U.S. Department of Interior 
Bureau of Land Management 
Roseburg District, Oregon 
Environmental Assessment for the Swiftwater Field Office 
FY 2002 Commercial Thinning Harvest (East) 
East Fork and Relativity Timber Sales 
EA No. OR - 104 - 02 - 01 
The Swiftwater Field Office proposes to do a commercial thinning harvest on approximately 350 
acres of second growth forest located in the Rock Creek Watershed located in Sections 29 and 
30, T25S R1W; and Sections 11, 13, 15, 21, 23, 25 and 27; T25S R2W; W.M.  This project is 
within the Matrix and Riparian Reserves Land Use Allocations and is designed to help meet the 
Roseburg District’s annual harvest commitment and to enhance late-successional characteristics 
in the Riparian Reserve. 
Acronyms Used: 
ACS - Aquatic Conservation Strategy 
BA - Biological Assessment 
BLM - Bureau of Land Management 
CWD - Coarse Woody Debris 
EA - Environmental Assessment 
FONSI - Finding Of No Significant Impact 
ID Team - Interdisciplinary Team 
LUA - Land Use Allocation 
NEPA - National Environmental Protection Act 
NFP - Northwest Forest Plan 
NMFS - National Marine Fisheries Service 
NSO - Northern Spotted Owl 
PDF - Project Design Features 
RMP - Resources Management Plan 
RMZ - Riparian Management Zone 
ROD - Record Of Decision (used only to refer to 
the NFP ROD) 
T&E - Threatened or Endangered 
Project Lead: R. Greathouse & B. Baumann 
Preparer: Jim Luse 
Roseburg District, BLM 
777 NW Garden Valley Blvd. 
Roseburg, OR 97470 
(541-464-3254) 
Date of Preparation: November 4, 2002 
INTRODUCTION 
This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared for the Swiftwater Field Office's proposed FY 
2002 COMMERCIAL THINNING (EAST) Projects (East Fork and Relativity Timber Sales). The 
EA is a site specific analysis of potential environmental impacts that could result with the 
implementation of a proposed action or alternative.  The EA assists the Agency in project planning and 
ensuring compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and in making a 
determination as to whether any "significant" impacts could result from analyzed actions. 
"Significance" as defined by NEPA is found in regulation 40 CFR 1508.27.  An EA provides evidence 
for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or "Finding of No 
Significant Impact" (FONSI).  The FONSI is a document that briefly presents the reasons why 
implementation of the proposed action will not result in "significant" environmental impacts (effects) 
beyond those already addressed in the Roseburg District’s Final Environmental Impact Statement 
(FEIS). 
A Decision Document would be completed after the FONSI is signed to document the decision, 
however, Forest Management Regulation 43 CFR 5003.2 states that “[w]hen a decision is made to 
conduct an advertised timber sale, the notice of such sale shall constitute the decision document.”  This 
notice would be placed in The News-Review, a daily newspaper of general circulation in Roseburg, 
Oregon and constitute a decision document with authority to implement the proposed action. 
I. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 
This section provides a general overview of the proposed action. Included are: the need for the action, 
purpose of the action, a general description and objectives of the proposal, and conformance with 
existing land use plans. 
I. Need for Action 
The BLM has a need to implement the Roseburg District Record of Decision and Resources 
Management Plan (RMP). The RMP “responds to dual needs: the need for forest habitat and the 
need for forest products” (RMP, pg. 15). “The need for forest products . . . is . . . for a 
sustainable supply of timber and other forest products that will help maintain the stability of 
local and regional economies . . . on a predictable and long-term basis".  The BLM also needs to 
offer for sale "Commercial thinnings . . . after developing stands reach a combination of stem 
diameter and surplus volume to permit an entry that is economical" (RMP, pg. 149). 
Silvicultural stand exams indicate that the stands identified in this project would benefit from a 
thinning at this time. 
The RMP employs the strategy known as “ecosystem management”.  "Ecosystem management 
emphasizes the complete ecosystem instead of individual components and looks at sustainable 
systems and products that people want and need.  It seeks a balance between maintenance and 
restoration of natural systems and sustainable yield of resources” (RMP, pg. 18).  The NFP 
(ROD, pg. 6) divides the federal landbase into seven land use allocations (LUA) or categories. 
1 
This project is within the “Matrix” LUA. "Stands in the matrix can be managed for timber and 
other commodity production, and to perform an important role in maintaining biodiversity" 
(S&G, pg. B-6) by providing for biological legacies (snags, large woody debris and retention 
trees) that bridge past and future forests. The RMP further classifies the Matrix into two 
categories: the "General Forest Management Area" (GFMA); which are lands available for 
timber harvest and “Connectivity / Diversity Blocks" which are lands that are available for 
timber harvest and also provide connectivity between Late-Successional Reserves and Riparian 
Reserve. This project is in both of these categories. This project is also in the "Riparian 
Reserves” LUA. The "Riparian Reserves are areas along all streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes, and 
unstable or potentially unstable areas where the conservation of aquatic and riparian-dependent 
terrestrial resources receives primary emphasis." (ROD, pg. 7).  Much of the Riparian Reserve 
consists of homogeneous second growth trees resulting from past harvest.  Silvicultural practices 
are needed to reintroduce complexity and accelerate old growth characteristics within the 
Riparian Reserve to ". . . acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain Aquatic 
Conservation Strategy [ACS] objectives" (RMP, pg. 25). 
These needs would be met by actions consistent with the following objectives: 
1. For the Matrix portion: 
a. “Produce a sustainable supply of timber and other forest commodities " and “Provide 
connectivity . . . between late-successional reserves” (RMP, pg. 33). 
b. Improve stand health by reducing the excess stocking in the forest stand to increase 
the growth and vigor of the remaining individual trees (RMP, pg. 149). 
2. For the Riparian Reserve portion: 
a. “. . . protect the health of the aquatic system and its dependent species; . . . [and] . . . 
also provide incidental benefits to upland species” (ROD, pg. 7). 
b. Accelerate the development of large conifers of various form and structure for large 
trees and future recruitment of coarse woody debris (CWD) within the Riparian Reserve 
and meet the Aquatic Conservation Strategy  objective of ‘restoring structural diversity 
of plant communities in riparian areas’ (RMP, pg. 20). 
3. Implement ecosystem management as outlined in the RMP. 
- Avoid damage to riparian ecosystems and meet the objectives of the "Aquatic 
Conservation Strategy" (RMP pg. 19). 
- "Provide habitat for a variety of organisms associated with both late successional and 
younger forests." (RMP pg. 33). 
- Maintain "ecologically valuable structural components such as down logs, snags and 
large trees" (RMP pg. 33). 
- Improve and/or maintain soil productivity (RMP pg. 35). 
- "Maintain or enhance the fisheries potential of the streams  . . . " (RMP pg. 40). 
- Protect, manage and conserve all special status and Supplemental Environmental 
Impact

Statement special attention species habitat (RMP pg. 41).

- “Improve existing culverts, bridges, and other stream crossings determined to pose a 
substantial risk to riparian conditions.” (RMP, pg. 73). 
2 
B. Purpose of Action 
The purpose of the action described in this EA is to provide a sustainable supply of timber to the 
local economy.  This would be met by offering the East Fork and Relativity Timber Sales for 
auction in fiscal year 2003 or later. This proposal would help meet the Roseburg District's 
annual harvest commitment or allowable sale quantity.  It is also the purpose of this project to 
accelerate the development of mature forest characteristics (large trees, down woody debris and 
snags) within the Riparian Reserve areas through density management.. 
C. Description of the Proposal 
The Swiftwater Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to harvest 
timber in the Rock Creek Watershed located in Sections 29, and 30; T25S R1W; and Sections 
11, 15, 21, 23, and 27; T25S R2W; W.M. (see maps, Appendix A through C).  Approximately 
725 acres are analyzed for potential harvest activities and density management within the 
Riparian Reserve. New road construction and renovation of existing roads would also occur. 
Section II (pg. 5) of this EA provides a more detailed description of the Proposed Action 
Alternative. 
D. Conformance with Existing Land Use Plans 
The Proposed Action and all alternatives were developed to be in conformance with the Final -
Roseburg District Proposed Resource Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 
(PRMP/EIS) dated October 1994 and its associated Roseburg District Record of Decision and 
Resources Management Plan (RMP) dated June 2, 1995. The RMP was written to be consistent 
with the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for 
Late-Successional and Old Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern 
Spotted Owl (FSEIS); dated Feb. 1994 and its associated Record of Decision for Amendments to 
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the 
Northern Spotted Owl (ROD) and Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for 
Late-Successional and Old Growth Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted 
Owl (S&G’s) dated April 13, 1994; generally referred to as the "Northwest Forest Plan" (NFP). 
II. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 
This section describes the No Action and two Action alternatives, and any alternatives considered but 
eliminated from detailed analysis.  These alternatives represent a range of reasonable potential actions 
that would meet the Purpose and Need.  This section also discusses specific design features that would 
be implemented under the action alternatives. 
3 
A.	 The No Action Alternative (Alternative A) 
The No Action Alternative is required by NEPA and provides a baseline for the comparison of 
the alternatives. This alternative represents the existing condition. If this alternative were 
selected there would be no harvesting of timber within the bounds of the project area.  Harvest 
would, however, occur at another location within Matrix lands in order to meet harvest 
commitments identified in the RMP (pg. 7 and 60).  Selection of this alternative would not 
constitute a decision to reallocate these lands to non-commodity uses.  Future harvesting in this 
area would not be precluded and could be analyzed under a subsequent EA.  There would be no 
entry into Riparian Reserves for the purpose of enhancing conditions of late-successional forest 
ecosystems and applying silvicultural practices to meet ACS objectives at this time. 
B.	 The Action Alternatives (Alternatives B and C) 
Two action alternatives were considered: 
Alternative B - No timber harvest within the Riparian Reserves 
Alternative C - Density management within the Riparian Reserves (Proposed Alternative) 
TABLE 1. Comparison of Alternatives 
Alternative B Alternative C 
321 acres of commercial thinning harvest 
on eight units. 
321 acres of commercial thinning harvest 
on eight units 
No density management Approximately 30  acres of density 
management harvest on five units. 
Approximately 1.0 miles (six spurs) of 
temporary road construction (five acres of 
road right-of-way clearcut). 
Same as Alternative B 
skyline cable and helicopter logging Same as Alternative B 
Road decommissioning Same as Alternative B 
6.3 MCF (4.2 MMBF) 6.7 MCF (4.5 MMBF) 
Features common to both action alternatives 
1. Thinning from below (i.e. removal of the smaller diameter trees to promote the growth of 
the larger dominant and co-dominant trees). 
2. All the Project Design Feature’s (PDC’s) described in paragraph D below. 
3. 	Retain all individual remnant mature and old-growth trees and snags, except those within 
the road rights-of-way and snags felled for safety considerations. 
4. Maintain a hardwood component (RMP, pg.  151-152). 
5. Treatment within a Riparian Management Zone (see pg. 7) to restore riparian habitat. 
6. Pile and burn all landing slash. 
4 
C. The Proposed Action Alternative 
Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would result in the harvest of approximately 
6.7 MCF (thousand cubic feet) or 4.50 MMBF (million board feet) of the Roseburg District's FY 
2003 harvest commitment of 7.0 MMCF (45 MMBF).  Harvest activities would occur on eight 
units for 351 acres including and five acres of road right-of-way clearcut. A small amount of 
additional timber could potentially be included as a modification to this project.  These additions 
would be limited to removal of individual trees or small groups of trees that are blown down, 
injured from logging, are a safety hazard, or trees needed to facilitate the Proposed Action (ex. 
guyline and tailhold trees, cable yarding corridor trees, trees around helicopter landings, or trees 
within the road construction prism).  Historically this addition has been less than 10% of the 
estimated sale quantity.  Other activities would include: temporary road construction, road 
renovation, subsoiling of previously compacted skid trails, road decommissioning, and fuel 
hazard reduction with fire (burning of landing piles).  An undetermined number of trees would 
need to be felled prior to the signing of a Decision Document for sampling purposes.  This is 
considered a separate action and was analyzed under the 3-P Fall, Buck and Scale Sampling EA 
(EA# OR-100-00-06). 
Roads and Road Renovation. Approximately 1.0 miles (six spurs) of new road construction 
would occur on government land.  These roads would be built, used and decommissioned the 
same season.  Approximately 4.7 miles of BLM and 2.0 miles of private road would have road 
renovation (restoring the road back to its original design) for a total of 6.7 miles.  This would 
consist of replacing or maintaining drainage structures (culverts and ditches), reshaping the road 
surface, and brushing the road shoulders. Full decommissioning - "roads determined through 
an interdisciplinary process to have no future need . . ." (TMO, pg. 18) would occur on 
approximately 0.2  miles of BLM road (see pg. 7, para. 1d). 
Timber harvest practices would consist of a combination of commercial thinning and density 
management.  Commercial thinning is designed to reduce the density of the forest stand in 
order to maintain stand vigor and increase wood quality, to promote increased growth on the 
remaining trees and recover wood fiber that would ordinarily be lost through natural mortality 
(RMP, pg. 149; Silvicultural Prescription, pg. 1). Density Management harvest (in the 
Riparian Reserves) is designed to accelerate the attainment of mature and old growth forest 
characteristics by encouraging the development of larger trees more quickly through reducing 
the stocking of the forest stand around selected trees in order to accelerate the growth of the 
remaining trees.  Other trees would be left quite dense to promote mortality for stand diversity 
(RMP, pg. 103). Approximately 30 acres of Riparian Reserve's would be thinned for this 
purpose. A noncommercial aspect (falling and girdling trees) would occur within the Riparian 
Reserve (See page 6). The Proposed Action would require a mix of skyline cable logging 
(approximately 245 acres or 70%), helicopter logging (approximately 80 acres or 23%) and 
ground based (tractor) logging (approximately 25 acres or 7%).  The Authorized Officer 
(Contract Administrator) may determine that additional isolated minor ground based logging 
would be necessary (ex. removal of guyline anchor trees, isolated portions of units, etc.).  Up to 
ten acres were assumed in the analysis.  Helicopter landing locations are expected to be a 
one-half to one acre in size. Trees that are determined to be a hazard to flight operations could 
be cut with the approval of the Authorized Officer. 
5 
 Firewood cutting and salvaging of logging debris (slash) could occur in landing cull decks and 
near roads. The burning of landing cull decks and slash piles could occur as a means of 
reducing fire hazard. Subsoiling or other appropriate treatment (ex. waterbarring, ripping) 
would occur on selected skid trails, haul roads and landings compacted from previous entries as 
well as trails and landings that would be created for this entry (see Section C2(c)). 
D. Project Design Features and Management Practices as part of the Action Alternatives 
This section describes Project Design Features (PDF's) and management practices that would be 
incorporated as part of the action alternatives to avoid or reduce environmental harm.  PDF's are 
site specific measures, restrictions, requirements or physical structures included in the design of 
a project in order to reduce adverse environmental impacts.  The RMP (Appendix D, pg. 129) 
lists "Best Management Practices (measures designed to protect water quality and soil 
productivity) and "management actions/direction" ( ". . . the rules and limits governing actions, 
and the principles specifying the environmental conditions or levels to be achieved and 
maintained." [pg. 19]).  Mitigating measures (measures designed to avoid, minimize or rectify 
impacts on resources [40 CFR 1508.20]) may also be incorporated with the implementation of 
the action alternatives. 
1. To meet the objectives of the "Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS)" (RMP, pg. 19): 
a. Riparian Reserves (Component #1) were established. Riparian Reserves consist of (1) 
lands incorporating permanently flowing (perennial) and seasonally flowing (intermittent) 
streams, (2) the extent of unstable and potentially unstable areas that may directly impact 
streams, and (3) wetlands.  The RMP (pg. 24) specifies Riparian Reserve widths equal to the 
height of two site potential trees on each side of fish bearing streams and one site potential tree 
on each side of perennial or intermittent non-fish bearing streams and wetlands greater than an 
acre. Data has been analyzed from District inventory plots and the height of a site potential 
tree for the Rock Creek watershed has been determined to be the equivalent of 180 ft. 
therefore, Riparian Reserve boundaries would be approximately 180 ft. slope distance from 
the edge of non-fish bearing streams and 360 ft. from fish bearing streams in the project area 
(Rock Creek WA, pg. 8-1).  Four wet areas less than an acre were found within the project 
area (Units 11A, 15C and 21B). There are six fish bearing streams in the project area adjacent 
to Units. There is one fish-bearing stream (Unnamed Tributary to East Fork of Rock Creek) 
adjacent to East Fork Unit 30A and five fish-bearing streams (Rock Creek, East Fork Rock 
Creek, Woodstock Creek, Miller Creek, and Double D Creek) adjacent to Relativity Units 
11A, 15C, and 21B . 
1). Streambank stability and water temperature would be maintained under Alternative C 
by establishing a Riparian Management Zone (RMZ).  This zone consists of a strip least a 
40 ft. wide along intermittent non-fish bearing streams and 100 ft. wide along fish 
bearing streams as well as incorporation of any areas of instability to buffer effects from 
logging. No density management would occur within the RMZ other than twelve trees 
per acre would be girdled or felled (see Key Issue, pg. 18). Approximately 12 acres are 
contained within the RMZ. 
6 
2). Density management would be applied within the Riparian Reserves (Alternative C) 
of Units 11A, 15C, 21B, 23A and 23B "to control stocking . . . and acquire vegetation 
characteristics needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives" (RMP pg. 25). 
The objective is to develop late seral forest structure and enhance existing diversity by 
accelerating tree growth to promote larger trees and canopies, and provide a future source 
of large woody debris for stream structure.  Approximately 30 acres of the Riparian 
Reserve outside the RMZ would be thinned for this purpose. This would result in a 
change from approximately 200 merchantable stems per acre before thinning to 50 to 80 
stems per acre after thinning. 
3). Riparian habitat would be protected by: (1) Treating the Riparian Reserve to restore 
riparian features (snag creation and falling trees to provide a source of interim down 
woody debris). (2) Requiring the directional felling trees outside of the RMZ that are 
within 100' of streams away from the streams and yarding logs away from or parallel to 
the streams (i.e. logs would not be yarded across streams unless fully suspended through 
the RMZ). (3) Not building roads within the Riparian Reserves. No logging would 
occur within the Riparian Reserve (Alternative B). 
4). Wetlands less than one acre would be protected from harvest and provided a one-tree 
buffer. Trees designated for harvest, within 100' of the wetland, would be felled and 
yarded away from the wetland to protect this habitat. 
5). One area of potentially unstable ground at the head of a stream in Unit 21B would be 
included in the no-cut Riparian Reserve (Alternative B) or variable no-yard stream buffer 
(Alternative C). 
b. Key Watersheds (ACS Component #2) were established “as refugia . . . for maintaining 
and recovering habitat for at-risk stocks of anadromous salmonids and resident fish species 
[RMP, pg. 20].” This project is not in a Key Watershed. 
c. Watershed Analysis (ACS Component #3) for the Rock Creek Watershed was used in 
this analysis and is available for public review at the Roseburg District office. 
d. Watershed Restoration (ACS Component #4) would be accomplished primarily through 
the treatment of Riparian Reserves as described in paragraph 1a above.  This particular project 
includes the full decommissioning of unnumbered roads within Unit 21B (approximately 800 
ft.) and Unit 11C (approximately 200 ft.). 
2. To minimize soil erosion as a source of sedimentation to streams and to minimize soil 
productivity loss from soil compaction, loss of slope stability or loss of soil duff layer: 
a. Measures to limit soil erosion and sedimentation from roads would consist of: (1) 
Maintaining existing roads (Road No. 25-2-11.0, Segment B, 11.1, Segment A; 11.4, Segment 
A; 16.0, Segment A; 16.3, Segments A and B; 19.3, Segment A; 21.0, Segments A, B, C, D, 
and E; 28.1, Segment B; and 27.1, Segments A and B [see Appendix B]) to fix drainage and 
erosion problems. This would consist of maintaining existing culverts, installing additional 
culverts, outsloping, stabilizing at-risk fills and cuts, and surfacing roads with crushed rock 
7 
where deficient. (2) Accomplishing in-stream work (i.e. culvert replacement and fill removal) 
during periods of low flow (between July 1 and September 15).  (3) Locating all new spur 
roads out of the Riparian Reserves. (4) Restricting road renovation and log hauling on 
unsurfaced roads to the dry season (normally May 15 to Oct. 15).  If unacceptable resource 
damage could occur, operations during the dry season could be suspended during periods of 
heavy precipitation or not authorized if the wet season extends beyond May 15. This season 
could be adjusted if unseasonable conditions occur (e.g. an extended dry season or wet 
season). (5) Prior to any winter haul on surfaced roads, the stream crossings along the haul 
route would be evaluated for the need for turbidity reducing measures (ex., placement of straw 
bales and/or silt fences).  If needed, these structures would be put in place prior to haul.  (6) 
Not over-wintering bare erodible subgrades.  This would be done by building, using and 
decommissioning roads, i.e. installing necessary drainage features, blocking and seeding and 
mulching bare cut and fill surfaces with native species or a sterile hybrid mix depending on 
availability at the end of the operating season. (7) Decommissioning all new construction 
when logging is completed, i.e. the roadbed would be water barred, cut slopes and fills seeded 
with native species or a sterile hybrid mix depending on availability and access blocked. 
These BMP’s (RMP, pg. 136-7) are designed to minimize sedimentation and protect water 
quality. 
b. Measures to limit soil erosion and sedimentation from logging would consist of: (1) 
requiring skyline yarding where cable logging is specified. This method limits ground 
disturbance by requiring at least partial suspension during yarding (i.e., the use of a logging 
system that "suspends" the front end of the log during in-haul to the landing, thereby lessening 
the "plowing" action that disturbs the soil). In some limited, isolated areas partial suspension 
may not be physically possible due to terrain or lateral yarding.  Excessive soil furrowing 
would be assessed by the soil scientist and where determined to be excessive, hand 
waterbarring would be prescribed. (2) Dry season logging would be required in Units 15C, 
and 21B. Ground based logging would be limited to the dry season as described above. 
c.  Measures to limit soil compaction and loss of organic material (RMP, pg. 37) would 
consist of: (1) limiting ground based logging to the dry season (May 15 to Oct. 15) when soils 
are least compactable.  These dates are subject to adjustment based on localized seasonal 
weather variation. (2) Confining ground based activities to designated skid trails as identified 
in an approved logging plan. New trails would be limited to slopes less than 35% and with 
skidtrail spacings averaging at least 150 feet apart. (3) Evaluating the need for amelioration 
after completion of ground-based operations by the soil scientist in accordance with RMP 
criteria. All main trails would be ameliorated after completion of current entry or would be 
documented with a plan for deferred amelioration at final harvest.  Amelioration could be 
deferred if unacceptable damage to residual trees would occur.  Secondary trails (trails that 
have less than 50 percent exposed mineral soil) would be handled in the same manner as main 
trails if evaluation shows compaction is extensive.  Amelioration would include subsoiling and 
returning organic debris to the subsoiled surface. Subsoiling is a practice that shatters soil 
compaction, thereby reducing the effects to soil productivity and improving water infiltration. 
Any subsoiling of trails for this entry would be done with a winged subsoiler mounted to the 
arm of a small excavator.  Machines would be limited in size and track width to reduce 
compaction and trail width. 
8 
d. Measures to protect slope stability would consist of: (1) Removing from harvest 
consideration those areas that exhibit potential slope instability and that could ultimately 
impact aquatic values such as fisheries (see Appendix D).  (2) Locating new roads in stable 
locations with proper drainage structures. (3) Dry season yarding (where required) with one-
end suspension in Relativity and helicopter yarding in East Fork. 
3. To provide wildlife habitat components: 
a. Future nesting and roosting habitat for cavity dwellers would be provided by reserving 
existing hard or soft snags at least 20" in diameter and 15 ft. in height (PRMP/EIS, 
Appendices 226) where possible. Any snag deemed as hazardous to worker safety could be 
felled at the discretion of the operator and the Sales Administrator.  Such trees would be 
reserved and left in place as CWD.  Past experience has been that less than 5% of snags need 
to be felled for this reason. Remnant mature or old-growth trees remaining from the previous 
stand would be reserved where possible. 
b. Most existing CWD (at least 16" in diameter and 16 ft. in length) would be reserved (RMP, 
pg. 38). This has been created by blowdown trees and logs remaining from previous logging. 
4. 	To protect air quality: 
Any burning of landing piles would have an approved “Burn Plan” and be conducted under 
the requirements of the Oregon Smoke Management Plan and done in a manner consistent 
with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. 
5. To protect and enhance stand diversity: 
a. Mature and old growth (RMP, pg. 112) remnant trees in the thinning units would be 
retained to the greatest extent possible as well as occasional defective (diseased) and deformed 
trees (trees with broken or multiple tops, and trees with ramicorn branches (steeply angled 
branches) or large branch clusters) that could provide future snags and nesting habitat. 
Approximately 1.6 mature or old-growth remnant trees per acre (East Fork) and 0.4 mature or 
old-growth remnant trees per acre (Relativity) were found in the proposed units. 
b. Snags and CWD would be reserved as described in paragraph three above.  Snags would be 
protected from logging damage by clumping trees around them and directionally falling trees 
away from the snags.  Approximately 3.0 snags per acre (East Fork) and 0.2 snags per acre 
(Relativity) were found in the proposed units. 
6. To prevent and report accidental spills of petroleum products or other hazardous 
materials: 
Hazardous materials (particularly petroleum products) would be stored in durable containers 
and located so that any accidental spill would be contained. All landing and work site trash 
and logging materials would be removed.  All equipment planned for instream work would be 
inspected beforehand for leaks.  Accidental spills or discovery of  the dumping of any 
hazardous materials would be reported to the Sale Administrator and the procedures outlined 
in the “Roseburg District Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) Emergency Response 
Contingency Plan” would be followed. 
9 
7. 	To contain and/or reduce the spread of noxious weeds: 
Stipulations would be incorporated into the logging contract to prevent and/or control the 
spread of noxious weeds. This would include the cleaning of logging equipment prior to entry 
on BLM lands (BLM Manual 9015 - Integrated Weed Management).  Roadside brushing of 
scotch broom would be accomplished prior to seed set. 
8. To protect the residual stand and promote stand health: 
a. As much as possible, trees that would most likely survive logging and overall improve the 
stand condition and health would be selected for retention.  The stand would be thinned from 
below (i.e. removal of the smallest diameter trees first) which would remove suppressed trees 
and smaller trees that would result in less stand damage during falling. 
b. Felling and yarding would be done in a manner to protect the residual stand.  No falling 
and yarding in the cable areas would be permitted from April 15 through July 15 when the sap 
is up in the trees and damage due to bark slippage could occur.  This date could be adjusted 
based on local conditions (e.g. earlier or later than normal loose bark period). 
c. Yarding systems would be designed to match yarder and cable size to the size of the timber 
in order to minimize damage from an overly large yarding system.  Corridors for yarding 
would be pre-designated and approved by the Sale Administrator. 
9. To protect Special Status and SEIS Special Attention Plants and Animals: 
a. Special Attention (Survey and Manage) plant and animal sites would be protected where 
required, according to established management recommendations (RMP, pg.  42). Nine active 
red tree vole sites were found through protocol surveys, including 19 active nest trees. Active 
sites would be protected by minimum ten-acre buffers established according to management 
recommendations (IM-OR-2000-086).  A total of 87 acres of red tree vole habitat would be 
reserved out of which up to 22 acres could be removed from within the units. 
b. If, during implementation of the proposed action, any Special Status (threatened or 
endangered, proposed threatened or endangered, candidate, State listed, Bureau sensitive or 
Bureau assessment) species are found, evaluation for the appropriate type of mitigation needed 
for each species would be done. Stipulations would be placed in the contract to halt 
operations if any of these Special Status plants or animals are found to allow time to determine 
adequate protective measures before operations could resume. 
c. Seasonal restrictions to prohibit logging during the nesting season (March 1 to September 
30) would be applied to Relativity units 15C and 27D and East Fork unit 29A which are 
adjacent to a northern spotted owl (NSO) activity centers. This restriction could be waived by 
the biologist if surveys indicate the activity center is not occupied, or if nesting has not been 
attempted or has failed. 
10 
10. 	To protect cultural resources: 
Stipulations would be placed in the contract to halt operations and evaluate the appropriate 
type of mitigation needed to provide adequate protection; if any objects of cultural value (e.g. 
historical or prehistorical ruins, graves, fossils or artifacts) are found during the 
implementation of the proposed action. 
D. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated 
An alternative was considered to helicopter log all or portions of Units 11A and 15C to avoid the 
need to open up existing roads or to construct additional temporary spurs.  This alternative was 
rejected because the cost would not be economical and the problems that helicopter logging 
would solve were not considered of such magnitude as to justify the extra cost. 
III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 
This section describes the existing environment and forms a baseline for comparison of the effects 
created by the alternatives under consideration. This section does not attempt to describe in detail every 
resource within the proposed project area that could be impacted but only those resources which could 
be substantially impacted.  Appendix F (Analysis File) contains data and supporting information that 
provides the basis for describing the affected environment. 
This project lies within the Oregon Western Cascades Physiographic Province.  The FSEIS describes the 
affected environment for this province on page 3&4-19.  The Roseburg District Proposed Resource 
Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/EIS, pp. 3-3 through 3-71) provides a 
detailed description of BLM administered lands on the Roseburg District.  A further description can also 
be found in the Rock Creek Watershed Analysis. 
A. General Setting 
Stand Description - The stands originated after logging (40-50 years ago) from natural 
regeneration and planted trees. The predominant conifer species is Douglas-fir.  Other conifer 
species in association include incense-cedar, western hemlock, western red cedar, grand fir and 
sugar pine. Hardwoods including madrone, chinkapin, big leaf maple and red alder are also 
found in these stands. Salal, Oregon grape and sword ferns are common on the forest floor.  The 
plant association best describing these areas is a western hemlock or white fir over salal and 
Oregon grape. Stand exams in this area indicate there are about 5,500 cubic feet  wood 
volume/acre in standing trees and about 3,100 cubic feet wood volume/acre in coarse woody 
debris. The Silvicultural Prescription (Appendix F) provides site specific descriptions of the 
stands proposed for thinning. 
Site Description - This project occurs within four subwatersheds: Rocky (6789 acres), East 
Fork (14,245 acres), Mill Pond (11,720 acres) and Lower Rock Creek. (12,810 acres). These 
drainages are within the Rock Creek Fifth-Field Watershed which covers approximately 62,670 
acres (98 square miles).  Current landscape patterns include natural stands that are the result of 
fire and managed stands established following timber harvest. 
11 
B. Affected Resources 
The affected area was surveyed for the resources listed below according to established protocols: 
Botany (Special Status and Survey and Manage species (SSP/S&M)) - No Special Status or 
Survey and Manage Plants were observed in the project area. There are some localized 
infestations of Scotch broom, a noxious weed, in the project area.  This is confined mostly to 
roadsides. The Rock Creek fifth-field has had extensive treatment over the past several years 
that has reduced a heavy occurrence of Scotch broom to a medium to low level of occurrence. 
Cultural Resources - No cultural resources were found in the project area. 
Fisheries - There are seven fish-bearing streams in the proposed project area: Rock Creek, 
Woodstock Creek, Miller Creek, Double D Creek, the East Fork of Rock Creek, Cougar Creek 
and an unnamed tributary to the East Fork of Rock Creek (See Figure 1: Rock Creek Fifth-Field 
Watershed).  According to the Rock Creek WA (pg. 8-1), Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), 
Coastal Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki), Oregon Coast Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus 
mykiss),Oregon Coast Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and Pacific Lamprey 
(Lampetra tridentata) are present in 
the watershed. The Oregon Coast 
Coho has been designated as a 
threatened species under the 
Endangered Species Act. The Oregon 
Department of Fish and Wildlife 
(ODFW, 1993 and 1994) has 
conducted stream habitat surveys for 
the Rock Creek fifth-field watershed. 
Data is available for East Fork Rock 
Creek (Reach 3 & 4), Rock Creek 
(Reach 2), Woodstock Creek (Reach 
1) and Miller Creek (Reach 1) and was 
used in this analysis. These surveys 
generally show that streams within the 
watershed are in fair to good 
condition. 
Figure 1: Rock Creek Fifth-Field 
Watershed - Fish Distribution 
Fish presence surveys were conducted 
for all stream crossings on the 
proposed haul routes during the 
summer of 2002.  The stream 
crossings detected as fish-bearing were 
the bridge crossings over Rock Creek 
and East Fork Rock Creek, the two 
furthest downstream culverts on 
12 
 Woodstock Creek and furthest downstream culvert on Double D Creek, and two tributaries to 
East Fork Rock Creek. The presence of Coho Salmon was confirmed for these stream crossings, 
with the exception of the two tributaries to East Fork Rock Creek. 
According to data from ODFW Aquatic Habitat Surveys and project site reviews, Rock Creek 
and the lower portion of East Fork Rock Creek would contain primarily migratory and spawning 
habitat with some rearing habitat.  The larger tributaries (Mace, Double D, Cougar, etc.) to these 
creeks would be primarily rearing and spawning habitat.  The lower order (1st and 2nd) perennial 
streams and upper reaches of the larger order tributaries contain primarily rearing habitat with 
some spawning.  Physical variation in habitat utilization would depend on stream flow 
conditions and stream gradient.  Seasonal variation in life-cycle stage would consist on coho 
migration in October to December and spawning from October to January.  Coho may rear up to 
two years prior to outmigration. 
All bridge crossings are on paved roads, with the exception of Rock Creek bridge crossing at the 
terminus of the 25-2-20.1 road to Rock Creek Rd.; however this crossing  is on rocked road and 
in good condition. All culvert stream crossings on Woodstock Creek are in good condition.  The 
culvert crossing on Double D Creek is in fair condition with a 1.5 meter step at the outfall into a 
2 meter deep plunge pool.  The two fish-bearing culvert crossings on the 11.0 road were 
assessed as juvenile fish barriers (non-coho) in poor condition.  As part of road maintenance 
activities, both the 11.0 road culverts and the Double D Creek culvert would be replaced with 
fish passage culverts prior to haul activities associated with this proposal. 
Hydrology - The proposed project is located within the Rock Creek fifth-field watershed. 
Beneficial Uses of Water consists primarily of domestic water supply, irrigation and livestock 
watering, resident fish and aquatic life, and salmonid spawning and rearing.  Rock Creek, from 
its mouth to the Northeast Fork, has been identified by the Oregon Department of Environmental 
Quality (DEQ) as 303(d) water quality limited for summer temperature (Oregon DEQ, 1998). 
The characteristics of climate (e.g. precipitation type and timing), elevation, and geomorphology 
all contribute to the way a watershed moves and stores water.  Average annual precipitation 
amounts of 56 to over 80 inches occur primarily between October and March across the 
watershed. Precipitation occurs primarily as rain at lower elevations (< 2,000 feet).  The 
Transient Snow Zone is defined as areas between 2,000 to 5,000 foot elevation that may 
alternately receive snow or rain. Portions of the proposed timber sale (Units 21B [part], 23A, 
23B, 27D, 29A, and 30A) are located within the Transient Snow Zone (see pg. 18). 
Soils and Geology - Soils were formed over volcanic rock (primarily tuffs and andesitic/basaltic 
flows) and sedimentary rock (primarily sandstones and siltstones) derived from this volcanic 
material.  This complex volcanic geology and variable weathering of rock can result in highly 
variable slope stability even within short distances.  Much of the terrain within the Relativity 
units is attributable to ancient slump-earth flows resulting in dissected stair-stepping terrain of 
steep to extremely steep scarps (60 to greater than 90 percent slope) and broad, gentle to 
moderately sloped, often undulating benches.  The East Fork units are on steep to extremely 
steep, dissected mountain slopes.  Superficial dry ravel caused by extremely gravelly surfaces is 
common on these slopes. 
13 
Slope stability is of general concern on slopes greater than 70 percent.  Approximately one fifth 
(About 75 acres) of the project area is on slopes greater than 70 percent. Approximately 40 
percent of this area, (30 acres) has been determined from inventory to be potentially unstable and 
has been given the Timber Production Capability Classification (TPCC) of FGR (portions of 
Units 15B, 21B, 23B and 29A). The FGR soils are fragile due to slope gradient but suitable for 
timber production with mitigation.  These low cohesion soils have the potential for shallow-
seated debris avalanches, especially in those areas with soil depths greater than 20 inches to 
bedrock. Field observations indicate varying degrees of soil creep on these FGR slopes, 
however no tension cracks or actively failing ground were discovered. The few landslides that 
have occurred since the last tree removal have been small (less than 0.1 acres) based on aerial 
photo interpretation and field observations. Most of the FGR slopes are situated above broad 
benches away from streams.  Approximately 45 acres with slopes greater than 70 percent (mostly 
in Unit 30A) are dominated by shallow soils and rock outcrop and have lower potential than the 
FGR slopes for debris avalanches as evidenced by the lack of harvest-related landslides during 
the life of the current stand, the straightness of the conifer boles (an indication that soil creep is 
not occurring) and the lack of harvest-related landslides on the clearcut adjacent to Unit 30A. 
The very deep, clayey soils on slump-earth flow topography in the southern part of Unit 21B 
have a TPCC classification of FPR (potential for deep-seated mass movement but suitable for 
forest management because of the slow rate of movement).  The very steep toe of one slump 
occurs above a small wet area and head of a first order stream.  In Relativity Units 11A, 15C and 
21B, there are four small wet areas totaling less than one acre that have soils with seasonably 
high water tables, ponded water and hydrophitic vegetation. 
About 90 percent of the Relativity sale area had past ground-based yarding leaving areas of 
dense patterns of skid trail and old natural surfaced haul roads that are not part of the current 
transportation system.  A network of skid trails (most notable in Unit 21B) were cut into some 
steep slopes with a tractor blade, removing most to all topsoil in the cut portions.  These trails 
have variable amounts of residual compaction (light to heavy).  Nearly all of them are currently 
stable to erosion. There are no past yarding impacts (cable or ground-based) in East Fork. 
About 18 miles of existing rocked road would access the units.  Where wet season haul could 
occur (12 miles of road) the quality of rock is good (mostly a six inch lift of very hard basalt 
gravel over six inches of pit run rock). The tread surface is holding up well with little track 
deformation under past haul and recent heavy equipment traffic.  Approximately 30 percent of 
the volume of the road surfacing consists of fines (predominantly sands and silts) that are 
potentially transportable as sediment.  Most of these fines are not exposed at the surface and 
therefore not readily available as a source of sediment under the current administrative and 
public use. The ditches are, with few exceptions, well vegetated and stable to erosion and are 
effective sediment filters.  Approximately four miles of existing rocked roads would only be 
used for dry season haul. Of this, 1.3 miles (25-2-11.0 road) is oil-sealed hard basalt that occurs 
within 200 feet of the East Fork of Rock Creek.  It has held up well with very little track 
deformation from recent wet season haul by Seneca.  About 2.2 miles of existing natural 
surfaced roads access the units. A fill failure exists at the head of a  first order stream crossing 
on the natural surfaced 25-2-16.3 and the first 300 feet of the 24-2-21.0 road which accesses Unit 
15C is a source of sediment to Miller and Rock Creek.  A half mile segment of the 24-2-11.2 that 
accesses East Fork crosses a first order stream and is a source of sediment to the first order 
stream. 
14 
Wildlife - Federally Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species known to occur in the Roseburg 
District include the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), marbled murrelet 
(Brachyramphus marmoratus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Columbian white-tailed 
deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) and Fender’s blue butterfly 
(Icaricia icarioides fenderi). The sale area is within the 1.2 mile home range of three spotted 
owl Master Sites: Miller Creek, Pond View, and Mace Mountain; and is within the 0.25 mile 
disturbance zone of two spotted owl sites, Pond View and Mace Mountain. These sites are 
protected with a Residual Habitat Area (a known and protected owl activity center as of January 
1, 1994). There are 14 acres of nesting and foraging habitat and 104 acres of dispersal habitat 
for the NSO within the project area. This project contains 104 acres within Critical Habitat Unit 
CHU OR-27 and OR-25. Critical Habitat is defined as a specific geographical area specified by 
the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in Recovery Plans as containing habitat essential for the 
conservation of a Threatened and Endangered species. This sale occurs more than 50 miles from 
the Coast, and therefore is not considered to contain suitable marbled murrelet habitat.  There are 
no known bald eagle nests which could be affected by disturbance above ambient noise levels 
within 0.25 miles of any of the project areas.  The remaining T&E species do not occur in the 
project area (See Summary of Wildlife Concerns for Environmental Analysis, Appendix F). 
Special Status Species are summarized in the Analysis File (Appendix F).  Survey and Manage 
Species: One hundred and eighty-one (181) acres of suitable red tree vole habitat are contained 
within the proposed sale units. Nine active red tree vole sites were found through protocol 
surveys, including 19 active nest trees. Two inactive sites, including two nest trees were also 
found during surveys. 
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 
This section provides the analytical basis for the comparisons of the alternatives.  The reasonably 
foreseeable environmental consequences (impacts, effects) to the human environment that each 
alternative would have on selected resources are described. Impacts can be positive or negative.  This 
section is organized by the alternatives and the effects on any key issue identified in Appendix D, as 
well as the selected resources. Analysis considers the direct impacts (effects caused by the action and 
occurring at the same place and time), indirect impacts (effects caused by the action but occurring later 
in time and farther removed in distance but are reasonably foreseeable) and cumulative impacts (effects 
of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions) on the 
resource values. Short-term generally refers to the time of the action up to the first year after the action 
but may be as long as ten years.  Long-term may be a year or more but generally more than ten years. 
The Roseburg RMP/EIS analyzes the environmental consequences in a broader context.  This EA does 
not attempt to reanalyze impacts that have already been analyzed in these documents but rather to 
identify the particular site specific impacts that could reasonably occur.  Environmental effects to the 
“Critical Elements of the Human Environment” are analyzed in Appendix D and E. 
When encountering a gap in information, the question implicit in the Council on Environmental Quality 
regulations on incomplete and unavailable information was posed: Is this information “essential to a 
reasoned choice among the alternatives” (40 CFR 1502.22(a))?  While additional information would 
15 
often add precision to estimates or better specify a relationship, the basic data and central relationships 
are sufficiently well established that any new information would not likely reverse or nullify understood 
relationships. Although new information would be welcome, no missing information was determined as 
essential for the decision maker to make a reasoned choice among the alternatives. 
A. No Action Alternative 
This alternative would not meet the Purpose and Need of the RMP (pg. 15) or this EA (pg. 1) 
objective of producing forest commodities that would contribute to the local economy. 
Restoration of past disturbance would not occur.  Road conditions would remain unchanged. 
Only normal programmed maintenance would be performed.  There would be no entry into the 
Riparian Reserves for the purpose of enhancing conditions of late-successional forest ecosystems 
and applying silvicultural practices to meet ACS objectives. 
Stands continue to differentiate in time through growth and mortality.  Organon (Hann 1995) 
output indicates that trees are under competitive stress at this time.  By age 80 years crowns are 
averaging about 30% of tree height (crown ratio), mean diameters are around 16 inches, and 
heights of the tallest trees are over 170 feet. By age 120 the stands are extremely dense and 
composed of  trees with crown ratios averaging less than 25%. Tall skinny trees are susceptible 
to wind throw and more likely to break under snow loads.  Trees that have developed over long 
periods of competitive stress are more likely to be killed by insects and disease (Waring 1985, 
Smith, 1962).  Stands left in this condition are slow to respond to improved growing conditions 
and never attain potential growth rates. (Oliver, 1990; Smith, 1962).  When this process occurs 
in managed stands of Douglas-fir down wood and snags are made up predominantly of the 
smaller trees.  Accumulations of dead wood consisting of small trees increases fire intensity and 
rate of spread. The risk of stand damage from fire is increased (Waring, 1985; Graham, 1999).  
The Silvicultural Prescription (Appendix F) provides a more detailed stand description. 
Water Quality and Hydrologic Processes -  There would be no direct impacts to hydrology or 
water quality as a result of the no action alternative.  Vegetation within the Riparian Reserve 
would continue to slowly develop over time to provide increased shade, bank stability, and large 
woody debris recruitment.  However, without density management, old-growth characteristics 
within the Riparian Reserves will take much longer to develop.  As stated above, an overly dense 
stand increases the risk of a higher severity wildfire.  A high severity wildfire would affect a 
much larger area and would cause far greater impacts to the watershed than the proposed action. 
Soil Productivity and Sedimentation - Road construction, renovation, harvest, and haul-related 
impacts to the soil, and mitigation of existing sedimentation sources as described previously (pg. 
14) would not occur. Road-related short-term sedimentation into streams  corresponding to 
winter haul and first season flush periods associated with the action alternative would not occur. 
All compaction and soil displacement from past ground-based operations would continue to heal 
very slowly due to natural processes. 
The probability of harvest-related landslides would be low (less than 10 percent) on the FGR and 
FPR slopes of Units 15A, 21B, 23B and 29A and in Unit 30A. This assessment is based on the 
low level of landslide activity that is not road-related under young stand canopies within the 
project area and under clearcut in a large unit adjacent to Unit 30A (aerial photo history and field 
16 
 observations). The Oregon Department of Forestry storm impacts and landslide study (Oregon 
Department of Forestry, 1999) indicated that failures were least likely in stands in the 31 to 100 
year age class. The assessment is also based on indicators of potential instability seen in the 
field. The likely size of any landslide occurring under the no action alternative would be small 
(less than 0.1 acre) based on the lack of evidence of larger in-unit landslides having occurred 
under a clearcut/wildfire regime and subsequent second growth canopies.  The likelihood of any 
landslide reaching a stream would be very low since almost all slopes of potential instability 
(FGR and FPR) are situated above gentle to moderate slopes away from any streams. 
Fisheries Habitat - Current temperature, sediment inputs, woody debris and hydrologic 
processes would continue to function at existing rates and levels.  Fish species and populations 
would remain relatively unchanged. There would be no associated direct impacts under this 
alternative because the environment would not be affected by activities of the proposed action. 
The riparian habitat adjacent to the aquatic environment on both fish bearing and non-fish 
bearing stream eco-tones, consists primarily of a dense mid-seral monotone of Douglas-fir. 
Although these stands would continue to mature and develop late successional characteristics 
over time, due to the dense forest monotone these stands would develop conditions described in 
the “stands section” above. The primary effect to the riparian resource would be the effect on 
the size and structure of the coarse and large woody components.  Road maintenance activities 
would occur over time based on request by permittee or on a as-needed bases.  Fish barrier 
culverts would be replaced according to District-wide prioritization. 
Wildlife Habitat - The direct impacts would not occur under this alternative. Wildlife

populations and diversity would be expected to remain static.  The stand would progress

naturally as a Douglas-fir dominated stand.

The indirect impacts would include increased canopy closure which could cause a reduction in 
habitat for some species.  The canopy closure would result in competitive mortality, thereby 
creating snags and CWD as habitat for some species.  Existing structural features (i.e., snow 
breaks, forked tops, decay, etc.) would be maintained, fostering the creation of nesting habitat. 
Dispersal capabilities of the stand would continue to increase. 
B. Action Alternatives 
Unless otherwise noted, the analysis in this section applies to both action alternatives. 
Some irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources would result from the 
implementation of this project.  An irreversible commitment is a commitment that cannot be 
reversed whereas an irretrievable commitment is a commitment that is lost for a period of time. 
An irreversible commitment of petroleum fuels for road building, logging and timber hauling as 
well as the loss of rock from quarries for crushed rock used in the renovation of the road system 
would result from the proposed action.  An irretrievable loss of soil productivity would occur 
due to the construction of two acres of road. Although these roads would be decommissioned 
following use they would effectively remain part of the transportation system until final harvest. 
17 
  
Stands - Stand health would be maintained by providing favorable growing conditions.  Large 
diameter conifers with large live crowns develop the stem and root strength to withstand strong 
winds. Stand diversity would be enhanced by favoring a variety of tree species in an uneven 
spatial distribution. Scattered large green conifers and snags, large hardwoods, and coarse 
woody debris would be retained. Future stands would continue to produce wood volume while 
preserving a biological legacy in large green conifers and hardwoods, large snags, and down 
logs. Diversity would be enhanced by allowing varying levels of light to reach the forest floor 
which promotes various shrubs and forbs.  The Riparian Reserves would be managed consistent 
with the guidance in the South Cascades Late Successional Reserve Assessment (LSRA, 1998). 
Key Issue: How do we treat the Riparian Reserve? 
The NFP and the Roseburg District RMP provides for entry into the Riparian Reserve for the 
purpose of meeting the objectives of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, particularly to move 
the forest stands away from a homogeneous Douglas-fir monoculture resulting from past 
management (S&G’s, B-31; RMP, pg. 25) towards forests that would have a greater diversity 
of vegetation. Density management has been conducted in past projects to accomplish these 
objectives while maintaining a 30 ft. no cut buffer to maintain stream bank stability.  During 
the issue identification phase for this project, a comment was received from the public 
indicating a desire for, or consideration of, a restoration alternative that would permit only 
limited entry into the Riparian Reserve to accomplish riparian (ACS) objectives.  This option 
was reviewed by the ID Team and a 40 ft. minimum (non-fish bearing) and 100 ft. minimum 
(fish bearing) streamside Riparian Management Zone was established based on site review by 
the Area hydrologist, soil scientist, and fisheries biologist and information taken from the 
FEMAT Report’s evaluation of riparian processes as a function of distance from stream 
channels. Additional scientific literature indicates that buffer strips of 30 meters (98 feet) or 
greater on fish-bearing streams prevented adverse sedimentation impacts from logging on 
salmonid eggs and alevins development (Moring, 1982); generally provide the same level of 
shading as that of an old-growth forest (Beschta et al, 1987); and were adequate to maintain 
macroinvertebrate diversity at pre-harvest levels (Belt et al, 1992). Approximately twelve 
trees per acre would be felled or girdled within the Riparian Reserve but not removed. 
Alternative C would commercially remove trees from the remaining portions of the Riparian 
Reserve whereas Alternative B would not. 
Water Quality and Hydrologic Processes -  Under both alternatives limited management 
activities would occur within the Riparian Management Zone (RMZ) where long-term positive 
benefits to aquatic resources can be achieved. Some minor short-term localized direct impacts 
such as reduction in shade and sedimentation released from felling trees adjacent to streams 
could occur, however water quality would not be affected.  Beneficial Uses of Water in the 
Rock Creek Watershed and the 303(d) listed section of Rock Creek (summer temperature) would 
not be affected by either alternative. No change in stream temperature, water pH, dissolved 
oxygen, or other chemical or physical parameters is likely to occur under the action alternatives 
due to the buffering effect of the 40 - 100 ft. no-yarding RMZ (Alternative C) or the full RMP 
Riparian Reserve (Alternative B) along all streambanks. 
18 
 Indirect impacts of the action alternatives could result in a small but temporary increase in water 
yield and summer low flows.  Any increase, however, is expected to be within the range of 
natural variability. Increases in soil moisture, resulting from less interception and 
evapotranspiration from reduced vegetative cover, would likely be consumed by the stimulated 
growth of the residual stand (Satterlund and Adams, 1992; p. 253).  Minor increases in summer 
flow resulting from excess soil moisture not taken up by the residual stand would benefit riparian 
areas which are often moisture limited during the summer.  A hydrologic effect known as the 
Transient Snow Zone (TSZ) effect is the effect from a warm rain-on-melting snow event that 
contributes to increased peak flows due in part to openings created within the TSZ. Since the 
proposed thinning only involves a small percentage (< 1 %) of the Rock Creek Watershed, and 
an even smaller percentage of the TSZ with partial cuts resulting in small (less than ½ acre) 
openings, no measurable increase in peak flows as a result of rain-on-snow events are expected. 
Soil Productivity - Actions that could potentially impact the soils resource include: 1) losses to 
soil productivity due to compaction, and 2) within unit harvest related debris avalanches. 
Direct impacts would result from road building and logging activities.  Spur construction 
accessing Units 15C and 21B would consist of widening existing trails or new construction 
where no trail previously existed. This construction would cover about one acre of undisturbed 
land, an irretrievable loss to soil productivity since they would not be subsoiled and would be 
expected to be used in future entries. The total amount of yarding effects on soil productivity 
would vary depending upon the actual mix of skyline and ground-based operations in the 
Relativity sale. About 25 acres were identified as having potential for ground-based logging. 
Skyline logging would add small amounts of light, superficial compaction on less than one 
percent of the skyline yarded ground (Sampson Butte and Coon Creek monitoring).  Ground-
based tractor yarding would use designated skid trails covering about five to seven percent of the 
ground. Some of this trail  coverage would overlap old existing trails with residual compaction. 
New compaction would be substantial enough (moderate to heavy over most of the trail lengths) 
to negatively affect the growth of adjacent trees. Based on post-operation evaluation by the soil 
scientist, tilling compaction, in accordance with RMP requirements, may be prescribed or 
necessary amelioration could be deferred to final harvest with a documented plan.  Subsoiling 
would be done using a subsoiler attached to the arm of an excavator.  This method, minimizes 
damage to the boles and roots of conifers and pulls organic debris back over the tilled trails. 
There would be opportunity to subsoil old skid trails and roads not needed for current operations 
in Units 11A and 21B. Down woody debris would be left on site in accordance with RMP 
guidelines. This would benefit long-term soil productivity by leaving a nutrient reservoir and a 
medium for growth of organisms beneficial to the soil. 
Both action alternatives would result in the indirect impact of a slight short-term (ten years) 
increase in the probability of harvest- related debris avalanches on the FGR and FPR slopes that 
would be thinned. This would be due to a temporary decrease in canopy interception of 
precipitation and a decrease in root strength. The increase in risk would be hard to quantify. 
Although the probability of debris avalanches would increase, it would still be in the low range 
(<10 percent) as under the no action alternative and would be expected to be within the range of 
natural variation. The mitigation of dry season yarding with at least one-end suspension would 
help keep the risk low. The potential effects to fisheries are discussed on page 20. 
19 
Fisheries Habitat - Actions potentially affecting the fisheries habitat include: 1) density 
management within the Riparian Reserves, and 2) stream sedimentation due to road construction 
and timber hauling and harvest related landslides. 
Density management would take place within the Riparian Reserves. This activity is 
specifically prescribed to enhance the Riparian Reserve and adjacent aquatic environment.  No 
direct impacts or indirect impacts are anticipated from management activities outside the RMZ 
to the fisheries habitat.  Direct and/or indirect impacts from management activities within the 
RMZ (see Key Issue discussion, previous page) through sedimentation and a reduction in shade 
from trees being felled adjacent to streams are not anticipated to effect the stream channel. 
These impacts would be minimal since at most only twelve trees per acre would be treated by 
girdling or felling and left in place. No trees would be felled into the streams and impacts from 
the felling and girdling are expected to benefit the riparian area through course woody debris 
accumulation.  Long-term impacts from density management activities within the Riparian 
Reserve would occur through development of  late-successional conditions (increase in course 
woody debris, litter fall, root strength, shading and associated microclimate conditions).  The 
short-term impacts within the RMZ would be inconsequential whereas the long-term impacts 
would enhance the riparian resources within the project area. 
Research has shown that the greatest potential for unmitigated stream sedimentation is from 
road construction (Gibbons and Salo, 1973); however, in-stream sedimentation from the 
proposed project is expected to be negligible for the following reasons: 1) construction would be 
on stable locations at and just below ridge tops on gentle to moderate slopes (10 to 40 percent), 
2) spur locations are away from streams, and 3) waterbarring and blocking to traffic of all in-
unit, natural surfaced roads and spurs during the same dry season as logging.  Any sediment 
from these segments would filter onto the forest floor before reaching streams and not impact the 
fisheries habitat. The improvement of drainage, and the rocking of some segments deficient of 
rock on the existing roads would also reduce chronic erosion and lessen the potential of erosion 
due to culvert failure. These standard road maintenance practices would significantly reduce 
road-related sediment delivery to adjacent streams. 
Impacts of sedimentation from the haul road activity to the aquatic environment was considered, 
however is difficult to quantify or measure (Brown, 1985).  Direct impacts to the aquatic 
environment are expected from wet season haul road activities on the 25-2-16.0 road for harvest 
activities on Units 23 A&B and the 26-2-28.0 and 33.1 roads for Unit 27D. However, any 
sedimentation resulting from the haul road activity would not be measurable and is not expected 
to be above existing background levels within the stream channels and therefore, would not have 
an affect on habitat for coho salmon, as well as habitat for cutthroat and steelhead trout.  No 
direct or indirect impacts of any consequence are expected from the dry season haul road 
activities. Any sediment expected to reach streams as a result of haul would be mitigated though 
the following: 1) All segments of naturally surfaced roads (both existing and newly constructed) 
would have dry season haul and would be, with one exception, away from streams.  These 
segments would be waterbarred and blocked to traffic during the same season as use.  These 
features would result in virtually no sediment to streams.  The one exception (the private 25-2­
16.3 road) crosses the head of a first-order stream.  This stream segment is non-fish bearing and 
would not have impact to fisheries.  2) Based on a study (Burroughs, 1990) ten inches of 1.5 inch 
20 
 minus gravel reduces the impacts of forest-road sedimentation by 99%.  The rocked portions of 
the proposed haul roads are in good condition. Over two-thirds of these rocked portions are 
rocked with 12 inches of gravel with at least the top six inches being high quality basalt.  Twelve 
percent has good quality basalt of lesser thickness but is sealed with oil. Both conditions result 
in few fines available for sediment transport.  All rocked segments within 200 feet of third order 
or higher streams (3.5 miles of road) or crossing these higher order streams (eight crossings) are 
of the two conditions described above. 3) Nearly 80% of the proposed project area would 
involve dry season haul. Dry season haul on rocked roads generates considerably less sediment 
than wet season haul 4) For the wet season haul portion all culvert crossings would be 
inspected prior to haul for implementation of PDF’s that would lessen sedimentation concerns 
(i.e., use of hay bales, sediment curtains, etc.).  The road grade and slope on the 16.0 road in 
particular would be specifically redesigned by outsloping to the forest floor before the crossing 
to avert sedimentation concerns at the furthest downstream culvert crossing.  5) The first order 
streams (all non-fish bearing) where crossings occur have sediment filtering capacities.  Fourteen 
out of the twenty-two wet season haul route stream crossings are on first order streams.  6) A 
study by Luce and Black in the Oregon Coast Range on soils similar to those of the affected 
environment showed substantial reductions in sediment delivery (about 80 percent) where well 
vegetated or armored (covered with rock fragments) ditch lines of rocked roads were left 
ungraded. With few exceptions, the haul route ditch lines are well vegetated or armored and 
would remain ungraded. 
In the absence of indirect harvest-related landslides, there would be virtually no sediment 
originating from thinned stands reaching streams under either action alternative (Sampson Butte 
and Coon Creek monitoring observations).  There is only one site where a harvest-related debris 
avalanche could reach a stream - the very steep toe of a slump overlooking a small wet area that 
is the head of an intermittent stream in Unit 21B (see map, Appendix C).  The variable width 
buffer was extended about 100 feet to incorporate this feature under Alternative C. Any harvest-
related debris avalanche occurring and then impacting this wet area and stream is highly 
unlikely. This assessment is based on the low probability of occurrence, the likely small size of 
a potential slide and the breaking effect of uncut Riparian Reserve or buffer. The slump is part 
of a larger slump-earth flow system.  Cutting of the trees would not have any effect on any future 
deep-seated movement of this dormant system. 
Some pathways for short-term soil displacement and potential sediment delivery may occur as a 
result of localized soil disturbance from felling, cable yarding, and ground based equipment 
operations. The few yarding trails that could pose sedimentation risks would be waterbarred 
with slash pulled into them.  The RMZ as described above, is intended to function as a stream 
protection buffer to limit potential impacts from harvest activities.  The 40 foot minimum buffer 
would be sufficient to maintain bank stability because the majority of the contribution of root 
strength in maintaining streambank integrity occurs within a distance of one-half the crown 
diameter (FEMAT, 1993; p. V-26).  The RMZ should provide an adequate filter strip and 
minimize delivery of sediment to streams in the short-term.  In the long-term, large wood 
contributed to the riparian reserve as a result of density management has the potential to create 
additional capacity for sediment storage. 
21 
Wildlife -  Impacts to T&E species by thinning activities would occur within 0.25 miles of two 
known spotted owl activity centers (Pond View and Mace Mountain) and could potentially affect 
nesting behavior through disturbance. Thinning activities would modify 14 acres of nesting, 
roosting, and foraging habitat and 104 acres of critical habitat for the NSO.  Thinning would also 
modify 181 acres of dispersal habitat.  As the stand grows and crown closure re-occurs, it will 
return to functioning dispersal habitat. 
Impacts to SEIS Special Attention Species from thinning activities would modify 181 acres of 
red tree vole habitat, potentially affecting dispersal. As the stand grows and crown closure re­
occurs, red tree vole habitat would be enhanced. 
C. Cumulative Impacts Analysis 
The following paragraphs discuss the cumulative impacts of the action.  These impacts are 
described for federal lands in the FSEIS beginning on page 3&4-4 and throughout the chapter 
based on the resource affected. The Rock Creek Watershed Analysis provides baseline 
information with which to assess potential future cumulative impacts.  Unless otherwise noted, 
these effects are described in the context of the fifth-field watershed scale.  There has been a 
continued conversion of late seral and old-growth habitat on private, industrial forest lands to 
early seral stages. Current management strategies on most of this private land would preclude 
the development of older seral conditions in the future. 
Botany (Special Status and Survey and Manage species (SSP/S&M)) - This action would 
result in ground disturbance to 25 acres that could potentially increase disturbed areas to noxious 
weed infestations. PDF’s in place would limit any cumulative increase to noxious weed 
infestations to treatable amounts. 
Fisheries -  The proposed project contains a Riparian Management Zone designed to minimize 
any adverse impacts to the aquatic environment.  The proposed non-commercial thinning of the 
Riparian Management Zone and the density management activities within the rest of the 
Riparian Reserve consists of enhancement measures that are designed to restore aquatic 
conservation strategy features over a period of decades. Other relevant management activities 
likely to occur within the Rock Creek fifth-field watershed include both Federal and Private 
timber harvest and silvicultural treatments.  Approximately 85% of the watershed (52,946 acres) 
is managed for timber production (Rock Creek Watershed Analysis).  These activities would 
comply with federal and state laws governing water quality and fisheries habitat, therefore, 
additional adverse impacts are not anticipated. 
Hydrology - The proposed project would affect less than one percent of the Rock Creek 
watershed. Thinning activities are designed to improve forest health and encourage the 
development of late-successional characteristics in Riparian Reserves.  The long-term cumulative 
effects of upland and Riparian Reserve treatments under this and other future federal projects 
would promote late-successional characteristics including the long-term recruitment of coarse 
22 
 woody material.  As Riparian Reserves attain late-successional characteristics, improvements in 
riparian health, riparian vegetation, instream wood amounts, small channel capacity to store water 
and sediment, summer low flows, stream temperatures, and the delivery of upland nutrients to 
streams and hyporheic zones may occur. 
Fine sediment delivery due to BLM roads would decrease over time because of road renovations 
throughout the watershed. Peak flows may be influenced by rain on snow events from reduced 
stand densities on private and BLM administered lands.  However, the limited size, spatial 
scattering, and lower harvest intensity of treatment areas on BLM lands along with road drainage 
improvements would help to mitigate these effects.  Any sediment added to the streams as a result 
of the action alternatives would be indistinguishable from background levels and therefore add 
very little to the cumulative impacts of sedimentation at the fifth-field scale and would be within 
the range of natural variation. 
Soils - Ground-based harvest operations (both federal and private) were widespread in the Rock 
Creek watershed in the 1950's through 1970's.  “Loggers’ choice” ground-based logging had a 
considerable effect (estimated to be between 15 to 30 percent reduction where ground-based 
logging occurred) on long-term soil productivity through compaction, erosion and soil 
displacement.  Other management practices such as road construction and broadcast burns along 
with landslides have added to the cumulative impacts to soil productivity.  This project would add 
one acre of new ground disturbance due to temporary spur construction and up to five acres of 
additional compaction due to new trails.  Tillage would reduce the amount of this compaction. 
Soil productivity losses on harvested lands are restored very slowly over time through natural 
processes. A limited amount of amelioration of past ground-based yarding impacts and road 
decommissioning would take place under this action as well as future timber sales or restoration 
projects. The net cumulative effect of amelioration and natural recovery would be that of 
maintaining or improving long-term soil productivity in the Rock Creek watershed on BLM 
managed lands despite periodic short-term decreases at the project level scale.  The SEIS stated 
that the Matrix lands would have the highest management induced disturbance and the lowest 
probability of the land use allocations of maintaining long-term soil productivity.  Even so, it 
concluded, “Implementation of appropriate soil management prescriptions and best management 
practices should prevent unacceptable degradation of the soil resource and related long-term 
productivity” (SEIS 3&4-112). 
Wildlife - The loss of habitat on private land is expected to continue as the land is managed on a 
rotation of approximately 60-80 years.  NSO dispersal habitat on this land is likely to be 
maintained, but at some lower level.  This continued loss and decline in habitat would cause the 
land to function solely for early and mid-seral species.  There would be no change in the amount 
or percentage of late-successional type forests on federal lands within the Rock Creek Watershed, 
because the Proposed Action would commercially thin timber stands that are 30 to 40 years of 
age. Thinning these mid-seral stands would accelerate growth and late-seral characteristics and 
improve habitat.  Thinning within the Riparian Reserve would allow late-seral characteristics to 
develop in the in the long-term. 
23 
V. CONTACTS, CONSULTATIONS, AND PREPARERS 
A. Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted 
The Agency is required by law to consult with certain federal and state agencies (40 CFR 
1502.25). 
1. Threatened and Endangered (T&E) Species Section 7 Consultation - The Endangered 
Species Act of 1973 (ESA) requires consultation to ensure that any action that an Agency 
authorizes, funds or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the existence of any listed species or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. 
a. The Roseburg District's Biological Assessment (BA) FY 2003-2008 Programmatic 
Assessments for Disturbance Activities and Management Activities Which Remove Habitat is 
currently in draft.  It is anticipated that a final will be submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife 
Service (FWS) in November 2002.  The BA made the determination that this project would 
result in a "not likely to adversely affect" for the spotted owl, murrelet, or bald eagle.  A 
Biological Opinion is expected in January 2003. 
b. Based on this analysis, the PDC’s and additional mitigation measures for the proposed 
timber harvest activities would eliminate associated impacts to the OC coho and steelhead 
trout. The BLM road maintenance and aquatic and riparian habitat projects (fish-bearing 
culverts) activities within the proposed project area are covered under the National Marine 
Fisheries Service (NMFS) Programmatic Biological and Conference Opinion issued October 
18, 2002 which made the determination that these activities are ". . . not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of . . . OC coho salmon, or OC steelhead trout."  In addition, the proposed 
activities were analyzed for, and determined to adversely affect Essential Fisheries Habitat. 
The above referenced activities would be in accordance with all PDC’s, Terms and Conditions, 
and EFH Conservation Recommendations within the BO. 
2. Cultural Resources Section 106 Consultation - National Historic Preservation Act (Section 
106) responsibilities under the 1997 National Programmatic Agreement and the 1998 Oregon 
Protocol has been completed.  No consultation with the State Historical Preservation Office 
was required. 
B. Public Notification 
1. Notification was provided to affected Tribal Governments (Confederated Tribes of the Coos, 
Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw; Grande Ronde; Siletz; and the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua 
Indians). No comments were received. 
2. A letter was sent to four adjacent landowners. No comments were received (see Appendix G 
- Public Contact). 
24 
  
3. The general public was notified via the Roseburg District Planning Update (Winter 2001) 
going to approximately 150 addressees.  These addressees consist of members of the public that 
have expressed interest in Roseburg District BLM projects.  Two letters were sent to groups or 
individuals that have expressed past interest in BLM projects.  Comments were received from 
Umpqua Watersheds, Inc. (see Appendix D - Issue Identification Summary). 
4. Notification will also be provided to certain State, County and local government offices (see 
Appendix G - Public Contact). 
5. A 30-day public comment period will be established for review of this EA.  A Notice Of 
Availability will be published in The News-Review. This EA and its associated documents will be 
sent to all parties who request them.  If the decision is made to implement this project, a notice 
will be published in The News-Review. 
C. List of Preparers 
Isaac Barner Cultural Resources

Bruce Baumann Layout Forester (Relativity)

Liz Berger Wildlife

Kevin Cleary Fuels Management

A.C. Clough Fisheries

Dan Cressy Soils

Dan Dammann Hydrology

Dick Greathouse Layout Forester (East Fork)

Gary Hill Engineer (East Fork)

Craig Holt Pre-Sale Forester

Mike Howard Engineer (Relativity)

Al James Silviculture

Fred Larew Lands

Jim Luse Environmental Coordinator / EA Preparer

Ron Murphy Recreation / VRM

Ron Wickline Botany

25 
References Cited 
Allen. 1997. Soil compaction and disturbance following a thinning of second-growth douglas-fir with a 
cut to length and a skyline system in the Oregon cascades.  Oregon State University. 
Belt, G.H., J. O’Laughlin, and T. Merrill. 1992. Design of forest riparian buffer strips for the protection 
of water quality: analysis of scientific literature, Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis 
Group, Report No.8. 
Beschta, R.L., R.E. Bilby, G.W. Brown, L.B. Holtby, and T.D. Hofstra. 1987.  Stream temperature and 
aquatic habitat: Fisheries and forestry interactions. P. 191-232. In E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy (ed.) 
Streamside management: Forestry and fishery interactions.  Contrib. 57. Seattle, WA. February 
1986. Inst. of For. Res., Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA. 
Burroughs, E.R. Jr., 1993. Predicting on site sediment yield from forest roads.  
Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team.  July 1993. Report of the forest ecosystem 
management assessment team (FEMAT). 
Graham, Russel T., Alan E. Harvey, Therasa B. Jain, and Jonalea R. Tonn. 1999.  The effects of 
Thinning and similar stand treatments on fire behavior in western forests.  General Technical Report 
PNW-GTR-463, September 1999. 
Hann. 1995. Version 6.0 of the organon growth model.  Oregon State University. 
Luce, Charles H. and Black, Thomas A.  USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 
Boise, Idaho. Effects of traffic and ditch maintenance on forest road sediment production 
(unpublished). 
Moring, J.R. 1982. Decreases in stream gravel permeability after clear-cut logging:  An indication of 
intragravel conditions for developing salmonid eggs and alevins.  Hydrobiological 88:295-298. 
Oliver, Chadwick D. and Bruce C. Larson. 1990. Forest stand dynamics.  McGraw-Hill, Inc. 
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,  1998 Oregon statewide assessment of nonpoint sources 
of water pollution, Portland, Oregon. 
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and Department of Forestry.  Nov. 1992. Oregon state 
smoke management plan, Salem, Oregon. 
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1994 Umpqua Basin Aquatic Habitat Surveys. 
Oregon Department of Forestry.  June 1999. Storm impacts and landslides of 1996: final report. 
Satterlund, Donald R., and Paul W. Adams.  1992. Wildland Watershed Management. Second Edition. 
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 
26 
 Smith, David Martyr.  1962. The practice of silviculture. Seventh Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 
Management.  Feb. 1994. Final supplemental environmental impact statement on management of 
habitat for late-successional and old growth forest related species within the range of the northern 
spotted owl (FSEIS). 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.  	June 1985.  Management of wildlife and fish habitats in 
forests of western oregon and washington. 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 
Management.  January 2001. Record of decision and standards and guidelines for amendments to 
the survey and manage, protection buffer, and other mitigating measures standards and guidelines. 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 
Management.  April 13, 1994. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of 
Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl (ROD) and 
standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old growth related 
species within the range of the northern spotted owl (S&G). 
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service.  	March 18, 1997. Biological opinion 
and conference opinion - implementation of land management plans (USFS) and resource 
management plans (BLM). 
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service.  	August 8, 2001. Programmatic 
biological and conference opinion (OSB2001-0070-PC-AM). 
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.  	Dec. 2, 1992. Integrated weed 
management  (BLM Manual 9015). 
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.  	National environmental policy handbook 
(BLM Handbook H-1790-1) 
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.  	1985. Northwest area noxious weed 
control program environmental impact statement; and Supplement, 1987. 
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.  	March 1999. Oregon State Office: 
Environmental justice screening in NEPA analysis for Oregon, Washington, and northern California 
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.  	June 1996. Oregon State Office: Western 
Oregon transportation management plan. 
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.  	February 1996. Roseburg District: Rock 
creek watershed Analysis. 
27 
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.  	Roseburg District: Roseburg District 
hazardous materials (HAZMAT) emergency response contingency plan (2001). 
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.  	October 1994. Roseburg District: Final ­
Roseburg District Proposed Resources Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 
(PRMP/EIS). 
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.  	June 2, 1995. Roseburg District: record 
of decision and resources management plan (RMP). 
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.  	March 22, 2000. Roseburg District: 3-P 
fall, buck and scale sampling (EA# OR-100-00-06). 
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.  	1992. Endangered and threatened wildlife 
and plants; determination of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl.  Washington, D.C.: Federal 
Register 57:1796-1838. 
Waring, Richard H. and William H. Schlesinger.  1985. Forest ecosystems, concepts and management. 
Academic Press, Inc. 
Other references as cited in the Analysis File (Appendix F). 
28 
CRITICAL ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 
The following elements of the human environment are subject to requirements specified in statute, 
regulation, or executive order. These resources or values are either not present or would not be affected by 
the proposed actions or alternatives, unless otherwise described in this EA. This negative declaration is 
documented below by individuals who assisted in the preparation of this analysis. 
Element 
Responsible 
Position 
Not 
Present 
Not 
Affected 
In 
Text 
Initials Date 
Air Quality Fuels Management Specialist U K.C. 11/4/02 
Areas of Critical 
Environmental Concern 
Environmental Specialist U JSL 11/4/02 
Cultural Resources Archeologist U IMB 11/6/02 
Environmental Justice Environmental Specialist U JSL 11/4/02 
Farm Lands (prime or  unique) Soil Scientist U DCC 11/4/02 
Flood Plains Hydrologist U DD 11/4/02 
Invasive, Nonnative Species Botanist U RW 11/4/02 
Native American Religious  
Concerns 
Environmental Specialist U JSL 11/4/02 
Threatened or Endangered 
Species (fish) 
Fisheries Biologist U 
Threatened or Endangered 
Species (plants) 
Botanist U RW 11/4/02 
Threatened or Endangered 
Species (wildlife) 
Wildlife Biologist U EG 11/4/02 
Hazardous/Solid
 Wastes 
Area Hazardous Materials 
Coordinator 
U LB 11/4/02 
Water Quality 
Drinking/Ground Water 
Hydrologist U DD 11/4/02 
Wetlands/Riparian Zones Hydrologist U DD 11/4/02 
Wild and Scenic Rivers Recreation Planner U RJM 11/4/02 
Wilderness Recreation Planner U RJM 11/4/02 
29 
A������� A

V�c����� Ma�

FY 2002 C�����c�a� T�������� 
L����� 
BLM Lands 
Swiftwater Resource Area Boundary 
Interstate 5 
Major Oregon Highways 
Towns 
Ea�� F��� C�����c�a� T������� 1 
2 
R��a������ C�����c�a� T������� 
U����� S�a��� D��a������ �� ��� I������� 
B���a� �� La�� Ma�a������ 
R���b��� D�����c� O���c� 
777 NW Ga���� Va���� B��� 
R���b���, OR 97470 
N� �a��a��� �� �a�� b� ��� B���a� �� La�� Ma�a������ a� �� ��� acc��ac�, 
����ab�����, �� c����������� �� ����� �a�a ��� ��������a� �� a�����a�� ��� 
���� ����� �a�a. O�����a� �a�a ���� c������� ���� �a����� ����c��. T��� 
������a���� �a� ��� ���� Na����a� Ma� Acc��ac� S�a��a���. T��� �����c� 
�a� ��������� ������� �����a� ��a�� a�� �a� b� ���a��� ������� ������ca����. 
R8W R7W R6W R5W R4W 
T20S 
T21S 
DRAIN 
T22S 
ELKTON 
R3W R2W R1W 
SUTHERLIN 1 
2 
GLIDE 
ROSEBURG 
WINSTON 
T23S 
T24S 
T25S

T26S

T27S

26
-
3
78 
78
A 
-
1.
1 
E
A
S
T
 
F
O
R
K
 
R
O
C
K
 
C
R
E
E
K
 
R
O
C
K
 
C
R
E
E
K
 
S
H
O
U
P
 
C
R
E
E
K
 
F
A
L
L
 
C
R
E
E
K
 
M
A
C
E
 
C
R
E
E
K
 
Z
I
G
 
Z
A
G
 
C
R
E
E
K
 
C
O
B
B
L
E
 
C
R
E
E
K
 
S
T
O
N
Y
 
C
R
E
E
K
 
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
 
C
R
E
E
K
 
M
I
L
L
E
R
 
C
R
E
E
K
 
H
A
 
R
R
I
N
G
T
O
N
 
C
R
E
E
K
 
K
E
L
L
Y
 
C
R
E
E
K
 
T
R
A
P
P
E
R
 C
R
E
E
K
 
C
O
N
L
E
Y
 
C
R
E
E
K
 
G
R
I
Z
Z
L
Y
 
C
R
E
E
K
 
C
A
M
P
 
C
R
E
E
K
 
M
E
L
L
O
W
 
M
O
O
N
 
C
R
E
E
K
 
H
I
L
L
 
C
R
E
E
K
 
B
O
G
U
S
 
C
R
E
E
K
 
Z
A
G
 
C
R
E
E
K
 
S
C
A
R
E
D
M
A
N
 
C
R
E
E
K
 
H
UR
R
Y
 
P C
R
E
K
 
W
O
L
V
E
R
I
N
E
 
C
R
E
E
K
 
P
E
B
B
L
E
 
C
R
E
E
K
 
C
L
E
F
T
 
C
R
E
E
K
 
2
6
-
3
-
1
 
2
5
-
1
-
1
8
 
2
5
-1
-
9
 
2
5
-
2
-
1
 1
2
5
-
2
-
1
6
 
2
5
-
1-2
5
 
2
5
-
2
-
2
0
 
2
5
-
1
-
7
 
2
5
-
1
-
7
.
5
 
2
5
-
2
-
1
6
.
1
 
2
5
-
1
-
1
4
 
2
5
-
2
-
2
4
 
2
5
-
2
-
1
1
.2
 
2
5
-
1
-
1
8
.2
 
2
5
-
2
-
2
8
 
2
5
-
2
-
2
3
 
2
5
-
2
-
1
1
.
1
 
2
5
-
2
-
2
9
 
2
5
-
1
-
2
 
2
5
-
1
-
8
 
2
6
-
2
-
1
2
 
2
5
-
2
-
2
 
2
5
-
2
-
9
 
2
5
-
2
-
4
 
2
5
-
1
-
1
8
.
1
 
2
5
 
1
/
2
-
1
E
-
3
2
 
2
5
-
2
-
3
3
.
1
 
2
5
-
2
-
2
5
 
2
5
-
1
-
4
 
2
5-
1
-
2
.
1
 
2
5
-
2
-
8
.
1
 
2
5
-
1
-
1
9
.
1
 
2
5
-
2
-
2
.
1
 
2
5
-
2
-
3
.
1
 
2
5
-
2
-
8
 
-
1
-
2
6
.
1
 
2
5
-
1
-
5
 
2
5
-
1
-
2
3
.
1
 
2
5
-
2
-
1
2
 
2
5
-
2
-
9
.
2
 
2
5
-
1
-
2
2
 
2
5
-
1
-
7
.
8
 
2
4
-
3
-
3
1
.
2
 
2
5
-
1
-
1
6
 
2
5
-
1
-
2
0
 
2
5
-
2
-
2
9
.
5
 
2
5
-
2
-
3
 
2
5
-
1
-
7
.
6
 
2
6
-
2
-
2
.
5
 
2
5
-2-
7 
2
6
-
2
-
6
.
1
 
2
5
-
2
-
2
.
2
 
2
5
-
2
-
3
3
.
2
 
2
5
-
1
-
1
9
 
2
5
-
2
-
1
5
 
2
4
-
2
-
3
2
 
2
5
2
.
3
 
2
5
-
2
-
3
4
 
2
5
-
1
-
4
.
1
 
2
5-
2
-
2
6
.
4
 
2
4
-
1
-
3
2
 
2
5
-
1
-
1
7
 
2
5
-
1
-
2
0
.
1
 
2
5
-
2
-
9
.
1
 
2
6
-
2-
4
 
2
6
-
2
-
1
7
 
2
5
-
2
-
2
0
.
1
 
2
5
-
2
-
1
8
 
2
5
-
1
-
5
.
4
 
2
5
-
1
-
3
.
1
 
2
6
- -
6
 
2
5
-
2
-
2
9
.
1
 
2
4
-
2
-
3
3
 
2
5
-
3
-
2
4
.
1
 
2
5
-
2
-
5
 
2
5
-
2
-
1
.
2
 
2
5
-
1
-
7
.
1
 
2
4
-
1
-
3
1
 
2
5
-
2
-
1
3
.
3
 
2
4
-
2
-
3
4
.
3
 
2
5
-
1
-
1
0
 
2
5
-
2
-
2
4
.
1
 
2
6
-
2
-
1
2
.
1
 
2
5
-
1
-
1
8
.3
 
2
5
-
2
-
1
9
.
5
 
2
5
-
2
-
2
7
.2
 
2
5
-
1
-
7
.
9
 
2
5
-
2
-
7
.
5
 
2
6
-
2
-
2
.
1
 
2
5
-
3
-
2
5
.
2
 
2
5
-
2
-
2
5
.
2
 
2
5
-
1
-
9
.
1
 
2
5
-
2
-
1
 
2
5
-
3
-
2
5
.
1
 
2
5
-
2
-
1
6
.
3
 
2
5
-
1
-
2
8
 
2
5
-
1
-
5
.
3
 
2
5
-
2
-
2
3
.
1
 
2
5
-
2
-
1
6
 
2
5
-
2
-
4
 
MILL POND 
E FORK ROCK CREEK 
ROCKY 
17 
15 
29 
19 
13 
26 
U
E
25
-1-
2
A������� B 

T�ac� Ma� 
UPPER ROCK CREEK

FY 2002 T��������

Ea�� F��� CT

R��a������ CT

L�����

Relativity CT

East Fork CT

6

5

1
OWN_DSGTN 
2

3

4
County Roads

Interstate 5

State Highways

7

9
Roads 
11
BLM Roads 
10

8

12

Private Roads

Major Streams

Watershed Boundaries 
18

Ownership 
16

14

BLM 
Private 
22

21
 23

20

24

1 ��c� ���a�� 1.7 ����� 
28

30

0 0.35 0.7 1.4 2.1 2.8 
M���� 
27

25

LOWER ROCK CREEK

34

31 
32 
33

35 
36

U����� S�a��� D��a������ �� ��� I����� � N� �a��a��� �� �a�� b� ��� B���a� �� La�� Ma�a������ a� �� ��� acc��ac�, 
B���a� �� La�� Ma�a������ ����ab�����, �� c���� ������ �� ����� �a�a ��� � ������a� �� a�����a�� ��� 
R���b��� D�����c� O���c� ���� ����� �a�a. O�� � a� �a�a ���� c����� � ���� �a�� �� ����c��. T��� 
777 NW Ga���� Va�� � B��� � ��� a�� � �a� ��� ���� Na�� �a� Ma� Acc��ac� S�a��a���. T��� �����c� 
R���b���, OR 97470 �a� ����� ��� ������� �� ��a� ��a�� a�� �a� b� ���a��� ������� ������ca�� �. 
FY 2002 Commercial Thinnings (East) 
APPENDIX C

INDIVIDUAL UNIT DESCRIPTION

Project Summary Table (Alternative C)

EA Unit Project Acres Yarding System (ac.) Fuel 
Treat. 
Remarks 
Area 
Aerial Cable Ground 
29A 2 37 37 P&BL East Fork 
30A 1 45 45  “ “ 
11A 1 21 
(DM - 9) 
 OES (21) “ Relativity 
15C 2 54 
(DM - 12) 
OES (52) ROW (2) “ “ 
21B 5 139 
(DM - 1) 
OES 
(136) 
ROW (3) “ “ 
23A 3 19 
(DM - 3) 
OES (19) “ “ 
23B 4 22 
(DM - 5) 
OES (16) DST (6) “ “ 
27D 6 14 DST (14 ) “ “ 
Total 351  82 244 25 
Yarding System Fuel Treatment 
OES = Cable Yard, One End Suspension Required P&BL = Pile and Burn Landings 
ROW = Ground Based, Yarding of Road Right of Way Timber 
DST = Ground Based, Designated Skid Trails Required 
Directions to the Project Areas 
Follow State Highway 138 east from Roseburg approximately 17 miles to the Rock Creek Access Road 
(Idleyld). 
East Fork 
Proceed north on the Rock Creek Road (BLM Road # 26-3-1.0) approximately eight miles to the junction 
of the East Fork Road (BLM Road # 25-2-11.0). Proceed east on the 11.0 road approximately four miles 
to 25-1-19.0 road. See Appendix B or BLM transportation map for directions to specific units. 
Relativity 
Proceed north on the Rock Creek Road (BLM Road # 26-3-1.0) approximately 3.5 miles to the 
junction of Road # 25-2-20.1. Follow the Appendix B map for direct to specific units.  See Appendix 
B or BLM transportation map for directions to specific units. 
Units are marked with boundary posters and blazed and painted trees. 
C - 1 
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
 
�
�
�
�
 
�
�
�
�
 
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
 
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
 
�
�
�
�
�
�
 
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
 
�������� 
�������� 
�� 
����� 
�� 
������������������� 
����������� ������������ 
� 
���������� 
����� 
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
 
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
 
������������� 
��������������������������� 
������������ 
������� 
����������������

������������� 
��������������������������������

������������������������ 
������������������ 


FY 2002 Commercial Thinnings (East) 
APPENDIX D

ISSUE IDENTIFICATION SUMMARY

This appendix summarizes the issues that were identified pertinent to this project.  No further analysis was 
deemed necessary in that the mitigation called for were considered adequate to remove the issue from 
needing to be analyzed in the main body of the EA. 
A. Issues Identified During Project Design 
The following issues were identified during project design.  These issues arose from Specialist input as 
well as public comments that were received.  A given issue can be eliminated from further analysis for 
one or more of the following reasons: (1) it is beyond the scope of this analysis, (2) the impacts were 
anticipated and analyzed in the FEIS, (3) Project Design Feature's (PDF’s) included in the preferred 
alternative would be adopted to mitigate the anticipated environmental impacts of specific activities, 
and (4) the issue does not meet the objectives and purpose of the project.  Section II, paragraph C (pg. 
6) provides a list of specific PDF's incorporated into the preferred alternative to deal with these issues. 
East Fork 
Issue Project Design Feature 
Unit 29A has five acres classified as FGR and 
therefore prone to potential slope instability. (Soils) 
Dry-season operations with full suspension 
(helicopter) would lessen this concern. 
Relativity 
Issue Project Design Feature 
1. Existing road in west part of Unit 21B has 
residual compaction. (Soils) 
Subsoil existing road. 
2. Old slump earthflow above wet area in Unit 
21B. (Soils) 
Extend the buffer around wetland in Unit 21B an 
additional 100 ft. to protect steep toe of old slump 
earthflow. 
3. Units 15A, 21B, and 23B have 25 acres 
classified as FGR and therefore have slope stability 
concerns. (Soils) 
Dry-season operations with partial suspension 
would lessen this concern. 
4. Unit 15C and 27A are affected by adjacent NSO 
core areas.  (Wildlife) 
Survey core areas and if owl is nesting apply 
seasonal restrictions to units. 
5. Portions of Units 15C and 21B are in VRM II 
which does not permit changing natural character of 
the forest. (Recreation) 
None required. A 40% reduction of crown cover 
would not alter the natural character of the forest. 
D - 1 
Public Issues: 
Comments were received from two entities.  Most of the issues identified were also noted by the ID 
Team.  Some of the issues were outside the scope of this analysis.  The main focus of these Issues are 
summarized as follows: 
1. 	If any mature or old-growth (OG) trees have to be logged incidentally the EA should disclose 
this. Protect existing snags. 
Mature and OG remnants and snags would be preserved to the maximum extent possible. 
Snags would be protected by surrounding them with retention trees.  The numbers of remnant 
trees that would need to be removed are not known at this time but will be disclosed in the 
Decision Document. 
2. 	The EA should consider a restoration alternative for the Riparian Reserves. 
A restoration alternative was considered in this EA and considerable staff effort was invested 
in designing this alternative. 
3. 	Section 25 and 29 are near the Williamson Creek RARE II Roadless Area (USFS).  Please 
respect your portion of the roadless area by proposing no new roads in these sections. 
The Williamson Creek Roadless Area does not fall within lands under the Roseburg District 
RMP therefore there is no obligation to manage these sections as a roadless area. 
4. The EA should fully disclose and analyze all impacts to recreation.  Do not log any mature 
trees in the vicinity of these sites. 
Potential impacts to the Mill Pond and Rock Creek Campgrounds were addressed in the 
Recreation Planner’s Report (2/13/02) in Appendix F.  Unit 15C is 2300' from the Rock Creek 
Campground and 21B is about 500' from the Millpond Campground.  These are second 
growth stands. No mature trees near the campgrounds are planned to be removed.  The 
cutting prescription would not violate Visual Resource Management guidelines for these units 
(see Recreation VRM Report, Appendix F). 
A comment was made about the Millpond HAZMAT site.  Unit 21B is 2300' away from this 
site and would have no impact.  Both areas are VRM 2 (no restrictions for thinning). 
D - 2 
 B. Issues Specified by Regulation 
"Critical Elements of the Human Environment" is a list of elements specified in BLM Handbook H­
1790-1 that must be considered in all EA's.  These are elements of the human environment subject to 
requirements specified in statute, regulation, or Executive Order.  These elements are as follows:
 1. Air Quality
 2. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)
 3. Cultural Resources
 4. Environmental Justice
 5. Farm Lands (prime or unique)
 6. Floodplains
 7. Invasive, Nonnative Species
 8. Native American Religious Concerns
 9. Threatened or Endangered Species 
10. Wastes, Hazardous or Solid 
11. Water Quality, Drinking / Ground 
12. Wetlands / Riparian Zones 
13. Wild and Scenic Rivers 
14. Wilderness 
These resources or values (except item #9) were not identified as issues to be analyzed in detail 
because: (1) the resource or value does not exist in the analysis area, or (2) no site specific impacts 
were identified, or (3) the impacts were considered sufficiently mitigated through adherence to the NFP 
S&G's and RMP Management Actions/Direction therefore eliminating the element as an issue of 
concern. These issues are also briefly discussed in Appendix E ("Critical Elements of the Human 
Environment").  Item #9 is addressed in the Biological Assessment which is prepared for consultation 
required by the Endangered Species Act. 
The RMP has been determined to be consistent with the standards and guidelines for healthy lands (43 
CFR 4180.1) at the land use plan scale and associated time lines. 
Executive Order 13212 provides that all decisions made by the Bureau of Land Management will take 
into consideration adverse impacts on the President’s National Energy Policy.  This project would not 
have a direct or indirect adverse impact on energy development, production, supply, and/or distribution 
and therefore would not adversely affect the President’s National Energy Policy. 
C. Issues to be Analyzed 
How do we treat the Riparian Reserve? 
This issue was identified as having sufficient potential affect to warrant more detailed analysis and 
is addressed as a key issue (pg. 18). 
D - 3 
FY
 2
00
1 
C
om
m
er
ci
al
 T
hi
nn
in
gs
 (E
as
t) 
A
PP
EN
D
IX
 E


C
R
IT
IC
A
L 
EL
EM
EN
TS
 O
F 
TH
E 
H
U
M
A
N
 E
N
V
IR
O
N
M
EN
T

 E
le
m
en
t
   
  R
el
ev
an
t A
ut
ho
ri
ty
 
E
nv
ir
on
m
en
ta
l E
ffe
ct
 
A
ir 
Q
ua
lit
y 
Th
e 
C
le
an
 A
ir 
A
ct
 (a
s a
m
en
de
d)
 
M
in
im
al
 -D
us
t p
ar
tic
le
s m
ay
 b
e 
re
le
as
ed
 in
to
 
ai
rs
he
d 
as
 a
 re
su
lt 
of
 ro
ad
 c
on
st
ru
ct
io
n 
/re
no
va
tio
n 
an
d 
tim
be
r h
au
lin
g.
 
A
re
as
 o
f C
rit
ic
al
 
En
vi
ro
nm
en
ta
l C
on
ce
rn
 
Fe
de
ra
l L
an
d 
Po
lic
y 
an
d 
M
an
ag
em
en
t A
ct
 o
f 1
97
6 
(F
LP
M
A
) 
N
on
e 
- P
ro
je
ct
 a
re
a 
is
 n
ot
 w
ith
in
 o
r n
ea
r a
   
   
   
  
de
si
gn
at
ed
 o
r c
an
di
da
te
 A
C
EC
. 
C
ul
tu
ra
l R
es
ou
rc
es
 
N
at
io
na
l H
is
to
ric
 P
re
se
rv
at
io
n 
A
ct
 (a
s a
m
en
de
d)
 
"N
o 
E
ffe
ct
" 
- S
ee
 C
ul
tu
ra
l R
ep
or
t 1
0/
30
/0
1.
 
En
vi
ro
nm
en
ta
l J
us
tic
e 
E.
O
. 1
28
98
, F
ed
er
al
 A
ct
io
ns
 to
 A
dd
re
ss
 E
nv
iro
nm
en
ta
l J
us
tic
e 
in
 
M
in
or
ity
 P
op
ul
at
io
ns
 a
nd
 L
ow
-I
nc
om
e 
Po
pu
la
tio
ns
 
Th
e 
pr
op
os
ed
 p
ro
je
ct
 a
re
as
 a
re
 n
ot
 k
no
w
n 
to
 b
e 
us
ed
 b
y,
 o
r d
is
pr
op
or
tio
na
te
ly
 u
se
d 
by
, N
at
iv
e 
A
m
er
ic
an
s, 
m
in
or
iti
es
 o
r l
ow
-in
co
m
e 
po
pu
la
tio
ns
 
fo
r s
pe
ci
fic
 c
ul
tu
ra
l a
ct
iv
iti
es
, o
r a
t g
re
at
er
 ra
te
s 
th
an
 th
e 
ge
ne
ra
l p
op
ul
at
io
n.
 A
cc
or
di
ng
 to
 2
00
0 
C
en
su
s d
at
a 
ap
pr
ox
im
at
el
y 
si
x 
pe
rc
en
t o
f t
he
 
po
pu
la
tio
n 
of
 D
ou
gl
as
 C
ou
nt
y 
w
as
 c
la
ss
ifi
ed
 a
s 
m
in
or
ity
 st
at
us
 (O
re
go
ni
an
, P
g.
 A
-1
2;
 M
ar
ch
 1
5,
 
20
01
). 
It 
is
 e
st
im
at
ed
 th
at
 a
pp
ro
xi
m
at
el
y 
15
%
 o
f 
th
e 
co
un
ty
 is
 b
el
ow
 th
e 
po
ve
rty
 le
ve
l (
Fr
ew
in
g-
R
un
yo
n,
 1
99
9)
. 
Fa
rm
 L
an
ds
 (p
rim
e 
or
 u
ni
qu
e)
 
Su
rf
ac
e 
M
in
in
g 
C
on
tro
l a
nd
 R
ec
la
m
at
io
n 
A
ct
 o
f 1
97
7 
N
on
e 
- "
N
o 
di
sc
er
na
bl
e 
ef
fe
ct
s a
re
 a
nt
ic
ip
at
ed
" 
(P
R
M
P 
pg
. 1
-7
) 
Fl
oo
dp
la
in
s 
E.
O
. 1
19
88
, a
s a
m
en
de
d,
 F
lo
od
pl
ai
n 
M
an
ag
em
en
t, 
5/
24
/7
7 
N
on
e 
- P
ro
je
ct
 is
 n
ot
 w
ith
in
 1
00
 y
r. 
flo
od
pl
ai
n.
 
N
at
iv
e 
A
m
er
ic
an
 R
el
ig
io
us
   
   
  
C
on
ce
rn
s 
A
m
er
ic
an
 In
di
an
 R
el
ig
io
us
 F
re
ed
om
 A
ct
 o
f 1
97
8 
N
on
e 
- N
o 
co
nc
er
ns
 w
er
e 
no
te
d 
as
 th
e 
re
su
lt 
of
 
pu
bl
ic
 c
on
ta
ct
. 
E
 - 
1 
 E
le
m
en
t
   
  R
el
ev
an
t A
ut
ho
ri
ty
 
E
nv
ir
on
m
en
ta
l E
ffe
ct
 
Th
re
at
en
ed
 o
r E
nd
an
ge
re
d 
Sp
ec
ie
s 
En
da
ng
er
ed
 S
pe
ci
es
 A
ct
 o
f 1
97
3 
(a
s a
m
en
de
d)
 
Th
e 
Pa
ci
fic
 C
oa
st
 R
ec
ov
er
y 
Pl
an
 fo
r t
he
 A
m
er
ic
an
 P
er
eg
rin
e 
Fa
lc
on
, 1
98
2 
C
ol
um
bi
an
 W
hi
te
-ta
ile
d 
D
ee
r R
ec
ov
er
y 
Pl
an
, 1
98
3 
R
ec
ov
er
y 
Pl
an
 fo
r t
he
 P
ac
ifi
c 
B
al
d 
Ea
gl
e,
 1
98
6 
R
ec
ov
er
y 
Pl
an
 fo
r t
he
 M
ar
bl
ed
 M
ur
re
le
t, 
19
97
 
(B
ot
an
ic
al
) -
 N
o 
T&
E 
sp
ec
ie
s n
ot
ed
 (S
pe
ci
al
is
t 
R
ep
or
t 3
/0
1/
02
) 
(T
er
re
st
ri
al
) -
 “
 n
ot
 li
ke
ly
 to
 a
dv
er
se
ly
 a
ff
ec
t 
sp
ot
te
d 
ow
l, 
m
ur
re
le
ts
 a
nd
 th
ei
r c
rit
ic
al
 h
ab
ita
t”
 
(D
ra
ft 
B
A
 1
1/
02
) 
(A
qu
at
ic
) -
 “
m
ay
 e
ff
ec
t, 
no
t l
ik
el
y 
to
 a
dv
er
se
ly
 
af
fe
ct
” 
fo
r c
oh
o 
sa
lm
on
 a
nd
 st
ee
lh
ea
d 
tro
ut
 (B
O
 
10
/1
8/
02
). 
T&
E 
sp
ec
ie
s n
ot
 sp
ec
ifi
ca
lly
 m
en
tio
ne
d 
do
 n
ot
 
ex
is
t i
n 
th
e 
an
al
ys
is
 a
re
a.
 
W
as
te
s, 
H
az
ar
do
us
 o
r S
ol
id
 
R
es
ou
rc
e 
C
on
se
rv
at
io
n 
an
d 
R
ec
ov
er
y 
A
ct
 o
f 1
97
6 
C
om
pr
eh
en
si
ve
 E
nv
iro
nm
en
ta
l R
es
po
ns
e,
 C
om
pe
ns
at
io
n,
 a
nd
 
Li
ab
ili
ty
 A
ct
 o
f 1
98
0 
as
 a
m
en
de
d 
N
on
e 
- A
pp
lic
ab
le
 H
az
M
at
 p
ol
ic
ie
s w
ou
ld
 b
e 
in
 
ef
fe
ct
. 
W
at
er
 Q
ua
lit
y,
 D
rin
ki
ng
 / 
   
   
   
G
ro
un
d 
Sa
fe
 D
rin
ki
ng
 W
at
er
 A
ct
 (1
97
4)
 a
s a
m
en
de
d 
C
le
an
 W
at
er
 A
ct
 o
f 1
97
7 
N
on
e 
 - 
Pr
oj
ec
t i
s n
ot
 w
ith
in
 a
 m
un
ic
ip
al
 w
at
er
sh
ed
 
or
 n
ea
r a
 d
om
es
tic
 w
at
er
 so
ur
ce
 (V
al
id
 E
xi
st
in
g 
R
ig
ht
s C
le
ar
an
ce
 R
ep
or
t, 
A
pp
en
di
x 
F)
. 
W
et
la
nd
s/
R
ip
ar
ia
n 
Zo
ne
s 
E.
O
. 1
19
90
, P
ro
te
ct
io
n 
of
 W
et
la
nd
s, 
5/
24
/7
7 
N
on
e 
- "
Th
e 
se
le
ct
ed
 a
lte
rn
at
iv
e 
[o
f t
he
 F
EI
S]
 
co
m
pl
ie
s w
ith
 [E
.O
. 1
19
90
]..
."
(R
O
D
 p
. 5
1,
 p
ar
a.
7)
 
W
ild
 a
nd
 S
ce
ni
c 
R
iv
er
s 
W
ild
 a
nd
 S
ce
ni
c 
R
iv
er
s A
ct
 (a
s a
m
en
de
d)
  T
he
 N
or
th
 U
m
pq
ua
 W
ild
 a
nd
 S
ce
ni
c 
R
iv
er
 P
la
n 
(J
ul
y 
19
92
) 
N
on
e 
- P
ro
je
ct
 is
 n
ot
 w
ith
in
 th
e 
N
or
th
 U
m
pq
ua
   
  
Sc
en
ic
 R
iv
er
 c
or
rid
or
. 
W
ild
er
ne
ss
 
Fe
de
ra
l L
an
d 
Po
lic
y 
an
d 
M
an
ag
em
en
t A
ct
 o
f 1
97
6 
W
ild
er
ne
ss
 A
ct
 o
f 1
96
4 
N
on
e 
- "
Th
er
e 
ar
e 
no
 la
nd
s i
n 
th
e 
R
os
eb
ur
g 
D
is
tri
ct
 w
hi
ch
 a
re
 e
lig
ib
le
 a
s W
ild
er
ne
ss
 S
tu
dy
 
A
re
as
."
 (R
M
P 
pg
. 5
4)
 
E
 - 
2 
O
TH
ER
 R
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
 C
O
N
SI
D
ER
ED


R
es
ou
rc
e 
E
nv
ir
on
m
en
ta
l E
ffe
ct
 / 
C
on
ce
rn
s 
La
nd
 U
se
 (L
ea
se
s, 
G
ra
zi
ng
 e
tc
.) 
N
on
e 
- P
ro
je
ct
 h
as
 n
o 
co
nf
lic
tin
g 
la
nd
 u
se
s (
Sp
ec
ia
lis
t's
 R
ep
or
t 1
/3
/0
2)
.  
R
oa
ds
 a
re
 e
nc
um
be
re
d 
un
de
r R
ig
ht
-o
f-
W
ay
 
A
gr
ee
m
en
t  
#R
-5
40
 (W
ey
er
ha
eu
se
r C
o.
), 
#R
61
7 
(R
os
eb
ur
g 
R
es
ou
rc
es
) a
nd
 #
 R
-6
45
A
 (S
en
ec
a 
Jo
ne
s)
, (
V
al
id
 E
xi
st
in
g 
R
ig
ht
s C
le
ar
an
ce
 R
ep
or
t (
A
pp
en
di
x 
F)
). 
M
in
er
al
s 
N
on
e 
- P
ro
je
ct
 h
as
 n
o 
m
in
in
g 
cl
ai
m
s (
Sp
ec
ia
lis
t's
 R
ep
or
t 1
/0
4/
02
). 
R
ec
re
at
io
n 
M
in
im
al
 sh
or
t-t
er
m
 im
pa
ct
s -
 "
. .
 . 
te
m
po
ra
ry
 ro
ad
 b
lo
ck
ag
es
 d
ur
in
g 
th
e 
fe
lli
ng
 a
nd
 lo
gg
in
g 
op
er
at
io
ns
".
  “
U
ni
ts
 1
5C
 
an
d 
21
B
 c
ou
ld
 b
ot
h 
ha
ve
 d
ire
ct
 im
pa
ct
s t
o 
re
cr
ea
tio
n 
us
er
s i
n 
th
e 
M
ill
 P
on
d 
an
d 
R
oc
k 
C
re
ek
 R
ec
re
at
io
n 
Si
te
s.”
 
(S
pe
ci
al
is
t's
 R
ep
or
t 2
/1
3/
02
). 
V
is
ua
l 
N
on
e 
- A
ll 
un
its
 a
re
 w
ith
in
 V
R
M
 IV
 (n
o 
vi
su
al
 re
st
ra
in
ts
) e
xc
ep
t s
m
al
l p
or
tio
ns
 o
f U
ni
ts
 1
5C
 a
nd
 2
1 
B
 a
re
 w
ith
in
 
V
R
M
 II
 (r
et
ai
n 
ex
is
tin
g 
ch
ar
ac
te
r o
f t
he
 la
nd
sc
ap
es
 - 
ac
tiv
iti
es
 m
ay
 b
e 
se
en
 b
ut
 sh
ou
ld
 n
ot
 a
ttr
ac
t t
he
 a
tte
nt
io
n 
of
 th
e 
ca
su
al
 o
bs
er
ve
r)
. 
(S
pe
ci
al
is
t R
ep
or
t 2
/1
3/
02
) 
O
th
er
 (A
dj
ac
en
t L
an
do
w
ne
rs
) 
N
on
e 
-N
o 
sm
al
l a
dj
ac
en
t l
an
do
w
ne
rs
 o
r r
eg
is
te
re
d 
do
m
es
tic
 w
at
er
 u
se
rs
 a
re
 in
 th
e 
vi
ci
ni
ty
 o
f t
he
se
 sa
le
s. 
E
 - 
3