858-866.

Waters, J. W., K. S. McKelvey, C. J. Zabel, and D. Luoma. 2000. Northern flying squirrel mycophagy and truffle 

production in fir forests in northeastern California. Pp 73-97 In R. F. Powers et al. Proceedings of the California 

Forest Soils Council Conference on Forest Soil Biology and Forest Management. GTR PSW-GTR-178. U. S. 

Department of Agriculture, Pacific Southwester Research Station, Albany, CA, USA.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales References Page V-22

Final Environmental Impact Statement

White, D. unpublished. Guidelines for snag and down wood prescriptions in southwestern Oregon. Umpqua 

National Forest, Roseburg, Oregon.

Wiggins, D. 2005. Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Wilson, T. M. 2010. Limiting factors for northern flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus) in the Pacific Northwest: 

A spatio-temporal analysis. PhD thesis Union Institute and University, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.

Zabel, C. J., K. McKelvey, and J. P. Ward, JR. 1995. Influence of primary prey on home range size and habitat use 

patterns of Spotted Owls (Strix occidentalis). Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:433–439.

Zielinski, W.J. and N.P. Duncan. 2004. Diets of sympatric populations of American martens (Martes americana) 

and fishers (Martes pennanti) in California. Journal of Mammology, 85(3):470-477.

Zielinski, W.J., N.P. Duncan, E.C. Farmer, R.L. Truax, A.P. Clevenger, and R.H. Barrett. 1999. Diet of fishers 

(Martes pennanti) at the southernmost extent of their range. Journal of Mammology, 80(3):961-971.

Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truax, G.A. Schmidt, F.V. Schlexer, and R.H. Barrett. 2004. Resting habitat selection by 

fishers in California. Journal of Wildlife Management, 68(3); 475

AQUATIC BIOTA

Joplin, M. 2011. Personal Communication, Hydrologist, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.

Hadfield, J. S.; Goheen, D. J.; Filip, G. M.; Schmitt, C. L.; and Harvey, R. D. 1986. Root Diseases in Oregon and 

Washington Conifers. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Forest Pest Management. R6-FPM-250-

86. Page 7; 27 pp.

May, Christine L. and Gresswell, Robert E. 2003. Processes and rates of wood accumulation in headwater streams 

of the Oregon Coast Range, USA; Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 28, pp. 409-424.

May, Christine L., and Gresswell, Robert E. 2003. Large wood recruitment and redistribution in headwater streams 

in the southern Oregon Coast Range, USA; Canadian Journal of Forest Research, v. 38, pp. 1352-1362.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2012. Letter of Concurrence for Forest Service determination of “May 

Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA)” for Oregon Coast coho salmon and their designated critical habitat 

(ref. 2011/03685). 

Park, C.S. 1993. SHADOW stream temperature management program, USDA, USFS, Pacific Northwest Region.

Park, C, Jubas, H. 2005. Channel and shade monitoring for the 1996 Waters Thin Fuels Reduction Project, Rogue 

Siskiyou National Forest.

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. 2007. Coastal Healthy Forest Treatments EA.

Rosenfeld, J. S., and Huato, L. 2003. Relationship between LWD characteristics and pool formation in small 

coastal British Columbia streams.

Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology, Published by Wildland Hydrology.

Spies, T. Pollock, M. and G. Reeves. 2013. Effects of Riparian Thinning on Wood Recruitment: A Scientific 

Synthesis. June 6, 2013 BLM/FS/FWS/NOAA Fisheries-Memorandum.

USDA Forest Service. 1988. General Water Quality Best Management Practices. Pacific Northwest Region. 

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan 

Siskiyou National Forest. Siskiyou National Forest, Pacific Northwest Region. 
Eden Ridge Timber Sales References Page V-23

Final Environmental Impact Statement

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Forest Service Manual: wildlife, fish, and sensitive plant management (Section 

2670), WO Amendment 2600-91-3, effective 5/31/91.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. South Fork Coquille Watershed Analysis. USFS Powers Ranger District.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. “Aquatic Restoration Plan, South Fork Coquille Watershed”.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Coal Creek Stream Survey Report. USFS Powers Ranger District Files.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Regional Forester’s (updated) Sensitive species list.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Biological Assessment for Eden Ridge Timber Sales; August 2011.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National 

Forest System Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. FS-990a. April 2012. 

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Stream Inventory Handbook; LEVEL I & II. Pacific Northwest Region. Version 

2.12.

USDI BLM. 1994 Middle Fork Coquille Analytical Watershed

USDA Forest Service and BLM. 2011. Evaluation of the Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy and 

Associated Tools to achieve and maintain stream temperature water quality standards (update of 2005 Primary 

Shade Zone widths)

POTENTIAL WILDERNESS AND OTHER UNDEVELOPED AREAS

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Land Management Planning Handbook. Chapter 70; Wilderness Evaluation.

Oregon Wild. 2010. Scoping input regarding undeveloped areas, Eden Ridge Timber Sales.

Oregon Wild. 2011. Input (per FS request) for proposed wilderness areas; Eden Ridge.

Tonsfeldt, Ward. 2012. Review Of Historic Railroad Logging Resources, Eden Ridge Tract, Powers Ranger 

District, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Prepared for the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Medford, 

OR. East Slope Cultural Services, Inc., Bend, OR. September 1, 2012

HERITAGE/RECREATION

Beckham, Stephen Dow, & Hartmann, Glenn D. 1977. Cultural Resource Overview of the Eden Ridge Tract, Coos 

County, Oregon. USDA Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Medford, Oregon.

Tonsfeldt, Ward. 2012. Review Of Historic Railroad Logging Resources, Eden Ridge Tract, Powers Ranger 

District, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Prepared for the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Medford, 

OR. East Slope Cultural Services, Inc., Bend, OR. September 1, 2012

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan 

Siskiyou National Forest. Siskiyou National Forest, Pacific Northwest Region.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales References Page V-24

Final Environmental Impact Statement

CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington. 2004. Forest biodiversity: climate change and the Pacific 

Northwest. 

-----. 2004. Forest growth and climate change. 

-----. 2006. Climate change scenarios. Accessed on February 14. 

http://www.cses.washington.edu/cig/fpt/ccscenarios.shtml. 

-----. 2006. Climate outlook. http://www.cses.washington.edu/cig/fpt/coutlook.shtml. Updated September 17. 

-----. 2007. Update on Pacific Northwest climate change scenarios. 

IPCC 2000. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Special Report on Land Use, Land Use Change 

and Forestry, Summary for Policy Makers, 2000. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. 20 pp.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=0

IPCC 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, 

Synthesis Report, section 2, Causes of Change, 2007. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. 3 pp.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html

Littell, JD. 2007. Personal communications with Yewah Lau. Research scientist with Climate Impacts Group, 

University of Washington. Cited from Jackson Thinning Environmental Assessment, Olympic National Forest.

Nakawatase, JM and DL Peterson. 2006. Spatial variability in forest growth – climate relationships in the Olympic 

Mountains, Washington. Canadian Journal of Forest Resources. 36: 77-91.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Regional (Pacific Northwest Region) Interim Guidance for NEPA Analysis at the 

Project Scale. April. Portland. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis was January. 

Washington DC.
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Index-1

Final Environmental Impact Statement

INDEX

NOTE: Index covers FEIS Chapters I, II and III

A

Action Alternatives I-11, I-29; II-1 thru 4, II-7, II-19, II-11, II-14, II-18, II-20, II-21, II-25, II-32, II-34, 

II-58, II-72, II-73, II-75, II-77, II-80, II-82 thru 88; III-4, III-6, III-7, III-9 thru 12, III-21, III-24 thru 31, 

III-38 thru 41, III-44, III-46, III-47, III-57, III-61, III-63 thru 65, III-68 thru 73, III-78 thru 83, III-89 thru 

93, III-100, III-101, III-103, III-105, III-107, III-108, III-117 thru 121, III-123, III-125, III-126, III-134 

thru 136, III-142 thru 144, III-147, III-148, III-151, III-162 thru 164, III-171, III-176, III-1709, III-180, 

III-183, III-184, III-186, III-188

Activity Fuels Treatments I-27; II-13, II-14, II-36, II-46, II-53, II-63, II-68, II-77; III-12, III-54, III-58, 

III-72, III-87, III-89, III-155, III-164

Adaptive Management II-25

Adverse Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided III-187

Aerial Systems II-45; III-56, III-57

Air Quality I-2, I-27; II-68, II-82; III-83, III-91 thru 93, III-188

Alternative 1 (No-Action) I-1 thru 4; II-77 thru 80; III-1, III-4 thru 6, III-13, III-60, III-65, III-67 thru 

69, III-86, III-92, III-100, III-103, III-117, III-119, III-164, III-179, III-184

Alternative 2 I-18; II-2, II-3, II-35, II-37, II-39, II-40, II-42 thru 44, II-51, II-77 thru 88; III-9, III-11, III24, III-26 thru 28, III-46, III-61, III-62, III-66, III-68, III-73, III-87, III-90, III-92, III-103, III-107, III115, III-117, III-118, III-125, III-135, III-143, III-151, III-153, III-155, III-157, III-159, III-161 thru 163, 

III-176, III-179, III-187

Alternative 3 II-3, II-44, II-46, II-48 thru 51, II-75, II-77 thru 88; III-9, III-11, III-25 thru 27, III-29, III30, III-46, III-61, III-62, III-66, III-69, III-73, III-78, III-89, III-90, III-92, III-107, III-143, III-161, III176, III-179

Alternative 4 II-2, II-51, II-53, II-55 thru 57, II-77 thru 88; III-9, III-11, III-26, III-30, III-47, III-61, III62, III-66, III-68, III-69, III-73, III-90, III-92, III-103, III-118, III-135, III-143, III-161, III-176

Alternatives and Elements Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study II-72

American Marten II-85; III-124, III-138, III-140, III-143, III-145

Aquatic Conservation Strategy I-9, I-15 thru 17, I-21, I-27; II-2, II-4, II-26, II-27, II-35, II-44, II-51, II59, II-75, II-81, II-83; III-2, III-6, III-10, III-12, III-15, III-31, III-38, III-41, III-65, III-70, III-71, III-73, 

III-74, III-78, III-82, III-122, III-126, III136, III-144, III-148, III-152, III-154

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives I-9, I-16, I-17, I-21 thru 27; II-3, II-4, II-35, II-44, II-51, II75, II-82; III-6, III-10, III-12, III-31, III-70, III-71, III-78, III-126, III-136, III-144

Aquatic Species and Habitats I-28; II-67, II-85, II-86; III-3, III-13, III-34, III-70, III-149, III-151, III157, III-158, III-162, III-163

Aquatic Species and Habitats Mitigation Measures II-67; III-10, III-32, III-54, III-63, III-79, III-82, 

III-159, III-161

Attainment of Purpose and Need III-4

B

Bensoniella oregano II-34; III-96

Benefit Cost Ratio I-26; II-81; III-64, III-68

Best Management Practices II-1. II-22, II-31, II-58, II-59, II-62, II-71; III-2, III-58, III-188

Biological Evaluation I-2; III-13, III-24, III-32, III-63, III-94, III-109, III-127, III-128, III-149

Black-tailed Deer III-138, III-140, III-143, III-144

Botanical and Invasive Species Mitigation Measures II-63

Botanical Resources I-27; II-34, II-63, II-82; III-3, III-93 thru 96

Botanical Resources Project Design Criteria III-34
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Index-2

Final Environmental Impact Statement

C

CFR 218 Regulations I-19

Canopy Cover I-8 thru 12, I-15; II-5, II-7, II-27, II-33, II-34, II-79, II-83; III-10, III-21, III-22, III-43, 

III-83, III-86, III-87, III-101, III-105, III-111, III-113, III-120, III-124, III-143, III-180

Changes Between Draft and Final EIS I-2; II-1; III-3

Channel Morphology I-26; II-44, II-51; III-13, III-20, III-21, III-24, III-32, III-38, III-63

Civil Rights III-89

Classified (System) Roads I-23; II-13, II-14, II-16 thru 21, II-30, II-31, II-36, II-39, II-40, II-42, II-44, 

II-45, II-46, II-48, II-49, II-51, II-52, II-54 thru 56, II-75 thru 77; III-24, III-30, III-39, III-43, III-61, III67, III-69, III-70, III-78, III-88, III-107, III-155, III-156, III-170, III-171, III-174 thru 176

Climate Change I-28; II-88; III-181, III-113, III-181 thru 187

Coal Creek Subwatershed I-4, I-14, I-24; II-2, II-3, II-25, II-31, II-36, II-38, II-45, II-47, II-51, II-52, 

II-54, II-75, II-78 thru 80; III-14 thru 31, III-34, III-40, III-43 thru 47, III-76, III-79, III-151, III-154, III155, III-158 thru 161

Comparison of Alternatives I-1, I-26; II-1, II-77 thru 78, II-81; III-1, III-4, III-9, III-11, III-28, III-66, 

III-67 thru 69, III-162

Compliance with Key Watershed Standards and Guidelines III-3, III-12, III-74, III-78

Compliance with Riparian Reserve Standards and Guidelines I-27; II-26; III-10, III-15, III-31, III65, III-68, III-70 thru 75, III-78

Consistency with Aquatic Conservation Strategy for Action Alternatives III-78

Consultation (ESA) II-65, II-76; III-108, III-109, III-116, III-117, III-150, III-151, III-163

Cost Share Roads I-30; II-17, II-18, II-36, II-45, II-52; III-136

Critical Habitat I-27, I-28; II-67, II-83 thru 86; III-3, III-21, III-109, III-112, III-114, III-115, III-118 

thru 121, III-149 thru 151, III-157, III-163

Critical Habitat Unit II-83; III-3, III-115, III-118 thru 121

Cumulative Effects I-17, I-22; II-73, II-74, II-80, II-85; III-1, III-12, III-32, III-40, III-41, III-42, III-46, 

III-47, III-63, III-65, III-69, III-90, III-93, III-99, III-101, III-103, III-108, III-121, III-126, III-136, III144, III-148, III-161, III-163, III-164, III-171, III177, III-181, III-182, III-186, III-187

Cumulative Watershed Effects I-17, I-22; II-73, II-74, II-80, II-85; III-1 thru 3, III-12, III-32, III-40 

thru 42, III-46, III-47, III-63, III-65, III-69, III-90, III-93, III-99, III-101, III-103, III-108, III-121, III-126, 

III-136, III-144, III-148, III-161, III-163, III-164, III-171, III-177, III-181, III-182, III-186, III-187

Current Channel Conditions & Morphology I-14; III-15, III-42, III-44, III-73

Current Conditions I-1, I-6, I-15; II-2, II-3, II-5, II-74, II-83, II-88; III-1, III-2, III-5, III-6, III-11, III13, III-15, III-40, III-41, III-54, III-73, III-83, III-86, III-91, III-100, III-102, III-12, III-119, III-166, III177, III-179, III-80

D

DecAID II-9

Decision Framework I-18

Deer and Elk III-141 thru 144

Definition of Effects III-1, III-2

Definition of Planning Area and Project Areas III-1

Del Norte Salamander II-33, II-84; III-123, III-125

Desired Conditions I-1, I-2, I-9, I-14 thru 16; II-1, II-3, II-5, II-7, II-9, II-44, II-51, II-75; III-4, III-7, III9, III-11, III-12

Detrimental Soils I-26; II-13, II-14, II-16, II-17, II-22, II-44, II-51, II-59, II-60, II-69, II-71, II-80; III-3, 

III-30, III-47, III-53, III-55, III-56 thru 58, III-60, III-62, III-63, III-89

Diversity I-9, I-10, I-15, I-16, I-23; II-3 thru 7, II-10, II-12, II-33, II-74, II-83; III-6 thru 8, III-10, III-11, 

III-52, III-59, III-79, III-82, III-94, III-98, III-105, III-114, III-118, III-138, III-139, III-146, III-152
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Index-3

Final Environmental Impact Statement

D (Continued)

Down Woody Material I-9, I-13; II-7, II-9, II-34, II-66, II-69, II-83; III-5, III-10, III-81, III-97, III-98, 

III-118, III-119

Down Wood I-13, I-15; II-5, II-7, II-9, II-24, II-33, II-34, II-83; III-6, III-8, III-31, III-48, III-57, III-63, 

III-79, III-88, III-89, III-97, III-98, III-110, III-111, III-115, III-116, III-119, III-121, III-126, III-136, III142, III-144, III-148, III-164, III-176

E

Economics I-26; II-14, II-17, II-36, II-51, II-74; III-12, III-64, III-65, III-67 thru 69, III-106, III-150, III-190

Effectiveness and Feasibility II-1, II-58, II-59, II-62, II-69, II-70; III-25, III-56, III-76

Effects – Marbled Murrelet III-116, III-119

Effects – Northern Spotted Owl III-115, III-117

Effects on Air Quality III-91, III-92

Effects on Aquatic Species and Habitats III-149, III-152, III-155 thru 163

Effects on Botanical Resources III-3, III-93, III-99, III-100, III-101

Effects - Climate Change III-181, III-183 thru 186

Effects - Fire Fuels III-83, III- 85 thru 91

Effects on Forest Service Sensitive Terrestrial Wildlife Species & Habitats III-126, III-134 thru 137

Effects on Heritage Resources III-172, III-175 thru 177

Effects on Hydrologic Conditions III-13, III-21, III-24 thru 32

Effects on Invasive Plants III-101, III-103

Effects on Management Indicator Species III-137, III-141 thru 145

Effects on Neo-Tropical Migratory Birds III-145, III-147, III-148

Effects - Port-Orford-Cedar Root Disease III-104, III-105 thru 108

Effects on Northwest Forest Plan Terrestrial Wildlife Species III-122, III-125, III-126

Effects on Recreation/Human Safety III-177 thru 181

Effects on Soils, Geology and Site Productivity III-47, III-53, III-60 thru 63

Effects - Thinning Shock and Windthrow Potential III-163, III-164

Effects on Threatened Terrestrial Wildlife Species and Critical Habitat III-109, III-115, 

III-117 thru 122

Effects on Water Quality III-32, III-36, III-38 thru 40

Energy Requirements III-188

Environmental Justice III-188, III-189

Essential Fish Habitat I-28; II-25, II-62, II-67, II-85; III-32, III-149 thru 151, III-157, III-163

F

Fire/Fuels I-2, I-27; II-82; III-72, III-83, III-91

Fish Distribution III-151, III-153

Forest Service Sensitive Terrestrial Wildlife Species I-27; II-4, II-58, II-66, II-67, II-84; III-109, III123, III-125 thru 128, III-136 thru 138

Forest Vigor and Resiliency I-16, I-17; II-35, II-36, II-45, II-52, II-75; III-4, III-5, III-7, III-8, III-86

Fringed Myotis II-84; III-127, III-132, III-135

Fuels and Air Quality Mitigation Measures II-68

G

Gaps II-5, II-10 thru 12, II-25, II-76, II-79; III-8, III-39, III-55, III-56, III-94, III-110, III-141

Greenhouse Gas Emissions I-28; II-88; III-181 thru 186

Ground Based Systems II-14 thru 17, II-32, II-39, II-48, II-51, II-54, II-59, II-78, II-79, II-81; III-25 

thru 29, III-32, III-56, III-63, III-66, III-68, III-87, III-89, III-90, III-107
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Index-4

Final Environmental Impact Statement

H

Hand Piles II-13, II-27, II-36, II-53, II-61, II-82; III-88, III-89, III-91, III-92

Headwaters South Fork Coquille Subwatershed I-4, I-24; II-36, II-45, II-52; III-14, III-79

Helicopter Landings II-17, II-80; III-3, III-29, III-30, III-47, III-54, III-62, III-103

Helicopter Systems II-17, II-22, II-36, II-45, II-49, II-52; III-26, III-28, III-29, III-31, III-32, III-39, III47, III-54, III-58, III-63, III-66, III-68, III-89, III-90, III-103, III-107, III-116, III-117, III-120, III-125, 

III-135, III-143, III-157, III-179, III-180, III-188

Heritage Mitigation Measures II-67; III-177

Heritage Resources I-2, I-28; II-1, II-34, II-68, II-87; III-4, III-172, III-175, III-177

Heritage Resources Project Design Criteria II-34

High-Risk Sites II-10; III-108

History of Eden Ridge Planning Area I-4 thru 6

Hydrologic Conditions I-14, I-26; II-44, II-51, II-78, II-79; III-3, III-13, III-170, III-187, III-188

Hydrologic Maturity Assessment for Planning Area III-42, III-43

Hydrology Mitigation Measures II-61

I

Impaired Stream Listings III-14, III-33, III-44

Intermittent Streams II-26, II-27, II-29, II-30; III-15, III-21, III-31, III-39, III-81, III-96, III-152, III155, III-156, III-158, III-159, III-161

Invasive Plants I-27; II-25, II-34, II-61, II-63, II-77, II-82; III-31, III-63, III-89, III-101 thru 103, III108, III-121, III-126, III-136, III-148, III-157, III-176

Inventoried Roadless Areas I-21 thru 23; II-86; III-74, III-165 thru 168, III-171

Irreversible and Irretrievable Effects III-188

J

Johnson’s Hairstreak II-84; III-127, III-134, III-136, III-137

K

Key Watershed I-21, I-22, I-24, I-27; II-82,; III-3, III-15, III-16, III-70, III-74, III-75

L

Laminated Root Rot I-10, I-13, I-17; II-5, II-9, II-10, II-12, II-36, II-39, II-45, II-52, II-54; III-5, III-82, 

III164

Landings II-14, II-16, II-17, II-21, II-22, II-25 thru 27, II-30 thru 32, II-36, II-45, II-52, II-59 thru 61, II67, II-80, II-81; III-3, III-11, III-29, III-30, III-54 thru 56, III-58, III-62, III-73, III-87, III-89, III-90, III102, III-103, III-143, III-157, III-160

Large Woody Material I-9, I-13 thru 15, I-17, I-26; II-3, II-5, II-7, II-9, II-13, II-24, II-28, II-32, II-33, 

II-44, II-51, II-66, II-67, II-69, II-81, II-86; III-6, III-8, III-10, III-11, III-13, III-16 thru 21, III-24, III-30 

thru 32, III-39, III-42, III-44, III-45, III-47, III-48, III-55, III-57, III-63, III-82, III-89, III-99, III-140, III150, III-157, III-159

Large Woody Material and Snags I-13

Large Woody Material Assessment for Planning Area III-44 thru 46

Late-successional Forest I-15 thru 17, I-19, I-20; II-2, II-8, II-26, II-33, II-35, II-44, II-56, II-83, II-85, 

II-86; III-7, III-9, III-10, III-110, III-111 thru 116, III-118, III-119, III-138 thru 40, III-155, III-158, III161, III-162, III-170, III-171

Listed 303(d) Waterbodies I-26; II-51; III-13, III-32 thru 34

Long Term Productivity III-187

Low-Risk Sites II-10
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Index-5

Final Environmental Impact Statement

M

Management Direction I-2, I-19; II-1, II-2, II-59; III-14, III-47, III-74, III-84, III-92, III-102, III-112, 

III-115, III-124, III-132, III-166, III-171

Management Indicator Species I-28, I-29; II-85; III-137, III-138, III-44

Marbled Murrelet II-33, II-65, II-66, II-83, II-84; III-82, III-109, III-110, III-113 thru 115, III-117, III119 thru 122

Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat I-27; II-83; III-114, III-115, III-120

Matrix I-6, I-10, I-14, I-15 thru 17, I-20, I-21, I-29; II-3 thru 5, II-10, II-26, II-35, II-37, II-44 thru 46, II51 thru 53, II-74, II-76, II-77; III-4 thru 6, III-9, III-13, III-74, III-139, III-152, III-171, III-178

Meadow Enhancement I-30; II-24, II-25, II-64, II-65, II-77; III-31, III-41, III-63, III-81, III-108, III-16, 

III-117, III-121, III-122, III-124, III-126, III-136, III-144, III-148, III-161, III-176

Middle Fork Coquille River I-4, I-21, I-24; II-36, II-38, II-45, II-52, II-54; III-12, III-14, III-19, III-33, 

III-34, III-44, III-45, III-74, III-79, III-111, III-151

Mill Creek Subwatershed I-4, I-24; II-36, II-38, II-45, II-47, II-52, II-78, II-80; III-14, III-16, III-17, 

III-25, III-26, III-28, III-43, III-45, III-46, III-79, III-113, III-155

Million Board Feet I-18; II-6, II-35, II-42, II-45, II-49, II-52, II-56; III-9, III-66, III-68, III-69

Mitigation Measures I-1, I-25, I-27; II-1, II-4, II-11, II-13, II-20, II-22, II-25, II-27, II-34, II-36, II-52, 

II-58, II-59, II-61, II-62, II-64 thru 67, II-69 thru 72, II-82, II-86, II-87; III-1, III-10, III-12, III-13, III-25, 

III-29, III-31, III-32, III-54, III-56, III-57, III-58, III-60, III-62, III-63, III-70, III-79, III-80, III-81, III-82, 

III-103, III-106, III-107, III-109, III-116, III-117, III-121, III-123, III-124, III-127, III-147, III-161, III172, III-174 thru 177, III-180, III-187 thru 189

Monitoring I-1, I-18; II-1, II-58, II-60, II-67, II-69 thru 72; III-57, III-75, III-76, III-94, III-116, III-128, 

III-139, III-176

Myrtle Creek Subwatershed I-4, I-24; II-36, II-38, II-45, II-47, II-52, II-78, II-80; III-14, III-19, III-21, 

III-25, III-26 thru 28, III-34, III-43, III-45, III-46, III-49, III-79, III-151

N

Neo-Tropical Migratory Birds I-28; II-67, II-85; III-145, III-146, III-190

No-Action Alternative I-1; II-1 thru 4, II-77 thru 81; III-1, III-4 thru 6, III-13, III-65, III-67 thru 69, III86, III-92, III-100, III-103, III-117, III-119, III-164

Non-Commercial Treatments I-7, I-14, I-17; II-23, II-24, II-36, II-39, II-42, II-45, II-48, II-49, II-52, II54, II-56, II-63, II-70, II-75, II-77, II-83, II-84; III-31, III-54, III-55, III-56, III-61 thru 63, III-89, III-108, 

III-118, III-121, III-125, III-126, III-142, III-144, III-148, III-157, III-161, III-176

Northern Spotted Owl I-19, I-29; II-4, II-5, II-33, II-64, II-65, II-83, II-85; III-3, III-65, III-94, III-94, 

III-95, III-109 thru 111, III-112 thru 119, III-121, III-122, III-124, III-138

Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat I-27; II-83; III-3, III-109, III-112, III-114, III-118 thru 121

Northern Spotted Owl Prey Species II-84, II-85; III-113 thru 116, III-118, III-119

Northwest Forest Plan I-9, I-16, I-17, I-19, I-20, I-21, I-27, I-29; II-1, II-27, II-35, II-44, II-45, II-52, II58, II-59, II-74, II-83, II-84; III-2, III-3, III-9, III-10, III-14, III-15, III-31, III-38, III-41, III-48, III-65, III70, III-72, III-74, III-75, III-78, III-82, III-84, III-94, III-98, III-111, III-112, III-114, III-115, III-122, III123, III-125, III-138, III-152, III-154

Northwest Forest Plan Terrestrial Wildlife Species I-27; II-84; III-3, III-122
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Index-6

Final Environmental Impact Statement

O

Off Highway Vehicles III-178, III-179

Oregon Cost Coho Salmon and Critical Habitat II-25, II-67, II-85; III-21, III-32, III-149 thru 152, III157, III-163

Oregon Red Tree Vole II-84; III-124, III-125

Other Effects, Laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders III-187

Other Issues I-1, I-18, I-26, I-27; II-78, II-81; III-1, III-4, III-70, III-78, III-187

Other Undeveloped Areas I-23, I-28; II-86; III-165, III-166, III-170

Out of Scope Issues I-28

Overall Risk of Adverse Cumulative Watershed Effects II-74, II-80; III-12, III-45

P

Pacific Fisher II-84; III-127, III-130, III-131, III-135, III-137, III-140

Pechman Exemption (S&M) II-84; III-3, III-95, III-123, III-124

Peregrine Falcon II-66, II-84; III-127, III-128, III-134 thru 134, III-146, III-147

Perennial Streams II-3, II-19, II-26 thru 28, II-30, II-51, II-79; III-10, III-14, III-15, III-25, III-28, III31, III-39, III-81, III-96, III-154, III-155, III-156, III-158 thru 162

Phytophthora Lateralis I-10, I-11, I-14, I-27, I-29; II-10, II-36, II-45, II-64, II-82; III-3, III-104, III-105

Pileated woodpecker II-85; III-138, III-139, III-142, III-145 thru 147

Plant Association Group (PAG) II-7 thru 9; III-48, III-56

Planting II-5, II-12, II-22, II-24, II-31, II-38, II-48, II-54, II-61, II-64, II-73; III-5 thru 8, III-11, III-179, 

III-83, III-107

POC Mitigation Measures II-64; III-5, III-11, III-12, III-106, III-107, III-120

POC Risk Key I-12, I-28, I-29; II-10, II-11, II-64, II-82; III-3, III-104 thru 108

Port-Orford-Cedar I-2, I-5, I-6, I-9 thru 12, I-19, I-27 thru 29; II-5, II-10, II-12, II-63, II-64, II-82; III3, III-5, III-6, III-8, III-11, III-73, III-79, III-82, III-104 thru 107

Potential Wilderness Area I-23, I-28; II-86; III-4, III-165 thru 168, III-170, III-171

Prebunching II-17

Preferred Alternative II-1, II-2

Present Net Value II-81; III-64, III-67, III-68

Primary Shade Zone I-9, I-10; II-1, II-27, II-28, II-30, II-79, II-81; III-3, III-10, III-28, III-29, III-131, 

III-38, III-39, III-154, III-158, III-163

Private Ownership I-11, I-12, I-30; II-5, II-17 thru 19, II-21, II-73, II-74; III-5, III-13, III-16, III-19, III20, III-125, III-136, III-41 thru 43, III-45, III-46, III-49, III-83, III-91, III-103, III-105, III-107, III-117, 

III-120 thru 122, III-126, III-136, III-137, III-144, III-145, III-148, III-159, III-161, III-162, III-164, III174, III-178

Private Roads II-17, II-19

Probable Sale Quantity I-15 thru 17; II-35; III-4, III-5, III-9, III-65

Project Design Criteria I-1, I-9, I-18, I-25, I-27; II-1, II-20, II-21, II-25, II-26, II-29, II-29 thru 29, II34, II-36, II-45, II-52, II-58, II-64, II-65, II-67, II-70, II-81, II-82, II-84; III-1, III-3, III-8, III-10 thru 12, 

III-31, III-38 thru 40, III-54, III-57, III-58, III-62, III-66, III-70, III-73, III-79 thru 81, III-83, III-99, III116, III-117, III-119, III-120, III-147, III-152, III-159, III-175, III-185, III-188

Project Design Criteria - Riparian Reserves II-25; III-3, III-8, III-10, III-38, III-66, III-147

Project Design Objectives I-7; III-4, III-11

Proposed Action I-1, I-17, I-18, I-24, I-25; II-1, II-3, II-4, II-18, II-23, II-35, II-36, II-37, II-43, II-44, II46, II-51, II-58, II-72, II-74, II-77 thru 88; III-28 thru 31, III-38 thru 40, III-46, III-47, III-50, III-63, III64, III-66, III-68, III-69, III-73, III-82, III-85, III-87 thru 89, III-92 thru 94, III- 108, III-113, III-128, III151, III-152, III-155, III-158 thru 161, III-163, III-166, III-178, III-179, III-182, III-184 thru 190

Proposed, Endangered, Threatened & Sensitive Species III-109, III-127

Purpose and Need for Action I-1, I-2, I-16 thru 18, I-24; II-2, II-3, II-25, II-32, II-34, II-35, II-44, II-72, 

II-75, II-81; III-1, III-3, III-4, III-9, III-70, III-73, III-84, III-88
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Index-7

Final Environmental Impact Statement

R

RAPID Shade Model III-36

Recovery Action 32 II-33, II-83; III-113

Recreation Mitigation Measures II-62; III-179

Recreation/Human Safety I-28; II-62, II-82; III-177, III-179, III-180, III-190

Related Permits, Plans and Actions I-30

Relative Density I-7; II-1, II-4, II-86; III-6, III-7, III-164

Response to Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines III-72

Riparian Reserve Current Conditions I-9, I-15; II-5; III-10, III-11

Riparian (MA-11) I-22; III-82, III-83

Riparian Reserve I-9, I-10, I-13 thru 17, I-21, I-22; II-1 thru 5, II-7, II-10, II-21, II-25 thru 32, II-35, II37, II-44 thru 46, II-51 thru 53, II-59, II-61, II-67, II-72, II-74, II-77 thru 79, II-81, II-86; III-3, III-8 thru 

12, III-14 thru 16, III-22, III-24, III-27 thru 32, III-38, III-39, III-48, III-62, III-63, III-65, III-66, III-70 

thru 74, III-78 thru 83, III-104, III-105, III-123, III-138, III-147, III-152, III-155, III-156, III-158, III-160, 

III-162

Riparian Reserve Standards and Guidelines I-21, I-27; II-25, II-71; III-10 thru 12, III-15, III-31, III33, III-70 thru 75, III-78, III-111

Road Bank (SF Coquille Key Watershed) II-82; III-75, III-76, III-78

Road Construction I-18, I-28, I-30; II-14 thru 17, II-20, II-21, II-31, II-36, II-39, II-40, II-45, II-46, II48, II-52, II-55, II-63, II-65, II-68, II-70, II-73, II-75 thru 78, II-80, II-81, II-85; III-1, III-13, III-17, III-21 

thru 26, III-29, III-30, III-44, III-46, III-47, III-53 thru 55, III-61, III-66, III-67 thru 70, III-72, III-73, III76, III-78, III-107, III-109, III-118, III-138, III-142, III-143, III-147, III-151, III-155 thru 158, III-160, 

III-179, III-187, III-188

Roading Costs II-81; III-66, III-67

Road Density Assessment for Planning Area III-43, III-44

Road Maintenance Levels II-18, II-20, II-21, II-31, II-36, II-46, II-76, II-87, II-88; III-70, III-155, III157, III-179, III-180

Road Reconstruction I-18; II-3, II-18 thru 20, II-36, II-39, II-40, II-42, II-45, II-46, II-48, II-49, II-51, 

II-52, II-54 thru 56, II-62, II-76, II-77; III-21, III-22, III-25, III-30, III-53 thru 55, III-60, III-66, III-67, 

III-72, III-73, III-106, III-107, III-143, III-152, III-155 thru 158, III-160, III-188

Roadside Sanitation II-11, II-38, II-48, II-54; III-6, III-11, III-55, III-106, III-107

Rock Creek Subwatershed (Lower) I-4, I-24; II-36, II-38, II-45, II-47, II-52, II-54, II-78, II-80; III-14, 

III-17, III-25 thru 28, III-34, III-43, III-45, III-46, III-79, III-151

Roosevelt Elk II-85; III-138, III-141, III-143, III-144

S

Scoping I-24 thru 26, I-28; II-2, II-3, II-56, II-72; III-165 thru 167, III-182, III-186, III-189

Scoping Process I-24; III-189, III-190

Sediment Delivery I-26; II-27, II-29, II-31, II-44, II-51, II-62, II-78, II-85; III-13, III-17 thru 21, III-24, 

III-28, III-32, III-36, III-38, III-45, III-159, III-160, III-163

Sensitive Fungi II-4, II-34, II-82; III-94, III-95, III-97 thru 101

Short Term Uses and Long term Productivity III-187

Significant Issues I-2, I-25 thru 27; II-7, II-44, II-51, II-76, II-78, II-80; III-1, III-9, III-13, III-70, 

Silvicultural Treatments I-2, I-17; II-4, II-13, II-25, II-26, II-35 thru 37, II-42, II-44 thru 46, II-49, II-51 

thru 53, II-56, II-64, II-83; III-6, III-7, III-10, III-53 thru 55, III-61, III-62, III-116, III-118, III-139, III-188

Silvicultural Disease Treatments II-5, II-10, II-12; III-5, III-7 thru 9, III-11, III-12, III-55, III-56, III86, III-104, III-110, III-164, III-185, III-186

Similar and/or Related Actions II-23, II-36, II-42, II-45, II-49, II-52, II-56; III-1, III-31, III-63, III-89, 

III-90, III-108, III-126, III-136, III-144, III-148, III-176
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Index-8

Final Environmental Impact Statement

S (Continued)

Siskiyou NF Land and Resource Management Plan I-9, I-12, I-14, I-19, I-20, I-22, I-23; II-3, II-7, II8, II-13, II-14, II-22, II-23, II-59, II-60, II-63, II-69, II-72 thru 74, II-83; III-2, III-4 thru 6, III-14, III-23, 

III-26, III-27, III-30, III-47, III-57, III-64, III-65, III-68, III-83, III-88 thru 90, III-92 thru 94, III-102, III106, III-122, III-136 thru 138, III-144, III-148, III-149, III-151, III-177, III-178

Skips II-5, II-34, II-79; III-8, III-28, III-55

Skyline Systems I-18; II-13, II-14, II-16, II-17, II-20, II-22, II-26 thru 28, II-30, II-36, II-39, II-42, II-45, 

II-48, II-49, II-51, II-52, II-54, II-56, II-60, II-61, II-74, II-77, II-79 thru 81; III-26 thru 30, III-38, III-39, 

III-53, III-56, III-57, III-62, III-66, III-68, III-87 thru 90, III-106, III-148

Smith-Powers Logging Railroad System I-4, I-5; III-74

Snags I-9, I-11, I-13 thru 15, I-20; II-3, II-5, II-7 thru 9, II-24, II-33, II-67, II-83 thru 85; III-6 thru 8, III10, III-11, III-56, III-57, III-79, III-110 thru 113, III-118, III-119, III-132, III-135, III-137, III-138, III140, III-142, III-143, III-146 thru 148, III-157

Soils (and Geology) Mitigation Measures II-59; III-25

Soils, Geology and Site Productivity I-26; II-44, II-51, II-80; III-3, III-47

South Fork Coquille River I-4 thru 12, I-21 thru 24; II-6, II-36, II-38, II-45, II-47, II-52, II-54, II-82; 

III-13 thru 18, III-20, III-33, III-34, III-48, III-74 thru 79, III-83, III-111, III-129, III-138, III-151, III-152, 

III-154, III-155

Special Wildlife Site (MA 9) I-23

Spotted Owl Recovery Plan II-83; III-113, III-118, III-119

Sooty Grouse I-29

Stand Examinations I-2, I-7, I-13; II-1, II-7 thru 9, II-83; III-6, III-9, III-10, III-38, III-48, III-86, III-98, 

III-110, III-123

Stream Channel Protection Zone II-28 thru 30; III-31, III-73, III-147, III-158

Stream Enhancement II-25, II-27, II-77; III-31, III-32, III-63, III-89, III-108, III-121, III-126, III-136, 

III-144, III-148, III-160 thru 162, III-176

Stream Shade II-1, II-27, II-28, II-30, II-79; III-3, III-10, III-28, III-29, III-31, III-32, III-34 thru 40, III45, III-46, III-80, III-82, III-83, III-85, III-152, III-154, III-158, III-159, III-163

Stream Surveys I-14; III-15, III-16, III-18 thru 20, III-34, III-44

Stream Temperature I-22, I-26; II-27 thru 29, II-44, II-51, II-79; III-10, III-16, III-32 thru 34, III-36 

thru 38, III-42, III-80, III-83, III-152, III-154

Sudden Oak Death I-12

Summary of Alternative 2 II-42

Summary of Alternative 3 II-49

Summary of Alternative 4 II-56

Survey and Manage Species I-20; II-84; III-3, III-94, III-95, III-122, III-123, III-125

T

Temporary Roads I-18; II-14, II-20, II-21, II-22, II-25, II-27, II-30, II-31, II-36, II-40, II-42, II-44 thru 

46, II-49, II-52, II-60, II-61, II-75 thru 78, II-80, II-85, II-87; III-24, III-26, III-29, III-54, III-55, III-61, 

III-62, III-70, III-143, III-144, III-147, III-155 thru 158, III-160, III-180

Terrestrial Wildlife Mitigation Measures II-64, II-66

Thinning Shock and Windthrow Potential I-28; II-86; III-163, III-164

Threatened Terrestrial Wildlife Species I-27; II-84; III-109 thru 122

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) I-9; II-1, II-27; III-2, III-15, III-33, III-3, III-36, III-37, III-38, 

III-81, III-154, III-163, III-188

Turbidity II-44, II-51, II-79; III-13, III-17, III-32, III-38, III-39, III-150

U

Unclassified Roads II-17, II-18; III-143, III-166, III-168
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Index-9

Final Environmental Impact Statement

V

Variable Density Thinning I-17; II-2 thru 4, II-13, II-35, II-36, II-38, II-42, II-44, II-45, II-48, II-49, II51, II-52, II-54, II-56, II-83; III-4, III-7, III-8, III-13, III-27, III-54, III-55, III-56, III-79, III-80, III-81, III87, III-118, III-147, III-178

Visual Quality Objectives I-20; II-88; III-177 thru 188

W

Water Quality I-26; II-1, II-22, II-22, II-26, II-31, II-44, II-51, II-58, II-59, II-71, II-76, II-79; III-3, III13, III-15, III-21, III-22, III-32 thru 34, III-37, III-38, III-40, III-42, III-54, III-58, III-78, III-80, III-150, 

III-154, III-161, III-188

Watershed Analysis I-12, I-21, I-23, I-24; II-6; III-3, III-14, III-16, III-17, III-20, III-22, III-42, III-44, 

III-45, III-70, III-74 thru 76, III-152

Water Yield (Peak Flow) I-26; II-44, II-51, II-75, II-78; III-13, III-22 thru 24, III-27, III-28, III-32, III41, III-42, III-45, III-47, III-81

Wide-Thin Gaps II-5; III-8, III-11, III-55

Wildlife Project Design Criteria II-32, II-33

Wooden Rock Creek Subwatershed I-4, I-24; II-25, II-31, II-38, II-47, II-54; III-14, thru 18, III-20 thru 

23, III-30, III-32, III-34, III-45, III-75, III-79, III-178

Woodpecker Group II-85; III-139, III-142, III-143

Y

Yarding Costs II-81; III-66, III-69

Yarding Tops Attached II-39, II-48, II-54; III-86, III-89
Eden Ridge Timber Sales Index-10

Final Environmental Impact Statement

This page is intentionally left blank