D-Bug Hazard Reduction Timber Sale Projecta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...The...

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

D-Bug Hazard Reduction Timber Sale Project Record of Decision #2 Umpqua National Forest Diamond Lake Ranger District Douglas County, OR August 2015

USDA NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY STATEMENT

DR 4300.003 USDA Equal Opportunity Public Notification Policy (June 2, 2015)

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected] .

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

Page i

http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/cr/docs/pdc/DR-4300-003%20Equal%20Opportunity%20Publication%20Notification_06.02.15.pdf

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html

mailto:[email protected]

Record of Decision #2 D-Bug Hazard Reduction Timber Sale Project

Table of Contents

Background ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Decision ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Decision Rationale ............................................................................................................................. 7

Purpose and Need for Action ......................................................................................................... 8 Response to Issues ............................................................................................................................. 9 Public Involvement .......................................................................................................................... 15

Objection Process ......................................................................................................................... 15 Alternatives Considered .................................................................................................................. 17 Consistency with Policy, Law, and Regulation ............................................................................... 20

Healthy Forest Restoration Act .................................................................................................... 25 Endangered Species Act............................................................................................................... 27 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule ....................................................................................... 31

Administrative Review Opportunities ............................................................................................. 34 Implementation ................................................................................................................................ 35 Contact Person ................................................................................................................................. 35 Responsible Official ........................................................................................................................ 35 Attachment 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement Errata Summary ......................................... 36

Summary, Alternative 2 – Proposed Action (FEIS page S-7) ..................................................... 36 Summary, Alternative 5- Preferred Alternative (FEIS page S-8) ................................................ 36 Summary, FEIS page S-10 ........................................................................................................... 36 Chapter 2, Description of Activities in Alternative 2 (FEIS page 36) ......................................... 37 Chapter 2, Description of Activities in Alternative 5 (FEIS page 45) ......................................... 37 Chapter 3, Forest Vegetation analysis (FEIS page 97) ................................................................ 37 Chapter 3, Sensitive Species analysis (FEIS page 148) ............................................................... 37 Chapter 3, Sensitive Species analysis (FEIS pages 150-151) ...................................................... 37 Chapter 3, Riparian Reserve analysis (FEIS page 278) ............................................................... 38 Chapter 3, OCRA, IRAs, and Potential Wilderness Areas analysis (FEIS page 333) ................. 38 Chapter 3, Potential Wilderness Area analysis (FEIS pages 334-339) ........................................ 38 Chapter 3, Areas Proposed as Wilderness analysis (page 339) ................................................... 39 Chapter 3, Management Indicator Species (pages 192-207) ....................................................... 39 Trails ............................................................................................................................................ 43 Silviculture ................................................................................................................................... 44

Attachment 2 - Biological Evaluation and Biological Assessment Errata Summary ...................... 46 Biological Evaluation, Wildlife-NWFP Requirements of Retention (BE page 4) ....................... 46 Biological Assessment, Wildlife-Northern Spotted Owl Province (BA page 22) ....................... 46

Attachment 3 - Clarification Regarding Effects to Northern Spotted Owls and Habitat ................. 47 Units with Downgrading Of NRF Habitat ................................................................................... 47 Rationale for Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Post Canopy Cover ............................................... 48 Effects of Past Logging and Barred Owls .................................................................................... 48

Attachment 4 - Aquatic Conservation Strategy Consistency Summary .......................................... 50 Attachment 5 - Economic Efficiency Analysis for Record of Decision 2 ....................................... 56

Page ii

Diamond Lake Ranger District, Umpqua National Forest

List of Figures Figure 1. D-Bug Planning Area Vicinity Map ....................................................................................... 1 Figure 2. Average Composite Douglas-fir Log Prices, Douglas County Market Area ........................ 58

List of Tables

Table 1. Commercial Thin Unit Specific Changes Between FEIS and this Decision and Acres in Riparian Reserves and Spotted Owl Critical Habitat (CHU) ......................................................... 5

Table 2. Non-Commercial Thin Unit Specific Changes Between FEIS and this Decision and Acres in Riparian Reserves and Spotted Owl Critical Habitat (CHU) ......................................................... 6

Table 3. How the Decision Meets the Purpose and Need Elements ....................................................... 9 Table 4. Acres of commercial and non-commercial treatment by Inventoried Roadless Area ............ 10 Table 5. Affected Acres in Potential Wilderness Areas ....................................................................... 11 Table 6. Remaining Areas Qualifying as Potential Wilderness ........................................................... 11 Table 7. Comparison of Issues by Alternative ..................................................................................... 13 Table 8. LRMP Management Areas within D-Bug Treatment Units ................................................... 20 Table 9. NWFP Land Allocations within D-Bug Treatment Units ..................................................... 21 Table 10. Stands Meeting RA-32 Definition in this Decision for the D-Bug project. ......................... 28 Table 11. Stands Meeting RA-32 Definition in the Biological Opinion .............................................. 29 Table 12. Trails affected by treatment units in this decision. ............................................................... 44 Table 13. Economic Efficiency Analysis. ........................................................................................... 56

List of Maps Map 1 - Treatment Units, PWAs and IRAs – North Half Map 2 - Treatment Units, PWAs and IRAs – South Half Map 3 - Recreation Sites, Fire Starts, and Wildland Urban Interface – North Half Map 4 - Recreation Sites, Fire Starts, and Wildland Urban Interface – South Half Map 5 - NWFP Land Use Allocations – North Half Map 6 - NWFP Land Use Allocations – South Half Map 7 - LRMP Management Areas – North Half Map 8 - LRMP Management Areas – South Half Map 9 - Recovery Action 32 and Old Growth Treatment Units – North Half Map 10- Recovery Action 32 and Old Growth Treatment Units – South Half

Page iii

Figure 1. D-Bug Planning Area Vicinity Map

Page 1


Record of Decision #2 D-Bug Hazard Reduction Timber Sale

Project USDA Forest Service

Diamond Lake Ranger District, Umpqua National Forest Douglas County, Oregon

Background The D-Bug planning area is located near the crest of Cascades Mountains in southern Oregon, on the Diamond Lake Ranger District of the Umpqua National Forest. The planning area is within a high-use recreation destination, centrally located roughly 90 miles from the cities of Bend, Klamath Falls, Roseburg, and Medford, Oregon. This Record of Decision (ROD) is the second and final decision for the August 2010 D-Bug Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The first ROD, which covered most of the project activities, was signed on April 22, 2011. This decision includes some of the mixed conifer stands that were deferred from the first ROD in order to allow time for the fungi surveys to be completed.

The mixed conifer stands in the planning area avoided the large stand-replacement fires of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that resulted in lodgepole pine dominance elsewhere. Now, due to fire exclusion, these stands are exhibiting a change from their historic composition and structure. Under reference conditions, these areas typically experienced fire more frequently, so fire exclusion has had a greater ecological impact here than in other planning area stands. Stand replacement fire in mixed-conifer stands is now more likely due to the uncharacteristic buildup of live and dead vegetation (due to a lack of frequent fire) in most mixed-conifer forest types in the planning area. (FEIS, page S-3) The resultant fire hazard associated with trees killed by the mountain pine beetle epidemic, coupled with years of fire exclusion, has created conditions where the risk of a wildfire threatening life and property is high. The D-Bug project was developed to address this risk because the project location is within the Diamond Lake and Lemolo Lake Wildland-Urban Interface Areas. These two areas are prominent recreation destinations on the Umpqua National Forest with over 700,000 visitors a year and numerous recreational facilities including two resorts, eight developed campgrounds, 102 recreation residences, and about 20 other developed sites. Also, two major highways transect the area. Highway 230 and Highway 138 function as a primary crossroads over the Cascade mountain range for travelers from the communities of Bend and Klamath Falls 90 miles to the east, and Medford and Roseburg to the west (Figure 1). These highways provide access for visitors of Crater Lake National Park as well, which abuts the Diamond Lake area and receives nearly half a million visitors each year. The purpose of this project is to lessen the fuel and safety hazards associated with the ongoing outbreak of mountain pine beetles and the ongoing impacts from fire exclusion by the timely implementation of commercial harvest and non-commercial treatments in strategic locations. (FEIS, page S-4)

Page 2


Decision Based on my review of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), I have decided to implement the remaining portions of Alternative 5 (portions not included in the 2011 Record of Decision) as described on pages 44 to 53 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement with the changes below.

Specifically this decision includes units 15, 86, 89, 90, 98, 107, 115, 118, 160, 161, 162 and 176. These units were deferred from the first ROD in order to allow time for the fungi surveys to be completed. Altogether, this decision includes approximately 800 acres of commercial timber harvest, 51 acres of non-commercial fuels reduction, and 4.3 miles of temporary road construction.

1. Vegetation Treatments - Units 82 and 83 have been dropped and I am changing boundaries and/or prescriptions in the units as described in Table 1 and Table 2. Concern over these units and others were raised during the objection process. Upon further examination of these units, I feel the changes identified below could be made while still achieving the primary objective of the D-Bug project, to provide safe conditions for firefighters and adequate evacuation routes. I have also considered other changes that were proposed during the objection process; however, based on the professional judgment of my staff that these were critical places to be treating, I could not adopt those changes while still meeting the purpose and need of the project.

2. Forest Plan Amendments - This decision includes one Forest Plan Amendment to the Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for scenery standards, but does not include the following amendments included in Alternative 5 of the FEIS:

a. This decision does not include any commercial or non-commercial units in Management Area 1:

“The LRMP does not permit timber harvest in Management Area 1, except in the event of catastrophic damage and as approved in a vegetation management plan. The Forest Plan would be amended for this project to include commercial timber harvest in MA-1 in order to lower the effects of the ongoing mountain pine beetle outbreak and reduce fuels in the vicinity of the wildland-urban interface area, as recommended in the 2008 Vegetation Management Plan (USDA, Umpqua National Forest, 2008)” (FEIS, pg. 46).”

b. This decision does not include any timber harvest units, nor does it include

commercial or personal-use firewood cutting, in Management Area 2:

“The LRMP places a size limitation on timber harvest openings (units) that can be created within Management Area 2 around Diamond and Lemolo Lakes. In addition, prescription A4-I for this Management Area does not allow for commercial or personal-use firewood cutting. In order to accomplish effective treatments of adequate size, the LRMP would be amended for this project to allow for timber harvest units greater than one-half acre in size. Also, in order to allow for the removal of dead and dying lodgepole pine, the LRMP would be amended to allow for commercial and personal-use firewood cutting (USDA, Umpqua National Forest, 2008)” (FEIS, pg. 46).”

Page 3


3. Project Design, Mitigation and Monitoring – Best management practices (BMPs),

mitigation measures, and project design features (PDFs) are site-specific management activities designed to avoid or reduce the adverse impacts of treatments and associated activities. These measures will be implemented through project design and layout, contract specifications, contract administration, and monitoring. These selected measures will adequately prevent adverse effects for the following reasons: 1) the selected mitigation measures are practices we have used successfully in the past; 2) they are State-recognized best management practices for protecting water quality; and 3) they are based on current research. I have decided to monitor the implementation of these measures and, in some instances, to monitor their effectiveness.

I have decided to implement all design and mitigation measures specified in the FEIS (pages 55-68), with the following changes.

a. This project design feature will be included for big game travel lanes: “For precommercial thinning units (Prescription 6), when big game travel lanes are identified during operations, slash will not be piled on top of these travel lanes, allowing unimpeded passage for big game.” This design feature is necessary to comply with the LRMP (page IV-37) standard and guidelines that requires that “Established big game travel lanes will not have their character altered through precommercial thinning.” The character of a travel lane itself provides physical access for big game from one location to another. This project design feature preserves this character by ensuring that slash from precommercial thinning does not disrupt or block this access with physical obstructions.

b. Changing the following project design features (PDFs) to better provide for a positive recreation experience and provide operator flexibility.

♦ Add the following PDF: “For all trails affected by the project, operations will be limited to Monday through Friday with no operations on weekends or holidays.”

♦ Eliminate the existing PDF that states: “For operations near the Dellenback Trail, limit hours of operations to 8 a.m. to 6 pm, Monday through Friday.” There will be no limit on operating hours to provide flexibility to the operator, especially during fire season.(FEIS, pg. 63)

♦ Replace the following PDF: For trails 1410, 1446, 1448, 1451, 1457, 1460, 1460H, 1460J, 1460K, 1460L, 1476, 1481, 1589, 1589L, and 1591, post signs indicating trail closures when operating near (within 200 feet) the trail (FEIS, pg. 63).with “All trails will be closed and posted when operating near (within 200 feet) of the trail.”

♦ Add the following PDF: “Stumps of harvested trees will be cut to a maximum height of 6 inch to 8 inch within 50 feet of all trails. Hazard trees in the above areas may need to be cut to a taller height for safety reasons.” As funding is available, these stumps will be cut flat with the bark side of the stump to the trail or campground. The stumps will be cut as low to the ground as safety allows, ideally flush cut but not to exceed 6 to 8 inches in height.

Table 1 and Table 2 below display unit specific changes for this decision from the FEIS, as well as the final treatment acres for this decision, including acres treated within riparian reserves and spotted owl critical habitat. Attachment 5 from the first ROD can still provide relevant information such as forest type, age class, pre-treatment trees per acre and canopy closure, and post treatment conditions for the commercial units only.

Page 4

Table 1. Commercial Thin Unit Specific Changes Between FEIS and this Decision and Acres in Riparian Reserves and Spotted Owl Critical Habitat (CHU)

Unit Description of Treatment FEIS

Alt. 5 Acres

Unit Changes from FEIS Alt. 5 This

Decision Acres

Riparian Reserve Acres*

2012 CHU

Acres

82 Thinning in mixed conifer stands with using skyline logging systems followed by underburning. 83.9 Dropped mixed conifer unit 0 0.0 0.0

83 Thinning in mixed conifer stands using ground based logging systems followed by grapple piling and burning slash. 44.8 Dropped mixed conifer unit. 0 0.0 0.0

98 Thinning in mixed conifer stands using ground based logging systems followed by the mastication or handpiling of fuels along roadways.

84.7 Changed unit boundary to account for fungi buffers. 60.1 1.0 0.0


94.9

Changed unit boundary to account for fungi buffers, also changed 8.2 acres of the stand to non-commercial fuels reduction. See 107a below.

81.1 0.5 0.0


366.1 Changed unit boundary to account for fungi buffers 357.7 21.2 357.7

118 Thinning in mixed conifer stands using ground based logging systems followed by grapple piling and burning slash. 277.2 Changed unit boundary to account for

fungi buffers 263.6 29.5 263.6

160 Thinning in mixed conifer stands using ground based logging systems followed by grapple piling and burning slash. 11.7 No changes 11.7 0.0 0.0

161 Thinning in mixed conifer stands with using skyline logging systems followed by handpile/burning along roadways. 9.7 No changes 9.7 0.0 0.0


40.1 Changed unit boundary to account for resort ski trail visuals 15.4 0.0 0.0

Total 1013.1 Total 799.3 52.2 621.3

*Acres displayed in the table above are acres of proposed activity that are outside of prescribed no-cut riparian buffers but still within Riparian Reserve buffers as designated under the NWFP (ROD pp 9, April 1994).

Page 5

Record of Decision #2 D-Bug Hazard Reduction Timber Sale Project Table 2. Non-Commercial Thin Unit Specific Changes Between FEIS and this Decision and Acres in Riparian Reserves and Spotted Owl Critical Habitat (CHU)

Unit Description of Treatment FEIS Alt. 5 Acres

Unit Changes from FEIS Alt. 5

This Decision Alt. 5B Acres

Riparian Reserve Acres

2012 CHU Acres

15 Understory treatment along highways and escape routes, masticating fuels and handpiling along roadways.

10.6 Commercial mixed conifer thin changed to non-commercial fuels treatment.

Unit reduced to120’ fuel break along road. 4.7 2.2 0.0


47.2

Commercial mixed conifer thin changed to non-commercial fuels treatment.



29.7




14.4


Unit reduced to200’ fuel break along road and changed unit boundary to account for fungi buffer

9.7 4.8 0.0

107a Understory treatment along highways and escape routes, masticating fuels and handpiling along roadways.

0.0 Changes 8.2 acres of unit 107 from commercial mixed conifer thin to non-commercial fuels reduction.

8.2 0.1 0.0


43.8 Commercial mixed conifer thin changed to non-commercial fuels treatment.

Unit reduced to 200’ fuel break along road. 8.5 0.0 0.0

Total 145.7 Totals 51.1 8.9 0.0

*Acres displayed in the table above are acres of proposed activity that are outside of prescribed no-cut riparian buffers but still within Riparian Reserve buffers as designated under the NWFP (ROD pp 9, April 1994).

Page 6


These additions, reductions, and changes result in approximately 800 acres of commercial timber harvest, 51 acres of non-commercial fuels reduction, and 4.3 miles of temporary road construction. Table 7 in this document provides a comparison of alternatives, which describes the details of this decision as well as the differences from Alternative 5 as described in the FEIS and the 2011 Record of Decision. The description of treatments and acres in the table above amends the previous attachment 5 of the first ROD. Attachment 5 from the first ROD can still provide relevant information such as forest type, age class, pre-treatment trees per acre and canopy closure, and post treatment conditions for the commercial units only.

This decision treats approximately 61 acres of riparian reserves, 52.2 commercially and 8.9 non-commercially. Similar to the first ROD, the upper end of the range of trees per acre will be retained in riparian reserves. Additionally, there will be no gaps created in riparian reserves or the uplands. However, it is important to note that, in some places, natural conditions exist where there are fewer trees per acre and gaps in the riparian reserves.

This decision also commercially treats approximately 621 acres of spotted owl critical habitat. After spotted owl critical habitat was revised on December 4, 2012, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was reinitiated. The determination for spotted owls remained the same and a new biological opinion was issued. This is discussed in more detail in the Endangered Species Act section below.

I have reviewed these changes with the interdisciplinary team and they will result in fewer impacts to natural resources than what was analyzed for Alternative 5 in the FEIS because units were eliminated and reduced in size and prescription changes (from commercial treatment to non-commercial), which will result in less impacts. Therefore, I find that the effects of these changes will be less than the effects disclosed in the FEIS. I also reviewed the changes with the Forest fuels specialist and assessed the trade-offs of making these changes with achieving the Purpose and Need. I am confident that the critical objectives of the project can be minimally met with these changes, because the this decision still reduces fuels and removes hazard trees around recreational infrastructure and evacuation routes and reduces fuels and modifies projected fire behavior in the Wildland Urban Interfaces.

Decision Rationale Throughout the design of this project I have considered the applicable laws, regulations and policies. Laws, regulations, and policies which played a key role in the design and in my decision include: Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan, National Forest Management Act and its accompanying regulations and policies, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, the Endangered Species Act including the 2001 Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl, the Clean Water Act, and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and the Secretary of Agriculture’s policy on inventoried roadless areas. Compliance with these laws is documented in the Consistency with Policy, Law, and Regulation section below. I find that the D-Bug project is consistent with these laws, regulations, and policies.

This Decision, including the associated mitigations and project design features, incorporates appropriate means to avoid or minimize environmental harm. I’ve compared the impacts that will result from implementing the project and the impacts that would occur if no action was taken and find that implementing the project will result in compelling benefits. The treatments will provide more opportunities to safely manage a wildfire and reduce the fire hazard along evacuation routes and within the wildland urban interface. With more options available for managing a wildfire, fire managers have a better chance of protecting life and property. In addition, stands will be more resilient to the effects of wildfire and there will be fewer environmental impacts during fire suppression.

Page 7


I have considered the analysis and conclusions in the D-Bug Hazard Reduction Timber Sale Draft and Final EISs in addition to the first ROD and its attachments, erratas, and appendices, and the botany supplemental information report associated with this ROD. In the rationale below, I will not revisit the reasoning for selecting Alternative 5 over the other alternatives. That is discussed in detail in the first ROD. Instead, I will focus on the compelling rationale for carrying out the treatments included in this decision and the tradeoffs associated with these treatments.

Purpose and Need for Action Element 1: The need for modifying mountain pine beetle habitat conditions in stands containing lodgepole to reduce potential infestation.

This Decision does not include additional lodgepole pine treatment. The April 2011 ROD treated over 90 percent of the planned acres of lodgepole treatments in Alternative 5 (3,314 acres out of 3,634 acres). While treating the additional acres would have provided an incremental risk reduction to the public and firefighters from a wildfire coming out of Crater Lake National Park, I feel this was a worthwhile tradeoff in responding to concerns over the extent of lodgepole treatments in this area. In addition to addressing the issues identified from scoping, it also provides for a more undisturbed travel corridor for wide ranging mammals, such as fisher, traveling between Mt. Thielsen Wilderness Area, Crater Lake National Park, and Mt. Bailey IRA.

Element 2: The need to reduce existing and predicted fuel loads in areas identified as high fire hazard within the Diamond and Lemolo Lake WUIs and their evacuation routes identified in the 2006 Douglas County Wildfire Protection Plans.

Although additional lodgepole pine treatments are not included in this decision, critical areas for public and firefighting safety will continue to be treated through the activities in mixed conifer stands in this decision.

This decision treats 77 acres within the Diamond and Lemolo Lake wildland urban interfaces (WUIs), 43 acres non-commercially and 37 acres commercially. The first Record of Decision treated an initial 3,511 acres within these WUIs. This decision also treats 563 acres along evacuation routes identified in the 2006 Douglas County Wildfire Protection Plans, 52 acres non-commercially and 512 acres commercially. The first Record of Decision treated an initial 4,595 acres along these evacuation routes.

Element 3: The need for removing existing dead and imminently dying pine and other hazard trees where human use is high in order to protect the recreating public.

The first Record of Decision treated all of the Alternative 5 acres within developed recreation sites and close to private dwellings and businesses; therefore there are no remaining treatments in these areas in this Decision.

Element 4: The need for increasing stand vigor in densely stocked mixed conifer stands containing older, large ponderosa pine, western white pine, Shasta red fir, and Pacific silver fir in order to improve stand resiliency.

This Decision will treat approximately 850 acres (commercial and non-commercial) in mixed conifer stands. The first Record of Decision treated approximately 315 acres. Between the two decisions, approximately 335 acres proposed under Alternative 5 in the FEIS will be left untreated. Reducing the treatments in densely stocked mixed conifer stands is a tradeoff to lessen concerns regarding commercial treatments in inventoried roadless areas and potential wilderness areas and constructing temporary roads.

Page 8


I feel this is a reasonable tradeoff to make and in review of these changes with the forest fuels specialist critical project needs will still be minimally met with these changes.

Table 3. How the Decision Meets the Purpose and Need Elements

Purpose and Need This Decision First ROD FEIS Alt. 5

Element 1 – Pine Beetle Habitat Modification

Acres of susceptible lodgepole treated. 0 3,314 3,634

Element 2 – Fuel loading in WUIs and along WUI Evacuation Routes.

Acres treated within the WUIs 43 Non-Commercial 37 Commercial Thin 3,511 3,890

Acres of treatment along designated evacuation routes.

51 Non-Commercial 512 Commercial Thin 4,595 5,913

Element 3 – Hazard Tree Reduction

Acres of commercial harvest within developed recreation sites and by private dwellings/businesses.

0 199 199

Element 4 – Improved Fire Resiliency & Stand Vigor

Acres of mixed conifer stands thinned. 850 315 1,500

Response to Issues Six significant issues were identified through scoping. I recognize that the public is passionate about what they feel is the best management for the land and the recreational infrastructure, and that there is no management strategy to meet the purpose and need that could totally satisfy all persons’ and their expressed concerns. I have selected an alternative that addresses all these concerns in a manner that is responsive to the issues and purpose and need for the project. While this decision will likely not resolve all conflicting points of view, I believe it represents a fair and balanced decision that is responsive to public concerns on all sides of the issues. The issues are identified below along with a discussion on how this decision responds to the issues. Table 7 summarizes how the decision responds to the issues.

1. Amendments to the Forest Plan – One amendment to the LRMP is required in order for this decision to comply the National Forest Management Act.

The amendment modifies the Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) from retention to partial retention or modification in the short term (3-10 years), along Highways 138 and 230, and areas surrounding Diamond and Lemolo Lakes. Specifically, this decision will temporarily move 32

Page 9


acres of retention to partial retention along Highway 138, see Table 7 below. Although I have prescribed mitigations to reduce the visual impact of the project, management activities will still be visually evident, thus prompting the need to amend the VQOs. While I recognize concerns over the scenery of this beautiful area, I feel that the tradeoff between short-term impacts to visual quality and providing safer conditions for the public and fire fighters is warranted.

This amendment is discussed in further detail in the section entitled Consistency with Policy, Law, and Regulation. For more information about Visual Quality Objectives and the associated effects, please see the FEIS pages 349-354.

2. Treatment in Inventoried Roadless Areas, Oregon Cascades Recreation Area, and Potential Wilderness Areas – Commercial fuel treatments within the Mt. Bailey and Thirsty Creek Appendage Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) is a highly controversial piece of the D-Bug project. I understand that management within IRAs is of concern to many stakeholders locally and nationally. This decision includes 3.3 acres of non-commercial fuels treatment in the Mt. Bailey IRA (in Unit 15 shown on Map 2). These 3.3 acres were initially planned as commercial treatments, but have been changed to non-commercial to respond to concerns. This results in more non-commercial treatment that originally stated in the FEIS, but total acres treated within IRAs remains below the 407 initially analyzed (402 acres total between both decisions). Comparison with the first ROD and Alternative 5 in the FEIS is shown below in in Table 4.

Table 4. Acres of commercial and non-commercial treatment by Inventoried Roadless Area

Alternative Thirsty Creek

IRA commercial treatment

Thirsty Creek IRA non-

commercial treatment

Mt. Bailey IRA commercial treatment

Mt. Bailey IRA non-

commercial treatment

Total IRA treatment

acres

This Decision 0 0 0 3.3 3.3

First ROD 0 32 70 297 399

FEIS Alt. 5 0 32 78 297 407

All fuel treatments in the Oregon Cascades Recreation Area were eliminated in the Alternative 5; therefore this decision does not include treatment in these areas. This fully responds to the issue of impacting this area by active management.

Within potential wilderness areas (PWAs) (as defined by Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 Chapter 70), this decision includes commercial treatments and non-commercial treatments. This decision includes approximately 28 acres of commercial treatments in PWA-5, which will no longer qualify as potential wilderness following implementation. Commercial treatments in potential wilderness occur primarily along Highway 138 which is a key evacuation route. I believe that modifying fuels in these areas is critical to meeting the purpose and need, given the adjacency to the evacuation routes. I believe this decision minimizes impacts to potential wilderness, but still allows for treatment along critical evacuation routes.

While preparing this decision, some of the commercial treatments analyzed for Alternative 5 in the FEIS were changed to non-commercial treatments to raise the total of non-commercial treatment to 736 acres for Alternative 5. This decision includes 17 acres of non-commercial treatments. Potential wilderness areas with non-commercial treatments will still qualify as

Page 10


potential wilderness areas because the areas treated non-commercially will still meet the criteria for potential wilderness outlined within the Forest Service Handbook. Non-commercial treatments will generally be substantially unrecognizable to the general forest visitor. The resulting stumps will be small, will disintegrate through time, and will be covered with vegetation in a few years. Therefore, potential wilderness areas (PWAs) will only be affected by commercial treatments (FEIS page 337). Table 5 shows the affected acres by alternative and PWA. Maps 1 and 2 display where treatments will occur within the PWAs.

Table 5. Affected Acres in Potential Wilderness Areas

Potential Wilderness

Area

Acres on the

Umpqua NF

This Decision Acres

First ROD Acres

FEIS Alt. 5 Acres*

Commercial Non-Commercial Commercial Non-

Commercial Commercial Non-Commercial

PWA – 1 3,307 0 0 89 78 217 78

PWA – 4 18,753 0 11 42 303 94 303

PWA – 5 35,333 28 6 87 338 122 338

Total 57,393 28 17 218 719 433 719

* FEIS Alt. 5 acres are based on the correction in the Errata, page 38-39.

After implementation of this decision, there will be 3,218 acres remaining in PWA-1, 18,711 acres in PWA-4 and 35,218 acres in PWA-5 that will still qualify as potential wilderness following implementation (see Table 6).

Table 6. Remaining Areas Qualifying as Potential Wilderness

Potential Wilderness

Area

Acres on the

Umpqua NF

This Decision Acres

First ROD Acres

FEIS Alt. 5

Acres*

Commercial Treatment

Remaining Area

Qualifying as PWA


Remaining Area

Qualifying as PWA


Remaining Area

Qualifying as PWA

PWA – 1 3,307 0 3,218 89 3,218 217 3,090

PWA – 4 18,753 0 18,711 42 18,711 94 18,659

PWA – 5 35,333 28 35,218 87 35,246 122 35,211

Total 57,393 28 57,147 218 57,175 433 56,960

* FEIS Alt. 5 acres are based on the correction in the Errata, page 38-39.

3. New Road Building – All roads that will be constructed to implement the D-Bug project are temporary roads necessary to commercially treat the area. All new temporary roads will be obliterated after use. This decision responds to this issue by constructing approximately 4.3 miles of temporary roads. The miles of temporary road were reduced due to eliminating units, reducing the size of units, and changing the treatments from commercial to non-commercial.

Page 11


4. Trails – Snowmobile and motorized trails will be used as temporary roads for implementing the D-Bug project. Additionally, hiking trails will be impacted from temporary roads crossing trails and from fuel treatments near trails. Between the proposed action and Alternative 5, there was a reduction of approximately three miles of motorized trails that would be used as temporary roads. However, as indicted in the FEIS errata sheet, (Attachment 1), some trails were inadvertently excluded from the FEIS. When these trails are factored into the calculation of determining the impact of the use of trails for logging access, the result is an increase of 2.1 miles of temporary roads and an increase in 210 acres of treatment within 200 feet of trails for Alternative 5 as a whole compared to the FEIS. The first ROD resulted in a 1.3 mile and 165 acre increase while this decision results in a 0.8 mile and 44.8 acre increase.

Some of the motorized trails that will be affected are actually parts of the old Highway 138, which is one or two lanes wide in places (FEIS pages 307-309). The project design features for recreation (FEIS pages 63-65) are designed to lessen the impact on trails and recreationists. I find the impacts to trails a reasonable tradeoff considering the potential adverse effects to recreationists from wildfires. Overall, this decision responded to this issue by reducing the impacts to trails compared with the proposed action, but still allows me to meet the purpose and need by treating along trails and roads.

5. Fuelbreaks – This decision includes 563 acres of roadside fuelbreaks. In terms of the effectiveness of the fuelbreaks, I find that the FEIS adequately discusses this on page 129. Concerns were raised over the maintenance of the fuelbreaks. I acknowledge that maintenance treatments will be needed in the future to maintain the effectiveness of the treatment. Timing of the maintenance treatments will be determined in the future based on vegetation conditions, Forest priorities for treatments, and funding.

Concerns were raised over the need for fuel breaks, specifically theThirsty Creek and Kelsay Point fuel breaks. The Thirsty Creek fuel break and Kelsay Point fuelbreak are not included in this decision.

6. Extent and Intensity of Treatments in Lodgepole Pine and Project Economics – This decision does not include additional treatments in lodgepole pine. The first decision found that the extent of the lodgepole treatments was adequate for achieving the primary need of providing safer evacuation routes and firefighting conditions and acknowledged that the project would be costly to implement with the reduction in commercial treatments.

This decision includes some of the mixed conifer units that were deferred from the first decision. This decision shows a positive net present value and will be beneficial to the U.S. Government from an economic standpoint. The change from the original D-Bug economic analysis is due primarily to the recovery of the local log market. For more information see Attachment 5.

Page 12


Table 7. Comparison of Issues by Alternative

Significant Issues This Decision First ROD FEIS Alt. 5

Issue 1 – Plan Amendments

Acres of lodgepole harvested. 0 3,314 3,633

Acres of Retention VQO along Highways 138 and 230 moved to:

Partial Retention 32 132 220

Modification 0 242 265

Acres of Partial Retention VQO along Highways 138 and 230 moved to modification.

0 117 164

Issue 2 – IRA, OCRA, Potential Wilderness Areas

Acres of commercial thinning in the OCRA.

0 0 0

Acres of forest treated in the IRAs:

Commercial treatment

0 70 78

Non-Commercial treatment

3.3 329 329

Acres of treatment Potential Wilderness Areas (excluding overlap with IRA and OCRA acres)

41.7 total

(17 Non-Commercial & 28 commercial

minus the overlap of 3.3 above)

218 433

Page 13


Significant Issues This Decision First ROD FEIS Alt. 5

Issue 3 – New Road Building

Miles of temporary roads constructed and subsequently obliterated.

4.3 3.7 8.1

Issue 4 - Trails

Miles of existing trail used for logging access. 1 0.8 6.2 4.9

Acres of commercial & non-commercial treatment within 200 feet of trails.1 44.8 2,395 2,229

Issue 5 - Fuelbreaks

Acres of treatments along Thirsty Creek and Kelsay Point fuelbreaks. 0 32 32

Total acres in roadside fuelbreaks 563 5,540 6,627

Issue 6 - Extent & Intensity of Lodgepole Treatments and Project Economics

Acres of lodgepole pine regenerated 0 0 0

Acres of lodgepole pine and lodgepole-mixed conifer commercially thinned 0 3,629 3,634

Acres harvested south of Hwy. 230 toward Crater Lake National Park 0 436 668

Economic Efficiency • Net Present Value

• Least Cost

(Total Cost/Total Acres Treated)

$1,537,020 -$1,429,046 -$947,272

$7,492 $871 $1,121

1 Between the proposed action and Alternative 5, there was a reduction of approximately three miles of motorized trails that would be used as temporary roads. However, as indicted in the FEIS errata sheet, (Attachment 1), some trails were inadvertently excluded from the FEIS. When these trails are factored into the calculation of determining the impact of the use of trails for logging access, the result is an increase of 2.1 miles of temporary roads and an increase in 210 acres of treatment within 200 feet of trails for Alternative 5 as a whole. The first ROD resulted in a 1.3 mile and 165 acre increase while this decision results in a 0.8 mile and 44.8 acre increase.

Page 14


Public Involvement Initial contacts with public for the D-Bug project began in August of 2007. Numerous contacts were made with interested individuals, homeowners, special use permittees, conservation groups, industry representatives, and other agencies over a six-month period of time, with the goal of collaborating on the development of the proposed action. This collaboration also included newspaper articles, an advertised public meeting at the Douglas County library on September 27, 2007, and a follow-up field trip on October 3, 2007 to the project area. The feedback received was used in developing the proposed action described as Alternative 2 in the FEIS.

The proposed action was listed in the Umpqua National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions in October 2007 and updated periodically during the environmental analysis. On January 10, 2008, a scoping notice was sent to over 350 interested stakeholders describing the proposed action and requesting comments by February 5, 2008. A notice of intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2008 (73 FR 3689). During the scoping period, letters, face-to-face discussions, e-mails, and phone calls regarding the project were received from 37 individuals or groups.

Tribal governments (Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua Indians, Confederated Tribe of the Grand Ronde Indians, and the Confederated Tribe of the Siletz Indians) were sent a letter describing the project, with a request that the Forest be contacted for further information. To date, no responses have been received.

Issues were identified from scoping comments and were used to determine the scope of the analysis and develop alternatives to the proposed action. A full description of issues significant to the proposed action appears in the FEIS on pages 21-25.

A draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) was published for review and comment on March 13, 2009 (71 FR 10911). The comment period was extended at the request of the public until June 8, 2009, for a total of 87 days for public comment. 428 comments were received within the comment period. In response to the comments received on the DEIS, the Forest prepared a working alternative that was refined to become what is Alternative 5 in the FEIS. Responses to comments are in Appendix A of the FEIS.

Multiple letters, notices of meetings, news releases, and phone calls kept the public informed of the status of the project. Additionally, the project was covered by the local newspaper, The News Review, and in the national press. The FEIS lists agencies, organizations, and people who received copies on pages 376-381.After the release of the 2011 Record of Decision, the Forest continued to keep the public involved by hosting additional field trips and having additional discussions with concerned parties.

Objection Process The D-Bug Hazard Reduction Timber Sale Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and the Legal Notice for the Opportunity to Object was published on October 8, 2010. The legal notice was published in the Roseburg News-Review and a notice of availability was published in the Federal Register (page 75 FR 62386). The FEIS was subject to a predecisional administrative review process for hazardous fuel reduction projects under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003. The objection procedures of which are contained in the January 9, 2004 interim final rule of 36 CFR 218, Subpart A.

Five objections were received by the Regional Forester. An objection resolution meeting was held at the Umpqua National Forest Supervisor’s office on November 30, 2010. One objection was dismissed

Page 15


because the objector had not commented on the project as a private individual. Another objector withdrew their objection; however it was after the objection was reviewed by the Regional Office.

The Regional Office conducted an objection review on objections from Dianna Lamb of Lemolo Lake Resort, Oregon Wild, Cascadia Wildlands and Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands, and Umpqua Watersheds. On December 8, 2010 a formal letter was sent concluding the objection and resolution period and instructed the Forest Supervisor Clifford Dils to proceed with issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD) for this project, with the stipulation that the errata and additional maps identified in objection responses are addressed in the ROD.

The list of required stipulations and the locations of the information is as follows: To include in the ROD (page references refer to this document unless noted otherwise):

• Clarify the location of RA-32/old-growth stands by including a map in the ROD. See Maps 9 and 10.

• Clarify the location of the units in riparian reserves by including map(s) in the ROD. See Maps 5 and 6.

• Articulate the results of consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (see Endangered Species Act page 27), and reiterate the lack of impacts to listed fish species and their Essential Fish Habitat. See page 29.

• Clarify that there will be no openings in thinning units within riparian reserves. See page 7.

• Include the project design feature for not piling slash in precommercial thinning stands on big game travel routes that may be found during project implementation. See page 4.

• Make a finding of consistency with Forest Plan standards for all resources. See pages 20-29.

• Include a table identifying the differences in alternatives by land allocation. See Table 8 and Table 9 on pages 20-21.

• Include a map for each of these allocations with units for the selected alternative. See Maps 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10).

• Update the reference to NFMA consistency in the discussion of the Forest Plan Amendment to FSM 1926.51 and reiterate the DEIS disclosure (DEIS pages 291-294) in ROD to reflect what is proposed under Alternative 5. See pages 22-23.

• Make a finding of compliance with the currently applicable roadless policy, (see page 31) and clearly describe that the decision authority for this project lies with the Forest Supervisor.

To include in the Errata: (Please refer to Attachment 1, Errata Summary)

• Be clear and consistent about effects to northern spotted owls by correcting Table 3-22 on page 151 of FEIS where it says there will be “no impact to spotted owls”.

• Correct the statement at the bottom of FEIS page 97 since suitable owl habitat (as documented in the FEIS) is going to be downgraded.

• Clarify the fact that this project falls within both the East and West Cascades Provinces for spotted owl effects analysis (functionally).

• Correct the first paragraph on FEIS page 278 in response to the updated wildlife Biological Assessment regarding the percentage of canopy maintained in mixed conifer forests; the updated BA states that greater than 40% canopy would be retained in mixed conifer forests both within and outside of riparian reserves.

Page 16


To post to the Web at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=22404

• The current wildlife BE

• Maps of the RA-32/old-growth stands (Maps 9 and 10)

• Maps of the units that display riparian reserves (Maps 5 and 6)

• The Upper Clearwater Watershed Analysis

This was the only objection period for this project. The regulations at 36 CFR 218.11(a) allow decisions to be made on proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects when the objection period has ended and when responses have been made to all objections.

Alternatives Considered Three action alternatives were considered in the Final EIS, which are discussed below. A detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the Final EIS on pages 36 to 68.

Alternative 1 – No Action Under Alternative 1, no thinning, fuel treatment, biomass utilization, temporary road construction, road reconstruction and maintenance, or other similar or connected activities such as pre-commercial thinning, subsoiling, weed control, or road decommissioning would occur. No ground-disturbing activities would take place and no timber would be offered for sale. On-going activities, including road maintenance, recreation use, and noxious weed control would continue to occur. Future activities would also occur. (FEIS, page 36)

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action This alternative is the proposed action used in the scoping process. The Forest developed the proposed action to meet the purpose and need. The FEIS includes a full description of the activities associated with Alternative 2. (FEIS, page 36-44)

Alternative 5 – Preferred Alternative in the FEIS The Forest developed Alternative 5 to respond to comments received from the public on the DEIS. This alternative is similar to Alternative 3 from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, but focused treatments on critical fuel breaks and evacuation routes. Alternative 5 as defined in the FEIS, pages 44-53, includes the following:

• Variable-density commercial thinning of 3,634 acres in lodgepole pine stands, leaving 20-70 TPA interspersed with 10 percent of the area with no treatment; commercial thinning of 1,332 acres of lodgepole-mixed conifer (leaving 50-200 TPA); and commercial thinning of 1,500 acres in mixed-conifer stands (leaving 50-200 TPA). These commercial thinnings include 78 acres within Mt. Bailey IRA.

• Salvage of 285 acres of dead and dying lodgepole.

• The thinnings would use ground-based and skyline logging systems in both the matrix and riparian reserve land allocations to generate between 29.8 to 32.5 million board feet of timber.

• Non-commercial removal of fuels on about 2,069 acres by pre-commercial thinning, mastication, whip felling, chipping, and piling and burning of slash. This includes treatment on about 297 acres of stands along the edge of the Mt. Bailey IRA, and 32 acres along the edge of the Thirsty Creek Appendage IRA.

Page 17

http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=22404


• Biomass utilization could occur on as many as 2,022 acres depending on the market at the time operations occur. Nine one-to-five-acre landings would be created to process the biomass, if needed.

• Treating activity-created fuels (slash) on all acres commercially thinned by underburning, crushing, machine piling, masticating, or yarding tops attached.

• Re-using about 16 miles of existing spur roads to access thinning areas, then obliterating about 7.4 miles after use.

• Building about 8.1 miles of new temporary spur roads to provide access for logging machinery and for accessing stands for commercial treatments, then obliterating them after use.

• Reconstructing portions of 11 sections of existing system roads (totaling 4.7 miles of road), including road re-alignment, intersection improvement, widening, continuous placement or replacement of surface rock and rock armoring, reshaping road beds, replacing culverts, adding culverts, and hazard tree felling.

• Maintaining about 62 miles of existing system roads (approximately nine miles are currently closed), including the grading and shaping of existing road surfaces, dust abatement, blading road beds and ditches, hazard tree felling, cleaning/maintaining ditches and culverts as needed, isolated placement or replacement of surface rock and rock armoring, opening and re-closing existing closed roads, removing debris from the roadway, and the cutting of intruding vegetation along roadsides.

• Utilizing the existing Lemolo Dam rock pit and the Boundary pit as the rock sources for the road work.

• Amending the 1990 Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) in the following areas:

1. The LRMP assigned Visual Quality Objectives of Retention and Partial Retention along Highways 138 and 230, and areas surrounding Diamond Lake and Lemolo Lakes. The LRMP would be amended for this project to modify these objectives in the short term in order to meet the purpose and need.

2. The LRMP does not permit timber harvest in Management Area 1, except in the event of catastrophic damage and as approved in a vegetation management plan. The Forest Plan would be amended for this project to include commercial timber harvest in MA-1 in order to lower the effects of the ongoing mountain pine beetle outbreak and reduce fuels in the vicinity of the wildland-urban interface area, as recommended in the 2008 Vegetation Management Plan (USDA, Umpqua National Forest, 2008).

3. The LRMP places a size limitation on timber harvest openings (units) that can be created within Management Area 2 around Diamond and Lemolo Lakes. In addition, prescription A4-I for this Management Area does not allow for commercial or personal-use firewood cutting. In order to accomplish effective treatments of adequate size, the LRMP would be amended for this project to allow for timber harvest units greater than one-half acre in size. Also, in order to allow for the removal of dead and dying lodgepole pine, the LRMP would be amended to allow for commercial and personal-use firewood cutting.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study Two other alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed study. These alternatives are documented in the Final EIS on pages 33 to 34.

Alternatives 3 and 4 were eliminated after publication of the DEIS. Alternative 3 was developed to address Issues 2 through 6 and was similar to the concepts found in Alternative 5. It was eliminated in the

Page 18


FEIS because of its similarities to Alternative 5 and because Alternative 5 makes greater progress towards reaching common ground with the public and better responds to Issues 2 through 6 as described in the FEIS on pages 22 to 25.

Alternative 4 was developed to respond specifically to Issue 6. It was identified as the preferred alternative in the DEIS, but it received a great deal of opposition. Many comments received stated the alternative went too far into undeveloped areas and would cause considerable ecological impacts. Additional collaborative public meetings held after the DEIS comment period indicated more support for a new alternative. Because of these reasons, Alternative 4 was eliminated.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative Under the National Environmental Policy Act, the agency is required to identify the environmentally preferable alternative (40 CFR 1505.2(b)). This is interpreted to mean the alternative that would cause the least damage to the biological and physical components of the environment, and which best protects, preserves, and enhances, historic, cultural, and natural resources (Council on Environmental Quality, Forty Most Asked Question Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 CFR 18026). Factors considered in identifying this alternative include: (1) fulfilling the responsibility of this generation as trustee of the environment for future generations, (2) providing for a productive and aesthetically pleasing environment, (3) attaining the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, (4) preserving important natural components of the environment, including biodiversity, (5) balancing population needs and resource use, and (6) enhancing the quality of renewable resources. An agency may discuss preferences among alternatives based on relevant factors, including economic and technical considerations and statutory missions {40 CFR 1505.2(b)}.

Alternative 5 was determined as the environmentally preferable alternative, including a subset of units identified as the Selected Alternative in the first ROD, as well as the subset of Alternative 5 units included in this Decision. Alternative 5 of the FEIS was identified as the environmentally preferable alternative for the following reasons:

• The prescriptions associated with this project were expressly designed to decrease the potential damage from wildfire to the forested areas within the treatment units and the recreational facilities and residences by improving fire resiliency and reducing the fire hazard risk, thereby fulfilling the responsibility of this generation as trustees of the environment for future generations and providing for a productive and aesthetically pleasing environment.

• Specific types of prescriptions and utilization methods were consciously located in strategic areas and designed in concert with the Best Management Practices, Project Design Features, and Mitigation Measures intentionally for the purpose of ensuring that the project attains the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation.

• The planning process for this project has included consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies and completion of surveys for species and habitat to ensure compliance with federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act and retain the diversity of forest conditions across the landscape, thereby preserving important natural components of the environment, including biodiversity.

• The Purpose and Need of this project includes enhancing public and firefighter safety as well as improving the fire resiliency of the forested stands in the treatment units. These factors were purposefully combined to strike a balance between population needs and resource use while enhancing the quality of renewable resources.

Alternative 5 (including a subset of units identified as the Selected Alternative in the first ROD, as well as the subset of Alternative 5 units included in this Decision) will achieve the Purpose and Need of the

Page 19


project by reducing fuel loads that will result in enhancing public safety and increasing fire resiliency while posing the least amount of impact to undeveloped areas. Therefore, it is considered the Environmentally Preferable Alternative of the D-Bug project.

Consistency with Policy, Law, and Regulation

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), and the Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) This decision with its associated amendments is consistent with the Umpqua National Forest Land Management Plan (LRMP) as amended by the 1994 Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (NWFP). Treatments within the LRMP Management Areas are described in the FEIS, can be seen in Maps 7 and 8 and acreages are found in Table 8. Treatments within NWFP Land Allocations are described in the FEIS, can be seen in Maps 5 and 6 and acreages are found in Table 9.

Table 8. LRMP Management Areas within D-Bug Treatment Units

LRMP Management Area This Decision

Alt. 5B Acres

First ROD Alt. 5A Acres

FEIS Alt. 5 Acres

FEIS Alt. 2 Acres

MA2: Developed Recreation- provides an appropriate environment and associated facilities for concentrated, developed recreation opportunities.

34 2,593 2,811 2,860

MA10: Timber Production- provides for production of timber on a cost-efficient sustainable basis consistent with other resource objectives.

427 3,696 4,406 5,181

MA11: Big Game Winter Range- provides for big game winter range habitat and timber production consistent with other resource objectives.

389 118 529 507

Page 20


Table 9. NWFP Land Allocations within D-Bug Treatment Units

NWFP Land Allocation This Decision

Alt. 5B Acres

First ROD Alt. 5A Acres

FEIS Alt. 5 Acres

FEIS Alt. 2 Acres

Matrix: consists of those areas of federal lands outside the six categories of designated areas (Congressionally Reserved Areas, Late-Successional Reserves, Adaptive Management Areas, Managed Late-Successional Areas, Administratively Withdrawn Areas, Riparian Reserves). Most silvicultural activities are conducted in this land allocation.

763.7 3,835 4,955 5,709

Riparian Reserves: provide an area along streams, wetlands, ponds, and lakes where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis

52.3 Matrix

8.9 AW (Admin. Withdrawn)

536 630 779

Administratively Withdrawn (AW): are identified in current Forest and District Plans or draft plan preferred alternatives and include recreation and visual areas, back country, and other areas where management emphasis precludes scheduled timber harvest.

25.6 2,573 2,792 2,902

Upon review of the LRMP, the Proposed Action was not consistent with the LRMP in Management Areas 1 and 2, therefore requiring three Forest Plan Amendments. Due to the changes between the Proposed Action and this decision the number of amendments needed has been reduced to one. The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) states that forest plans can “be amended in any manner whatsoever after final adoption after public notice (16 USC 1600 (6)(f)(4)).” In compliance with the NFMA and accompanying Regulations (36 CFR 219.10(f)), I am amending the LRMP for this project. I weighed the tradeoffs between implementing these standards and guidelines with the wildfire risk and determined that a site-specific amendment of the LRMP was required. The amendment included in this Decision is described below:

1. Amending the VQO objectives of Retention and Partial Retention along Highways 138 and 230. The LRMP assigned Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) of Retention and Partial Retention along Highways 138 and 230, and areas surrounding Diamond Lake and Lemolo Lakes (LRMP, pg. IV-22). I am amending the LRMP for this project to modify these objectives in the short term in order to address the purpose and need of reducing fire risk.

Page 21


This decision does not include the following Forest Plan Amendments included in Alternative 5 as described in the FEIS:

This decision does not include any commercial or non-commercial units in Management Area 1:

“The LRMP does not permit timber harvest in Management Area 1, except in the event of catastrophic damage and as approved in a vegetation management plan. The Forest Plan would be amended for this project to include commercial timber harvest in MA-1 in order to lower the effects of the ongoing mountain pine beetle outbreak and reduce fuels in the vicinity of the wildland-urban interface area, as recommended in the 2008 Vegetation Management Plan (USDA, Umpqua National Forest, 2008)” (FEIS, pg. 46).”

This decision does not include any commercial harvest units, nor does it include commercial or personal-use firewood cutting, in Management Area 2:

“The LRMP places a size limitation on timber harvest openings (units) that can be created within Management Area 2 around Diamond and Lemolo Lakes. In addition, prescription A4-I for this Management Area does not allow for commercial or personal-use firewood cutting. In order to accomplish effective treatments of adequate size, the LRMP would be amended for this project to allow for timber harvest units greater than one-half acre in size. Also, in order to allow for the removal of dead and dying lodgepole pine, the LRMP would be amended to allow for commercial and personal-use firewood cutting (USDA, Umpqua National Forest, 2008)” (FEIS, pg. 46).”

The Draft EIS included an amendment to the LRMP to harvest in climax lodgepole pine ecoclasses. This land was determined unsuitable for timber production in the LRMP. Upon further review, I determined that the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) supported timber management in these areas in order to “protect other multiple-use values” (16 USC 1600 (6)(k)). Furthermore, 1982 NFMA regulations (36 CFR 219.27(c)(1-2)) support timber management in these areas, precluding the need for an amendment. The regulations state that “sales necessary to protect other multiple-use values or activities that meet other objectives” may occur on lands not suitable for timber production if the Forest Plan supports the action. The regulations also state that stands that are in “imminent danger of insect or disease attack” may count towards planned volume, as long as the harvest is consistent with silvicultural and environmental standards. The Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for Timber/Vegetation Management support harvest on unsuitable lands when needed to enhance other resource objectives, protect capital improvements or human health and safety, as long as activities are documented in the environmental analysis for particular timber sales (LRMP, pg. IV-44). I find that timber harvest in climax lodgepole pine ecoclasses is needed to enhance the recreation objectives of the area, protect recreational improvements and to provide safer conditions for recreating visitors and fire fighters. This is consistent with NFMA and the Forest Plan.

NFMA-Determination of Significance1 Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1926.51 and 1926.52, outline the factors to determine whether or not an amendment is significant based on National Forest Management Act requirements. I find that existing goals and objectives as defined by the Forest Plan will not be changed by the single amendment; there will be no adjustment of management area boundaries; and there are no additional projects or activities that would contribute to achievement of management prescriptions. The VQO amendment does modify standards and guidelines for visual quality within existing management areas (areas of retention become

1 The four factors of non-significance include: 1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management; 2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting from further on-site analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management; 3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines; and, 4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement of the management prescription.

Page 22


partial retention or modification, areas of partial retention become modification). These changes are short term and apply to this project only (DEIS page 291-294; FEIS pages 354-355). There will be some short term localized impacts on recreation use from implementing this amendment, but I find that the impacts will only have a minor effect on the level of recreation use in the project area and will not change the overall goals for forest management in the area. I find the amendment to be minor as it will only affect a small area of the forest for the life of the project. Therefore, I find that the amendment proposed with this decision is non-significant.

LRMP-Vegetation Management Plan I find that the D-Bug project is in compliance with the LRMP in regards to the Vegetation Management Plan. The LRMP requires the development of a Vegetative Management Plan for Management Area 2 in order to harvest timber in stands that are susceptible to catastrophic insect and disease situations (Prescription A4-I, page IV-153 and Prescription A4-III, page IV-156). A Vegetation Management Plan was developed in 2008 in conjunction with revising the Diamond Lake-Lemolo Lake Watershed Analysis. This plan reinforced the need to treat the fuels in the project area.

LRMP-Management Indicator Species The LRMP designated seven species, and one group of species (cavity nesters), as Management Indicator Species (MIS). These species were selected to track and evaluate the effects of forest management activities on all wildlife species that occur on the Forest. The project will have inconsequential long term effects on population trends or viability for primary cavity nesters, Roosevelt elk or Black-tailed deer, Bald Eagle, and Peregrine Falcon and varying effects to Pine Marten and Northern Spotted Owl. Consistent with the LRMP, the effects of management activities associated with the D-Bug project have been evaluated for each of the Management Indicator Species: Primary cavity nesters, Roosevelt elk and Black-tailed deer, and Pine Marten are addressed in the MIS section of the FEIS (pages 192-207), and Northern Spotted Owl, Peregrine Falcon, and Bald Eagle are discussed in Attachment 1.

NFMA-Timber Management Requirements NFMA (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(E)) sets forth minimum specific management requirements when managing timber. These requirements and my findings follow.

a. Soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged.

I find that the FEIS documents that there will not be irreversible damage to soil, slope, or other watershed conditions on FEIS pages 233 to 240 and 250 to 293. The Best Management Practices, Mitigation Measures, Project Design Features, and Monitoring on FEIS pages 55 to 68 provide measures for protecting these resources.

b. There is an assurance that the lands can be adequately restocked within five years after final regeneration harvest (FSM 1921.12g).

There is no regeneration harvest associated with this decision; therefore, this requirement is not applicable.

c. Streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other bodies of water are protected from detrimental changes in water temperatures, blockages of water courses, and deposits of sediment where harvests are likely to seriously and adversely affect water conditions or fish habitat.

I find that the FEIS documents that waterbodies are protected from detrimental changes that can adversely affect water conditions and fish habitat on FEIS pages 250-293.

Page 23


d. The harvesting system to be used is not selected primarily because it will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output of timber.

This project is designed to reduce fire risk. While timber is being produced, it is a by-product of treating hazardous fuels. Harvest systems identified in other alternatives provided a greater dollar return and a greater unit output of timber. Therefore, I find that the harvesting systems that will be used were not selected because it will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest output of timber.

NWFP-Aquatic Conservation Strategy Based on the project level evaluation of the environmental effects documented in the FEIS, I find that the project is consistent with and does not prevent attainment of the nine objectives of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) as described in the 1994 Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. The activities within the Riparian Reserve land allocation comply with Riparian Reserve Standards and Guidelines as well as the nine ACS objectives. The ACS objectives have been discussed throughout the FEIS: Terrestrial Environment (page 210); Aquatic Environment (pages 250-288); Appendix A, Response to Comments (pages 62-63, 82, 106-109, 168-171, 204, 227-232); and are summarized in Attachment 4.

I am confident that Best Management Practices, mitigations, project design features, and monitoring identified in the FEIS on pages 55 to 68 will protect beneficial uses of the streams in the project area in a manner consistent with the Aquatics Conservation Strategy outlined in the Northwest Forest Plan and the Clean Water Act of 1972. These practices have been used numerous times on the Umpqua National Forest in contract provisions and for other similar vegetation management projects and have been proven to be effective in resource protection.

NWFP-Survey and Manage Species On December 2009, the District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an order on partial summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs finding inadequacies in the NEPA analysis supporting the Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines from Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plans Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (FS et al. 2007) (2007 ROD). The District Court did not issue a remedy or injunction at that time.

Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into settlement negotiations that resulted in the 2011 Survey and Manage Consent Decree, adopted by the District Court on July 6, 2011.

The Defendant-Intervenor subsequently appealed the 2011 Consent Decree to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The April 25, 2013 ruling in favor of Defendant-Intervener remanded the case back to the District Court.

On February 18, 2014, the District Court vacated the 2007 RODs. Vacatur of the 2007 RODs has the result of returning the Forest Service to the status quo in existence prior to the 2007 RODs.

The District Court and all parties agreed that projects begun in reliance on the Settlement Agreement should not be halted. The District Court order allowed for the Forest Service and BLM to continue developing and implementing projects that met the 2011 Settlement Agreement exemptions or species list, for three categories of projects. These categories include:

Page 24


a. Projects in which any Survey and Manage pre-disturbance survey(s) has been initiated (defined as at least one occurrence of actual in-the-field surveying undertaken according to applicable protocol) in reliance upon the Settlement Agreement on or before April 25, 2013;

b. Projects, at any stage of project planning, in which any known site(s) (as defined by the 2001 Record of Decision) has been identified and has had known site-management recommendations for that particular species applied to the project in reliance upon the Settlement Agreement on or before April 25, 2013; and

c. Projects, at any stage of project planning, that the Agencies designed to be consistent with one or more of the new exemptions contained in the Settlement Agreement on or before April 25, 2013.

The project is consistent with category one above. The D-Bug planning effort was initiated prior to the April 25, 2013. Surveys for Survey and Manage fungi were initiated in the spring of 2010 and continued through the autumn of 2011. The final season of survey relied on the reduced species list that accompanied the July 2011 Settlement Agreement. Survey and Manage surveys for Monadenia chaceana (Chace sideband) and Arborimus longicauda (Red Tree Vole) were conducted in the spring and fall of 2010.

This decision is consistent with the Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (2001) as surveys have been completed for mollusks and red tree voles. Two survey and manage terrestrial mollusk species, the Crater Lake tightcoil (Pristiloma arcticum crateris) has known sites within the action area; all suitable habitat and all known sites will be buffered by a minimum of 50 feet to avoid impacts to this species. The second species, Monadenia chaceana was detected in one current unit (115) included in this decision and this site was buffered 150 feet (one site potential tree). No red tree vole nests were detected during the transect surveys.

There were a total of 146 occurrences of survey and manage fungi, representing 17 species, identified that are on the 2011 Settlement Agreement list that were in the original Alternative 5 units. All the species were Category B species under the 2001 ROD. Category B represents species that are considered to be rare for which pre-disturbance surveys are not practical. Gomphus kaufmannii moved to Category E under the 2011 Settlement Agreement. This category represents uncommon species for which pre-disturbance surveys are not practical. Mycena overholtzii moved to Category D under the 2011 Settlement Agreement. This category represents rare species with undetermined survey status. These figures do not include species in Category F, which have no management requirements. Category F species include Gyromitra montana and Plectania melastoma which were occasionally encountered within the planning units along with G. esculenta which was ubiquitous.

Within all timber sale units, a 150-foot circular, no-entry buffer will be prescribed around all occurrences of Survey and Manage fungi, other than Category F species. Management of known sites is not required for non-commercial fuels treatment units that apply prescribed fire based on the fourth Pechman exemption, however because Arcangeliella crassa is a particularly rare species and is the only known occurrence on the Umpqua NF, this location will have a 50-foot buffer to assure that no slash is piled and burned directly on top of it.

Healthy Forest Restoration Act The D-Bug Project was prepared under the authority of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) which seeks “to improve the capacity….to conduct hazardous fuels reduction projections….aimed at protecting communities, watersheds, and certain other at-risk lands from catastrophic wildfire…” The Act

Page 25


encouraged the development of Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) under which communities designate their wildland-urban interface (WUI) areas where expedited projects may take place. In 2006, the Umpqua National Forest collaborated with Douglas County and other entities to finalize the Douglas County Community Wildfire Protection Plans. Diamond Lake and Lemolo Lake areas were identified as WUIs because of the recreational infrastructure and use. The protection plans for Diamond and Lemolo Lake WUIs list hazardous fuel treatments and methods to protect these at risk communities:

• Thin 300 feet around structures and critical infrastructure.

• Clear and thin evacuation routes for homes and areas of recreation.

• Fuel reduction treatments include mechanical clearing and thinning in the WUIs by harvesting, thinning, mowing, chipping, cutting, and piling.

My decision is based on considering the applicability of HFRA to this project. Particularly:

Fuel treatments in old growth The HFRA requires “fully maintain, or contribute toward the restoration of, the structure and composition of old growth stands according to the pre-fire suppression old growth conditions characteristic of the forest type, taking into account the contribution of the stand to landscape fire adaption and watershed health, and retaining the large trees contributing to old growth structure.” The Northwest Forest Plan set forth the management direction for old growth for the Umpqua National Forest. Based on the definition of old growth in the Northwest Forest Plan (page F-4), twelve units included in this decision are either wholly or partially old growth, (units 15, 86, 89, 90, 98, 107, 115, 118, 160, 161, 162, 176,). (Note that RA-32 stands are not necessarily old growth but rather contain habitat for the northern spotted owl.) These units are adjacent to evacuation routes with some of the units immediately across the road from recreational residences and campgrounds. See Maps 9 and 10 for the location of units that contain old growth in this Decision. The prescriptions in these units thin from below, retaining the largest trees and increasing stand resiliency, thus meeting HFRA requirements for fuel treatments in old growth. (FEIS page 104).

Large tree retention The HFRA requires that management “Focuses largely on small diameter trees, thinning, strategic fuel breaks, and prescribed fire to modify fire behavior…” (Section 102 (f)(1)(A)) and “maximizes the retention of large trees, as appropriate for the forest type, to the extent that the trees promote fire-resilient stands” (Section 102 (f)(1)(B)). This requirement applies to “covered projects”, which are those projects that are authorized under Section 102(a)(1), Section 102(a)(2), Section 102(a)(3), or Section 102(a)(5) of the HFRA.

Non-commercial fuel treatments remove small fuels and clearly meet this requirement of HFRA. Commercial fuel treatments within the mixed conifer stands for this project will be treated with the prescription of “thinning from below” which is the removal of the understory trees, leaving the larger trees in the stand which are the more fire resilient ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir in mixed conifer stands. Thinning from below meets the requirement of retaining large trees.

The exception to retaining the large trees is in lodgepole pine stands, where the purpose of the treatment is to reduce the fuels and impact caused by the ongoing mountain pine beetle outbreak. Under Section 102(e)(1)(B), an authorized project for treating insect and disease outbreaks does not need to comply with the large tree component of the Act. As such, the lodgepole stands would be managed by variable density thinning which retains 20 to 70 trees per acre at variable spacing with 10 percent of the stand not treated.

Page 26


In these forest types, it is the older stands (at least 80 years old) with relatively larger trees (at least 8 inches in diameter) that are highly susceptible to mountain pine beetle attack. The larger trees are being killed by the beetle resulting in an increased fire risk. Retaining the large trees in this forest type would not “promote fire-resilient stands”, nor would it reduce the impact from the outbreak. Retaining the larger trees would not meet the purpose and need for this project nor is it required under Section 102 (e)(1)(b) of the HFRA. There would be no overstory removal in the selected alternative. Therefore, I find that this project is in compliant with the HFRA for retaining large trees.

Fuel treatments outside of WUI This decision includes 77 acres of treatment within the Lemolo Lake and Diamond Lake Wildland Urban Interfaces (WUIs) identified in the Community Wildfire Protection Plans and 563 acres treated along evacuation routes identified in the 2006 Douglas County Wildfire Protection Plans. The majority of the evacuation routes treatments are located outside of these identified WUIs, see Maps 3 and 4 for the location of WUIs in relation to the treatment units. I find that treating these areas is appropriate under the HFRA Section 102(a)(4) authority. Section 102(a)(4) of HFRA authorizes vegetation management projects on lands where insect or disease epidemic impacts national forest system lands.

Mountain pine beetle outbreaks occurred in the vicinity of the project area from 2005 to 2010. The FEIS (page 103) describes the impact of continued mountain pine beetle infestations and the resulting fuel accumulations in the project area. The FEIS also addresses this issue related to insect outbreak and treated areas (FEIS Appendix A, page 199). As identified in the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), State Highways 138 and 230 are critical transportation routes in and out of eastern Douglas County (http://www.co.douglas.or.us/planning/Wildfire Plans/pdfs/Diamondlake.pdf).

Stands outside of the immediate outbreak are at high risk of being infested by the beetle because they have stand characteristics that put them at risk (dense stands that are older than 80 and have lodgepole pines greater than 8 inches dbh). History shows us that it is only a matter of time that these stands will also be affected. These stands outside of WUI are immediately adjacent to evacuation routes and treatment is necessary to reduce the number of potential host trees which in turn will decrease beetle caused tree mortality and subsequent accumulation of fuel and hazard trees.

LRMP Amendments for fuels reduction Section 102(b) of the HFRA states that “An authorized hazardous fuel reduction project shall be conducted consistent with the resource management plan and other relevant administrative policies or decisions applicable to the Federal land covered by the project.” As noted above on page 22, amending the LRMP is consistent with Forest Service planning direction. The project specific amendments for the D-Bug project ensure consistency with the Umpqua LRMP.

Endangered Species Act All required consultation on the effects to northern spotted owl with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is completed. A biological assessment (BA) was provided to the USFWS on August 6, 2010. On September 10, 2010, the USFWS issued a biological opinion (BO) for the D-Bug Hazard Reduction Timber Sale. The findings were that the D-Bug project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect, the northern spotted owl, but was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species (Biological Opinion, pages 1 and 57). When revised Northern spotted owl critical habitat was proposed, the Umpqua re-initiated on the impacts of ongoing activities on the Forest to revised critical habitat for the spotted owl on January 3, 2013; that consultation addressed the D-Bug project as well as many other of the Forest’s ongoing projects. On March 14, 2013 the Umpqua submitted another biological assessment covering impacts to both the revised critical habitat as well as the updated recovery plan. The USFWS issued the

Page 27


final biological opinion for the entire D-Bug project on March 18, 2013. The findings were that the D-Bug project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect, the northern spotted owl and its critical habitat, but was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Incidental take was issued for 4 pairs (8 adults) and 6 juvenile spotted owls within the Action Area in the form of harm caused by the timber harvest of 1,070 acres of spotted owl nesting, roosting and foraging (NRF) habitat under the proposed action.

Recovery Action 32 requires maintaining substantially all of the older and more structural complex multi-layered conifer forests, while allowing for other threats, such as fire and insects to be addressed by restoration management actions. RA-32 stands “are characterized as having large diameter trees, high amounts of canopy cover, and decadence components such as broken-topped live trees, mistletoes, cavities, large snags, and fallen trees.” These stands for the D-Bug project are displayed in Maps 9 and 10 and identified in Table 10. RA-32 allows for restoration management actions to address insect and disease. The USFWS felt that:

“Approximately 5 percent of the proposed treatments will occur within stands considered to be high-quality spotted owl habitat. These stands are all either within WUIs or along designated evacuation routes. As such the long-term results of project implementation will likely be a significant reduction in the risk of losing untreated NRF and dispersal habitat within and adjacent to the Action Area due to the presence of the various fuel breaks that will be created and maintained in a functional condition throughout the Action Area. This risk reduction goal comports well with several long-term recovery plan objectives, including Recovery Actions #5, 32, and 33.”

The Forest Service wildlife biologist assigned to the D-Bug project did not identify any RA-32 stands in the Biological Assessment nor the FEIS. However, during formal consultation, the USFWS biologists did identify 216.5 acres as meeting RA-32 requirements (Table 11). The Forest Service biologist’s professional opinion was that there wasn’t enough snags and down wood present within those stands, coupled with the amount of disturbance from recreation during the breeding season and winter within those units. The USFWS biologist felt that the stands did qualify. The FEIS was printed prior to receiving the BO from USFWS resulting in a discrepancy between the FEIS and BO. However, under this decision, all commercial treatments proposed for the RA-32 habitat have been dropped or converted to non-commercial thinning units. The remaining RA-32 stands being treated for fuels reduction in this decision are listed in Table 10. Non-commercial treatments are consistent with RA-32 direction. The USFWS state in their 2013 BO on page 68 “However, due to the presence of the various fuel breaks that will be created and maintained in a functional condition throughout the action area, the long-term results of project implementation will likely be a significant reduction in the risk of losing untreated NRF and dispersal habitat within and adjacent to the action area. This risk reduction goal comports well with several long-term recovery plan objectives.”

Table 10. Stands Meeting RA-32 Definition in this Decision for the D-Bug project. Unit Number Treatment Type Acres

86 Non Commercial Fuels Reduction 13.7 89 Non Commercial Fuels Reduction 6.2 90 Non Commercial Fuels Reduction 9.6

Total 29.5

Page 28


Table 11. Stands Meeting RA-32 Definition in the Biological Opinion

Unit Number Treatment Type Acres

82 Mixed Conifer Thinning 74 83 Mixed Conifer Thinning 28.5 84 Lodgepole Variable Density Thinning 10 85 Lodgepole Variable Density Thinning 19 86 Mixed Conifer Thinning 47 89 Mixed Conifer Thinning 30 90 Mixed Conifer Thinning 4 97 Non Commercial Fuels Reduction 4

Total 216.5

The D-Bug Project action area ranges in elevation from 3,770 to 6,434 feet with the mean elevation being 5,098 feet. The project area is a mixture of pure lodgepole pine and mixed conifer stands dominated by Douglas-fir and Shasta red fir with a western hemlock and white fir understory. The project is at the eastern edge of the Western Cascades Physiographic Province, and is within 2 ½ miles of the boundary of the Eastern Cascades Province. However, in terms of the functionality of the habitat, the northern spotted owl effects analysis (FEIS pages 171-173) describes risk reduction strategies for both eastern and western cascades provinces. The project area boundary is along the eastside province boundary and several of the spotted owl home ranges would be part of that province as well as those that are long the edge of the Western Cascades.

The cumulative effects considered in both the BA (BA pages 11-15) and BO (BO pages 25-26) include past logging, barred owl, and wildfire (BA pages 13-14 and 39 and BO page 57).

The grey wolf is not federally listed for the Umpqua National Forest on the current Region 6 Regional Forester and OR/WA State Director Special Status Species List (December 1, 2011) nor the DRAFT Region 6 Regional Forester and OR/WA State Director Special Status Species List (December 18, 2014). The OR-7 Rogue Pack has not established residency on the Umpqua National Forest, thus an extensive analysis and formal ESA consultation was not conducted at this time. Although this project overlaps with some of the past dispersal activity of OR-7, the most current mapping of OR-7’s (Rogue Pack) “Known Area of Activity” does not include the project area. Known activity is south of Highway 62 on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. If future den or rendezvous sites are discovered within the project area, then appropriate restrictions could be implemented.

The status of the Oregon spotted frog was changed; it was listed as a threatened species on August 28, 2014. As such, it is no longer listed as a sensitive species on the Umpqua NF. It was analyzed in the FEIS as a sensitive species with no impact expected (FEIS page 151). This decision will have “no effect” on the Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) because this species does not occur within the action area of the project and is not currently documented on the Umpqua National Forest. In addition, no Critical Habitat for this species is designated on the Umpqua National Forest.

There are no effects to listed fish species and their Essential Fish Habitat, thus consultation was not required. There are also no effects to listed plants or their habitats.

Page 29


There are two species known or suspected to occur on the Forest that are listed under the Endangered Species Act. Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii is listed as threatened and has been documented on the Tiller Ranger District on the Umpqua National Forest. This species occurs in low-elevation upland prairies and is primarily known from Willamette Valley grasslands although there are isolated occurrences documented throughout the Umpqua basin as well. Plagiobothrys hirtus is listed as endangered and is confined to low-elevation wetlands in the vicinity of Sutherlin in northern Douglas County. It has not been documented on the Forest to date. The D-Bug planning area is far too high in elevation for there to be potential habitat for either of the federally listed species; therefore, there will be no effect to either species.

Biological Evaluations for Sensitive Species Biological Evaluations were prepared to assess potential effects to sensitive species as identified by the Regional Forester. These evaluations for fungi and terrestrial wildlife determined that while there may be impacts to some individual sensitive species, those effects are not likely to contribute to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of the population or species (FEIS pages 215, 150-151). There will be no impact to any sensitive plant species or special status aquatic species (FEIS pages 215, 289-290).

The Preservation of American Antiquities Act and The National Historic Preservation Act A cultural resource inventory has been completed for the project area. On November 24, 2008, the Umpqua National Forest submitted to the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) fulfilling the requirements of the 2004 Programmatic Agreement Among the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6), the Advisory Council on Historic Resources, and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office Regarding Cultural Resource Management in the State of Oregon by the USDA Forest Service. The activities in this decision have been designed to have No Effect or No Adverse Effect for cultural resource sites through both protection and avoidance. SHPO concurred with a “No Adverse Effect” finding.

Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act establishes a non-degradation policy for all federally proposed projects. The selected alternative meets anti-degradation standards through planning, application, and monitoring of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The Environmental Protection Agency has certified the Oregon Forest Practices Act and regulations as BMPs. The State of Oregon has compared Forest Service practices with the State practices and concluded that Forest Service practices meet or exceed State requirements. Chapter 2 of the FEIS lists site-specific BMPs, project design features (PDFs), and resource protection measures that are common to all action alternatives.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) has identified water quality impaired streams and bodies of water throughout the State of Oregon as required by the Clean Water Act, Section 303(d). The water quality listings of the D-Bug planning area are summarized in Table 3-49 of the FEIS. Lake Creek was identified as water quality impaired for elevated water temperatures and pH. Lemolo Reservoir was also listed for elevated pH. Diamond Lake was listed for pH, aquatic, weeds/algae and dissolved oxygen. Both temperature and pH in Lake Creek are influenced by the water quality of the outflow from Diamond Lake.

Project activities meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act by ensuring that water quality will not be degraded in 303(d) listed streams and waterbodies (FEIS pages 256-259).

The Umpqua Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) was approved in 2007. It allows for no increase in stream temperature. The selected alternative will not have a direct or indirect effect on stream

Page 30


temperature as the riparian thinning will retain the effective shade in the primary shade zone along perennial streams as described in the “Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategies” (USDA/USDI, 2009). Best Management Practices include primary shade protection, stream course identification, limited operation near streams, and directional falling where applicable, to ensure protection of perennial stream shade.

Dissolved oxygen (DO) and pH will not be affected by the selected alternative. According to the Umpqua Basin TMDL (ODEQ, 2006), Diamond Lake’s high pH and low DO levels were a result of changes in the internal lake loading of nitrogen and phosphorus, not external nutrient loading from the watershed. The internal lake nutrient output is a result of the introduction of tui chub and the subsequent population explosion changing the lake biology, which had dramatic consequences on nutrient cycling in the lake which ultimately led to algae blooms, high pH values, and reduced dissolved oxygen levels. The internal nutrient output is also the source of the pH in Lake Creek. Water quality recovery has been observed since the rotenone treatment in 2006 and will likely continue. Therefore, this Decision will not affect nutrient input to Diamond Lake, Lemolo Reservoir, or planning area streams and thus have no effect on pH or DO levels.

2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR Section 294.13) provides direction for management within Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) including particular requirements when timber may be cut, sold, or removed within Inventoried Roadless Areas. The Mt. Bailey inventoried roadless area will be affected by this decision and Map 2 displays the location of Unit 15’s 3.3 acres of treatments within the Mt. Bailey IRA. These treatments include hand cutting, piling and burning and are consistent with current applicable roadless policy. The Regional Forester reviewed this project. Authority for this Decision rests with the Forest Supervisor.

Alternative 5 was designed to meet the requirements of the Roadless Rule. Consistency with each of the requirements follows.

A road may not be constructed or reconstructed in inventoried roadless areas of the National Forest System, expect as provided in paragraph (b) of this section (36 CFR 294.12).

The D-Bug project does not include any construction or reconstruction of roads within an IRA.

The purpose is to maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition or structure, such as to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, within the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period (36 CFR 294.13 (b)(1)(ii)).

Both commercial and non-commercial treatments are within mixed-conifer stands which, as the result of fire-suppression, have developed closed crowns and fuel ladders. Lodgepole and other pines are mixed in with these stands. Because of stand density, these stands are stressed making the pine species more susceptible to insect attack, further increasing the fuel loads. These forest conditions put them at increased risk of an uncharacteristic wildfire and the adverse resource effects that would result. Element 4 of the Purpose and Need (FEIS page 19) describes this need.

Treatments within IRAs are designed to alter fire behavior to a point where it is safe and manageable and to reduce fire effects within treatment units. Prescriptions are designed such that resulting stand conditions both meet fire behavior reduction goals and more closely mimic historical stand structures.

Page 31


Commercial and non-commercial removal of small-diameter trees will open the stands and increase the distance between the tree canopies. The treatments will also decrease small trees that are likely to serve as ladder fuels, and reduce ground-level fuel loads. As described in the Fuels section of the FEIS, by reducing tree densities and ground fuels, there is an indirect beneficial effect of reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects (FEIS page 129). In addition, acres outside of the areas treated will also benefit from reduced uncharacteristic wildlife effects (FEIS pages 323-324).

The timber is generally small diameter (36 CFR 294.13 (b)(1)).

I find that the timber to be removed from the IRAs is generally of small diameter in both non-commercial and commercial fuel treatments within the IRAs based on the analysis in the FEIS. Within Thirsty Creek IRA, modeling indicates that the weighted average quadratic mean diameter of trees will be 7.0 inches post-treatment versus 4.9 inches pre-treatment (FEIS page 331). Within Mt. Bailey IRA, the weighted average quadratic mean diameter of trees will be 7.3 inches post-treatment versus 5.4 inches pre-treatment (FEIS page 333). A larger quadratic mean diameter post-treatment means that the material removed is the smaller material in the stand.

Timber cutting, sale and/or removal are needed to maintain or improve one or more of the roadless area characteristics (36 CFR 294.13 (b) (1)). Roadless area characteristics are resources or features that are often present in and characterize inventoried roadless areas, including:

1) high quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air; 2) sources of public drinking water; 3) diversity of plant and animal communities; 4) habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those

species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land; 5) primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed

recreation; 6) reference landscapes; 7) natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality; 8) traditional cultural properties and sacred sites; and 9) other locally identified unique characteristics.

Information about the specific IRAs follows:

Thirsty Creek Appendage IRA - As noted in the FEIS on page 325, this 2,257-acre IRA is bordered around 80 percent of its perimeter with Forest Service roads. The distance between roads is about one mile where it is contiguous to the Oregon Cascades Recreational Area (OCRA). Appendix C of the LRMP (pages 138 to 144) identifies hunting as the primary recreational pursuit; however, we know that others visit the area primarily while enroute to other destinations. While Appendix C notes that “the natural ecosystems have remained unchanged”, it also recognizes the roads separate the IRA from the larger, generally unroaded OCRA. Therefore; this IRA does not contribute to “species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land”. Additionally, Appendix C notes that the area is not unique as the primary vegetation is lodgepole pine with pockets of other species which is also represented in the OCRA and Mt. Thielsen Wilderness Area, not providing for the roadless characteristic of “reference landscapes”. Additionally, the roads and vegetation types do not provide for natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality. The primary roadless characteristic of this area is “primitive, semi-primitive, non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation”.

Page 32


I find that the non-commercial fuel treatment in the Thirsty Creek Appendage IRA is needed to maintain the dispersed recreation in the area. The non-commercial fuel treatments will occur immediately adjacent to county road 60. These treatments will provide for safer conditions for recreationists to evacuate when a wildfire occurs. Additionally, these treatments will reduce the risk of human caused fires, which generally are started along roads, from impacting the OCRA and Mt. Thielsen Wilderness Area.

Mt. Bailey IRA – The Mt. Bailey IRA is 18,627 acres, bordered on the east side by Road 4795. Mt. Bailey IRA, as a whole, provides for several roadless characteristics. Appendix C of the LRMP (pages 128-136) describes the vegetation in the IRA as diverse with four forest zones represented; Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, mountain hemlock-Shasta red fir, and subalpine fir-mountain hemlock. Additionally, there are non-vegetated areas in the IRA; cinder, lava flows, glacial washes, or talus slopes. Recreation uses in the area include: guided downhill cat-ski operation, hunting, hiking, camping, Nordic skiing, and snowmobiling. Because of the IRAs large size, the diversity in vegetation and the variety of motorized and non-motorized use in the area, it provides for a diversity of plant and animal species, habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land; primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation; reference landscapes; and natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality. Similar reference landscapes do occur in areas protected from management including the wilderness areas and Crater Lake National Park.

In considering the effects on the roadless characteristics, I considered existing impacts to the roadless characteristics in the area to be treated because of the proximity to the road and developed recreation areas and the paved trail which receives a lot of visitor use. Roadless area characteristics in the project area are different from the remainder of the roadless area. Immediately across Road 4795 are 102 recreation residences and a campground. It is along this road that both non-commercial and commercial fuel treatments will occur within the Mt. Bailey IRA. Additionally, the commercial fuel treatments within the IRA will occur between Road 4795 and Dellenback Trail, a paved bike and hiking trail within the IRA. In this particular part of the IRA, the roadless characteristics are primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation. Both non-commercial and commercial fuel treatments will provide for safer conditions for recreationists to evacuate when a wildfire occurs.

Additionally, the planned fuel treatments will reduce the risk of a human caused fires, which are generally associated with frequent human use (along roads and trails, in campgrounds, and in recreation residential areas), from affecting the larger intact Mt. Bailey IRA. The treatments will also give fire managers more options to use suppression strategies that are less obtrusive and provide a more complete range of response options to address fires that do not threaten roadless characteristics and may be beneficial to the resources. Also, on a landscape scale, the fuel treatments along the road will help to maintain the roadless characteristics of diversity of plant and animal species, habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land; primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation; reference landscapes; and natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality. Therefore, I find that both non-commercial and commercial fuel treatment are needed to maintain the roadless characteristics within the Mt. Bailey IRA.

Page 33


The cutting, sale, or removal of timber is incidental to the implementation of a management activity not otherwise prohibited. (36 CFR 294.13 (b)(2)). This criteria applies to cutting and removal of roadside danger trees. The primary reason for removing danger trees is they are a hazard to the public; therefore, I find the cutting, sale, and removal of roadside danger trees incidental to removing the hazard. The cutting and sale of timber is expected to be infrequent (36 CFR 294.13 (b)). Once a fuelbreak is established, non-commercial methods, such as removing saplings or shrubs, are typically used to maintain the fuelbreak. In this situation, fuels would likely be treated every 10 to 30 years based on site productivity. The exact frequency of the maintenance cannot be predicted because of the variability of site productivity and will be identified through time. However, based on maintenance treatments every 10 to 30 years, I find that cutting timber (saplings and shrubs) within IRAs would be infrequent.

Secretary of Agriculture Policy on Inventoried Roadless Areas On May 28, 2009, Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack reserved final decision authority of certain forest management and road construction projects in inventoried roadless areas. On October 2, 2009, the Secretary re-delegated authority to the Forest Service for the cutting, sale, or removal of generally small diameter timber when needed for certain purposes; this was re-iterated in the Secretary of Agriculture’s memorandum 1042-155 dated May 28, 2010. One of these purposes is “To maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure, such as to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects within the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period.” As noted above, this project achieves this purpose; therefore, the Forest Service has the authority for this decision.

Civil Rights and Environmental Justice Executive Order (EO) 12898 on environmental justice requires federal agencies to identify and address any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low income populations. The FEIS analysis (FEIS pages 359 to 360) focuses on potential effects from the project to minority populations, disabled persons, and low-income groups. There will be no change in access and no known adverse effects that will be disproportional to any minority or low income population as a result of implementation of the D-Bug Project, thus this project complies with EO 12898.

Administrative Review Opportunities The D-Bug Hazard reduction Timber Sale Project is an HFRA project subject to regulations at 36 CFR 218 rather than appeal regulations at 36 CFR 215. The Forest Service completed the objection process set forth in 36 CFR 218, which implements a predecisional administrative review process for proposed hazardous fuel reduction projects authorized by the HFRA (§ 218.13). The regulations at 36 CFR 218.11(a) allow decisions to be made on proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects when the objection period has ended and when responses have been made to all objections. Therefore, implementation of this decision is now authorized to begin. A summary of the objection period can be found on pages 15-16. This was the only objection period for this project.

The Healthy Forest Restoration Act established that a person may bring a civil action challenging an authorized hazardous fuel reduction project in a Federal district court only if the person has challenged the project by exhausting the administrative review process established by the Secretary of Agriculture. Only those who objected to this project may challenge it in district court. In accordance with 36 CFR 218.11(b)(2), there is no further administrative review for this project. Section 106 of the HFRA establishes direction governing judicial review of lawsuits challenging hazardous fuel reduction projects authorized under the Act.

Page 34


Implementation Implementation of this project can begin immediately. My intention is to implement this project through service contracts, timber sale contracts, and/or stewardship contracts.

Contact Person For additional information concerning this decision, contact: Jane Beaulieu, Forest Environmental Coordinator, by phone (541) 957-3466 or email [email protected]

Responsible Official

Page 35

mailto:[email protected]


Attachment 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement Errata Summary Information from the D-Bug Hazard Reduction Timber Sale Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that has been corrected is indicated in this errata summary by bold italicized text and information that has been deleted is indicated by strikethrough.

Summary, Alternative 2 – Proposed Action (FEIS page S-7) “Variable-density commercial thinning of 3,165 acres in lodgepole pine stands (leaving 20-70 TPA); thinning 1,145 acres of lodgepole and mixed-conifer (leaving 50-200 TPA); and thinning of 2,247 acres in mixed-conifer stands (leaving 50-90 TPA). The lodgepole variable-density thinning would not generate any openings greater than 40 acres in size. These commercial thinnings include 620 acres within the outer edges of the Mt. Bailey and Thirsty Creek Appendage IRAs, and 318 acres along the edge of within the OCRA.”

Summary, Alternative 5- Preferred Alternative (FEIS page S-8) “Variable-density commercial thinning of 2,016 acres in lodgepole pine stands, leaving 20-70 TPA interspersed with 10 percent of the area with no treatment; commercial thinning of 1,332 acres of lodgepole-mixed conifer (leaving 50-200 TPA); and commercial thinning of 1,500 acres in mixed-conifer stands (leaving 50-200 TPA). These commercial thinnings include 78 acres along the outer edges of the within Mt. Bailey IRA. The lodgepole variable-density thinning would not generate any openings greater than 40 acres in size.”

Summary, FEIS page S-10

Table S-2. Response to Significant Issues by Alternative.

Significant Issues

Alt. 1 Alternative

2 Alternative 5

Issue 2 – IRA/OCRA/Potential Wilderness Areas

• Acres of commercial thinning in the OCRA.

• Acres of forest treated in the IRAs. o Commercial treatment o Non-Commercial treatment

• Acres of treatment Potential Wilderness Areas (excluding overlap with IRA and OCRA acres)

0 0 0

0

318

620 345

1,515 1,140

0

78 329

1,041 433

Page 36


Chapter 2, Description of Activities in Alternative 2 (FEIS page 36) “Variable-density commercial thinning of 3,165 acres in lodgepole pine stands (leaving 20-70 TPA); thinning 1,145 acres of lodgepole and mixed-conifer (leaving 50-200 TPA); and thinning of 2,247 acres in mixed-conifer stands (leaving 50-90 TPA). The lodgepole variable-density thinning would not generate any openings greater than 40 acres in size. These commercial thinnings include 620 acres within the outer edges of the Mt. Bailey and Thirsty Creek Appendage IRAs, and 318 acres along the edge of within the OCRA.”

Chapter 2, Description of Activities in Alternative 5 (FEIS page 45) “Variable-density commercial thinning of 2,016 acres in lodgepole pine stands, leaving 20-70 TPA interspersed with 10 percent of the area with no treatment; commercial thinning of 1,332 acres of lodgepole-mixed conifer (leaving 50-200 TPA); and commercial thinning of 1,500 acres in mixed-conifer stands (leaving 50-200 TPA). These commercial thinnings include 78 acres along the outer edges of the within Mt. Bailey IRA. The lodgepole variable-density thinning would not generate any openings greater than 40 acres in size.”

Chapter 3, Forest Vegetation analysis (FEIS page 97) “Alternative 2 includes 200-300 acres of mixed conifer stands that qualify as nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF) habitat for Northern Spotted Owls (Table 3-25, Wildlife section). Treatments in these areas would maintain 60% canopy closure, thus maintaining suitable NRF habitat following treatment. Alternative 5 removed the 200-300 acres of NRF habitat, as those areas were greater than 400m away from a roadside.”

Chapter 3, Sensitive Species analysis (FEIS page 148) FEIS Table 3-21. List of the sensitive species and their habitats on the Umpqua National Forest.

Common Name

Scientific Name

Habitat Description and Information

Northern Spotted Owl

Strix occidentalis caurina

Old growth conifer forests or younger forests with old growth remnant structures such as large trees, snags and down wood. There are 7 historic owl cores within 2 miles of the D-Bug planning area. The D-Bug planning area is at the eastern edge of the western cascades physiographic province, and is within 2 ½ miles of the boundary of the eastern cascades province.

Chapter 3, Sensitive Species analysis (FEIS pages 150-151)

FEIS Table 3-22. Umpqua National Forest sensitive species pre-field review and summary.

Sensitive Species

Is species or habitat in or adjacent?

Is impact or effect expected?

Loss of viability or trend?

Northern spotted owl

Yes, there are 7 historic owl cores within 2 miles of the planning area and 14 NSOOM points in the planning area

May impact individuals or habitat

No loss of population viability or trend towards Federal listing would occur as a result of any alternative.

Page 37


Chapter 3, Riparian Reserve analysis (FEIS page 278) The thinning in the riparian mixed conifer stands under the action alternatives would lower the existing overstory canopy closure, (ranging from 50-60 percent today) down to 40 percent. This drop in overstory canopy closure would gradually recover over several decades, as long as no fires or follow-up treatments occur. These changes in canopy closure would allow more light penetration in these mixed conifer stands, resulting in warmer and dryer riparian forest conditions compared to Alternative 1.

Chapter 3, OCRA, IRAs, and Potential Wilderness Areas analysis (FEIS page 333)

FEIS Table 3-65. Units within the Mt. Bailey IRA under Alternative 5.

Unit Numbers

Prescription

Acres

Pre-Treatment Average QMD

Post- Treatment Average QMD

2, 8, 15, 86, 89, 94 9 41.5 9.5 9.7

TOTALS 373

(78 commercial; 306 non-commercial)

Weighted Average –

5.4 DBH

Weighted Average –

7.3 DBH

The total acres of commercial treatment in the Mt Bailey IRA was changed from 68 to 78 acres to include hazard tree removal treatments which is consistent with Table S-2 of the FEIS.

Chapter 3, Potential Wilderness Area analysis (FEIS pages 334-339)

FEIS Table 3-66. Affected Acres in Potential Wilderness Areas.

Potential Wilderness Area

Acres on the Umpqua NF

Alternative 2 Acres Alternative 5 Acres


Non-Commercial Commercial Treatment Non-Commercial

PWA – 1 3,307 221 48 50 217 78

PWA – 4 18,753 167 442 305 16 94 379 303

PWA – 5 35,333 1,048 752 666 220 51 122 3,408 338

TOTAL 57,393 1,436 1,140 1,156 575 284 433 3,865 719

Page 38






Remaining Area Qualifying as PWA


Remaining Area Qualifying as PWA

PWA – 1 3,307 221 3,086 217 3,090

PWA – 4 18,753 167 18,586 16 94 18,737 18,659

PWA – 5 35,333 1,048 752 34,285 34,581 51 122 35,282 35,211

TOTAL 57,393 1,436 1,140 55,957 56,253 284 433 57,109 56,960

PWA-4 There would be 167 acres in Alternative 2 and 16 94 acres in Alternative 5 that would be commercially harvested in PWA-4. Essentially this management would remove those areas from consideration as potential wilderness. Under Alternative 2 there would be 18,586 acres remaining as potential wilderness while under Alternative 5 there would be 18,737 18,659 acres remaining (see Table 3-67 3-66).

PWA-5 There would be 1,048 752 acres in Alternative 2 that would be commercially harvest in

PWA-5. Under Alternative 2 there would be 34,285 34,581 acres remaining as potential wilderness.

Under Alternative 5 there would be 51 122 acres commercially harvested.

With the 51 122 acres of commercial treatment there would be 35,282 35,211 acres remaining as potential wilderness.

Chapter 3, Areas Proposed as Wilderness analysis (page 339)

FEIS Table 3-68. Affected Acres in Areas Proposed as Wilderness (APW) by Environmental Organizations.




Commercial Non-Commercial Commercial Non-

Commercial

APW-8 1,765 21.8 18.4 21.8 12.6

TOTAL 8,337 459.9 25.2 400.8 50.6

APW-8 (page 343): “Under Alternative 5, 18.4 acres would receive commercial treatment and

12.6 acres would receive non-commercial.”

Chapter 3, Management Indicator Species (pages 192-207) Analyses of the effects of the D-Bug project to the Northern Spotted Owl and Bald Eagle

Page 39


were included in the Threatened and Sensitive species section of the FEIS, and the Peregrine Falcon in the Sensitive Species section. However, these three species have also been identified as Management Indicator Species in the LRMP, therefore, the following language should have been included in the MIS portion of the FEIS, which begins on page 192:

Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)

Existing Condition

Please refer to the Northern Spotted Owl portion of the Threatened and Sensitive species section of the D-Bug FEIS.

Status of the Species in the Planning Area

There are no current surveys for owls within the action area. Due to the lack of recent survey data, spotted owl activity centers and home ranges within the action area have been estimated using the method identified by USDI-USDA (2008). That analysis resulted in an estimate of 17 potential NSO home ranges/territories located around activity centers based either on known historic or on predicted activity center locations (KPACs) within the action area. Owl home ranges in southwestern Oregon are 1.2 miles and typically contain greater than 40% suitable habitat at the home range scale to support reproduction.

Direct and Indirect Effects

There are 17 known or predicted NSO home ranges overlapping proposed units in the D-Bug planning area (KPACs). There will be 1,195 acres of NRF habitat downgraded to dispersal habitat and 194 acres of dispersal habitat being treated and maintained. Three of these 17 KPACs will be reduced below 40% suitable NRF at the home range scale after the proposed treatments, and 9 of the KPACs already have less than 40% suitable NRF at the home range prior to implementation of any action alternatives. There are 483 known or predicted NSO home ranges on the Umpqua NF, and the D-Bug Project contains 17 home ranges, or 3.5% of the entire Forest’s known or predicted owl locations.

Disturbance Effects

NSOs can be affected through noise generating disturbances within close proximity to both known NSO activity centers and spatially suitable habitat that may support nesting owls (USDI 2009). All treatments within the action area will be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce the potential for direct effects and disturbance impacts to spotted owls during the breeding season. The historic owl pair nest patch locations are all located more than ¾ of a mile away from any treatment unit. There are three KPACs within ¼ mile of treatment units, though all are along Highway 138. There are no helicopter units proposed for this project, so helicopter noise or flights will not be a source of disturbance. The temporary roads will be an increased source of disturbance until harvest actions have been completed and the roads have been decommissioned after use. Temporary roads will provide additional access for OHV’s and snowmobiles while they remain open, which will be an additional source of disturbance to spotted owls. One KPAC (#382, which is 500m from Highway 138) has a temporary road adjacent to the nest patch along Highway 138, and KPACs 382, 430 and 434 have portions of temporary roads within their cores (Figure 12).

Page 40


The roads will only be used outside of the breeding season, and will be blocked from public access when not in use, however there is the potential that snowmobiles and cross country skiers could disturb nesting owls in the early spring prior to logging being completed.

Effects to Critical Habitat

There is no critical habitat located within the D-Bug planning area; therefore there will be no effect to Critical Habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects were disclosed in the TES portion of the FEIS.

Effects Determination

Because this project impacts less than 1% of the suitable NRF habitat across the Forest (D-Bug will downgrade 1,095 acres of NRF to dispersal habitat, out of a total of 431,763 acres of NRF on the Umpqua NF using 2008 biomapper NRF layer developed by Davis), and will result in the loss of suitability of three KPACs out of the 483 on the Forest, the overall direct, indirect and cumulative effects will result in a small negative trend in habitat on the Umpqua. The loss of habitat will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. The D-Bug project is consistent with the NWFP. The NWFP analysis found that implementation will result in population viability for the NSO at the Regional and Forest scale (USDA 1994).

Peregrine Falcon No species or habitat present.

Page 41


Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Existing Condition and Status of the Species in the Planning Area:

Please refer to the Bald Eagle portion of the Threatened and Sensitive species section of the D-Bug FEIS.

Diamond Lake Site Name Time Period Young Fledged Rocky Point

2000-2004 6 Total 2005-2007

3* Total (1* in 2005) (2 in 2007)

2008 None 2009* 2 2010 2

Silent Creek

2000-2004

6 Total

2005-2007 1*

(1* in 2005) 2008-10 Not Occupied

Lemolo Lake Site Name Time Period Young Fledged Lemolo Lake

2000-2004 4 Total

2005-2007 1*

(1* in 2005) 2008 None 2009 1 2010 None

Direct and Indirect Effects

There are four historic Bald Eagle nest locations on the Umpqua National Forest, and the D-Bug planning area contains three of those nest locations (the fourth is located at Toketee Lake). There will be not habitat lost as a result of any of the proposed alternatives. Territorial occupancy has been documented to continue without adverse effects to productivity after selective harvest in the fall adjacent to other Bald Eagle nest sites in Oregon (Arnett et al. 2001). In 2007, the area comprised of unit 84 was non-commercially thinned (all trees 5” dbh and less) and pile burned after the breeding season. In 2008 the pair returned to this area. Additional direct and indirect effects are disclosed in the Sensitive species section of this project.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects were disclosed in the TES portion of the FEIS. None of the past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions described in Table 3-1 of the FEIS are not expected to result in cumulative effects in combination with the D-Bug Project, because they will have

Page 42


no affect on species habitat. No short- or long-term Bald Eagle population decrease would occur; therefore, additive cumulative effects are not anticipated.

Effects Determination

Bald Eagle habitat (suitable nest stands and trees, as well as clean water for prey habitat) within the D-Bug Project Area will be maintained after the implementation of any of the action alternatives, therefore the D-Bug project will not affect Bald Eagles in the project area. Therefore, the D-Bug Project will not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Umpqua National Forest for the Bald Eagle.

Trails The following trails were inadvertently not included in the Affected Environment. In the Diamond Lake area, Rodley Butte - #1452, Pizza Connect - #1457-D, Silent Creek - #1479, and Porcupine Creek Nature Trail - #1594 are all in the project area. In the Lemolo Lake area, Pit Lake – 1446 is in the project area. These trails are used year-around. The direct, indirect and cumulative effects to the trails listed above would be the same as what was described in the FEIS for the other trails.

With Alternative 5, there would be no direct effects the Mt. Bailey Trail - #1451 because the unit where the trail went though was dropped under the alternative. For Alternative 5, 21.1 miles of trails and over 40 miles of roads that are used for Nordic skiing and snowmobiling would be affected by the project. Between the proposed action and Alternative 5, there was a reduction of approximately three miles of motorized trails that would be used as temporary roads. However, as indicted above, some trails were inadvertently excluded from the FEIS. FEIS Table S-2. Response to Significant Issues by Alternative.

Significant Issues

Alt. 1 Alternative

2 Alternative 5

Issue 4 –Impacts of Thinning/Haul on Trails

• Miles of existing trail used for logging access.

• Acres of commercial & non- commercial treatment within 200 feet of trails.

0

0

8.2

2,253

7.0

2,440

Page 43


Table 12. Trails affected by treatment units in this decision.

Trail #

Name Length Impacted

(mi.)

Total Length Temp. Road Length (mi.)

1460 DELLENBACK 0.2 10.9 0.0

SNO- 1589E LEMOLO 0.17 15.8 0.17

SNO- 1589F ELEPHANT MTN. LOOP 0.46 15.0 0.46

SNO-1591 POOLE CREEK LOOP 0.07 3.0 0.07

SNO- 1591C SIDEWINDER 0.1 1.2 0.1

Total 1.0 45.9 0.8

Silviculture

Lodgepole Pine Prescriptions The lodgepole pine variable density thinning prescription (Prescription #2) will retain 20-70 trees per acre (TPA) 5” dbh and greater interspersed with 10 percent of the area with no treatment using mechanical harvest, yarding with tops attached, and masticating fuels. Page 54: Clarify second bullet point for Issue 6: “Acres of lodgepole pine w/40 lg. trees per acre retained” as follows:

Two indicators for Issue 6 were used to track lodgepole thinning prescriptions, including:

1. Acres of lodgepole pine regenerated: This indicator applies to

Prescription #1, the overstory removal lodgepole pine prescription, which proposes to retain 20 TPA 5” dbh and greater. This prescription is proposed in Alternative 2 only.

2. Acres of lodgepole and lodgepole pine/mixed conifer commercially thinned: This indicator applies to Prescription #2 which proposes to retain 20-70 TPA 5” dbh and greater. This prescription is proposed in both Alternative 2 and Alternative 5. This variable density thinning prescription would use variable density thinning to achieve unit-specific management objectives and would retain an average of 40-45 TPA 5” dbh and greater. The 40 large TPA metric captured the lower end of this retention range and was used as a second indicator to track Issue 6.

Page 95: In Alternative 5, 20-70 TPA 5” dbh and greater will be retained. Retained trees

will be variably spaced and interspersed with ten percent of the stand area not treated.”

Page 44


Page 104: Revise second sentence of paragraph 4 as follows: “Alternative 2 proposes to implement the variable density lodgepole pine treatment retaining 20-70 TPA 5” dbh and greater (Prescription #2) on 1,051 more acres than Alternative 5 (4,685 acres and 3,634 acres, for Alternative 2 and Alternative 5, respectively).”

Page 45


Attachment 2 - Biological Evaluation and Biological Assessment Errata Summary Information from the D-Bug Hazard Reduction Timber Sale Project Wildlife Biological Evaluation and Biological Assessment that have been corrected are indicated in this errata summary by bold italicized text.

Biological Evaluation, Wildlife-NWFP Requirements of Retention (BE page 4) “Prescriptions 2-4 would retain a minimum of 15% of each unit as uncut in a combination of aggregates and dispersed trees.”

Biological Assessment, Wildlife-Northern Spotted Owl Province (BA page 22) The D-Bug Project action area ranges in elevation from 3,770 ft. to 6,434 ft. with the mean elevation being 5,098 ft. The action area is a mixture of pure lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) stands and mixed conifer stands dominated by Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and Shasta red fir, with a western hemlock and white fir understory. The action area is at the eastern edge of the western cascades physiographic province, and is within 2 ½ miles of the boundary of the eastern cascades province.

Page 46


Attachment 3 - Clarification Regarding Effects to Northern Spotted Owls and Habitat

Units with Downgrading Of NRF Habitat

Biological Assessment (page 34):

FEIS Table 10. List of all Northern Spotted Owl Occupancy Map points within the D-Bug Project action area listed by Id. The status column documents if it is a historically occupied site, or a computer generated point based upon the amount of suitable habitat available. The effects are listed at the nest patch (300m radius), core (800m radius) and home range (1931m radius) both “Pre” implementation and “Post” implementation. Post treatment habitat losses are highlighted in dark grey. Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

Id

SITE #

STATUS

Nest Patch %

NRF

Nest Patch %

NRF

Nest Patch % NRF Lost

Core % NRF

Core % NRF

Core % NRF Lost

Home Range %

NRF

Home Range %

NRF

Home Range % NRF Lost

348 COMPUTED 52% 52% 0% 35% 35% 0% 38% 38% 1% 352 COMPUTED 53% 53% 0% 32% 32% 0% 42% 37% 5% 370 COMPUTED 96% 96% 0% 75% 75% 0% 34% 34% 0% 376 COMPUTED 55% 55% 0% 38% 38% 0% 47% 43% 4% 379 COMPUTED 96% 96% 0% 66% 66% 0% 48% 41% 7% 381 COMPUTED 12% 12% 0% 12% 12% 0% 22% 19% 3% 382 COMPUTED 72% 53% 19% 60% 38% 22% 43% 33% 11% 417 COMPUTED 49% 49% 0% 59% 59% 0% 47% 47% 0% 425 COMPUTED 17% 17% 0% 20% 19% 1% 18% 16% 2% 430 COMPUTED 73% 73% 0% 49% 41% 8% 49% 41% 8% 431 COMPUTED 42% 42% 0% 22% 22% 0% 28% 28% 0% 434 COMPUTED 52% 52% 0% 48% 47% 0% 40% 36% 5% 514 0830 PAIR 96% 96% 0% 87% 87% 0% 67% 67% 0% 551 0835 PAIR 93% 93% 0% 65% 65% 0% 28% 28% 0% 554 0831 PAIR 50% 50% 0% 43% 43% 0% 20% 20% 0% 559 0858 PAIR 68% 68% 0% 51% 51% 0% 27% 27% 0% 562 0810 PAIR 56% 56% 0% 56% 56% 0% 26% 26% 0%

This language was not included in the BA and is provided here for clarification purposes: Owl ID’s 352, and 434 will both drop below 40% suitable NRF at the home range scale as a result of implementation of Alternative 5. Owl ID 382 will drop below 40% suitable owl habitat at the home range scale, and below 50% at the core scale in Alternative 5. Owl ID’s 348, 376, 379, 381, 425, and 430 will all have NRF habitat downgraded at the home range scale. Stands that contain NRF habitat: 81-86, 89, 95-98, 101-120, 122, 133, 147, 156-158, 160-163, 176, 198, 220, 300, and 997 (not all of these stands are 100% NRF; some contain small portions of NRF, but are included in this list).

Page 47


Rationale for Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Post Canopy Cover

Biological Assessment (page 36): “The units identified for this project are focused along roadsides and structures to function as fuel breaks, therefore it was determined that these treatments within and outside of NRF habitat are needed to modify within stand fire behavior, and the only means to do so and effect the ability of the stands to carry a crown fire is to reduce the canopy closure to 40%, which reduces the within stand likelihood of crown fire initiation from high to low (Dumm, Fuels Specialist Report). This level of treatment would substantially increase the within stand resiliency to crown replacing fire which would provide some level of long term benefit to spotted owls within the treatment units. Therefore, if these stands encounter wildfire fire post treatment, the structural components of spotted owl habitat, primarily larger diameter trees and larger diameter mid story trees will be more likely to survive than untreated stands encountering the same fire. Additionally, there is a documented “shadow” effect of reduced fire severity on stands directly adjacent to treated stands. The treated stand burns at a lower severity, which in turn slows or moderates fire behavior, which extends, conservatively, benefits approximately half of the width of the treated stand into the adjacent untreated stand (Dumm, Fuels Specialist Report, Loehle 2004).” Biological Assessment (page 34): The D-Bug project is being proposed primarily to reduce risk of wildfire around WUI’s and to improve the ability of the public to safely evacuate in case of a wildfire. However it will also have benefits to spotted owl habitat by placing treatments alongside roads which reduces the need to treat away from roadsides in areas which have more values as spotted owl habitat (as they have less disturbance), and will allow Umpqua NF fire managers increased operational flexibility to suppress fires at the fuel breaks or manage wildfires by using the fuel breaks to check fire spread. Roadside suitable habitat will be adversely impacted by being degraded from suitable NRF to dispersal habitat in the short term, but the treatments may minimize large scale habitat loss by allowing fire managers to hold fires at the roadside treatment units. More spotted owl habitat has been lost as a result of wildfire than from timber harvest, with the trend increasing towards more frequent and larger wildfires consuming more owl habitat since the establishment of the Northwest Forest Plan (see Davis and Lint 2005, Healey et al. 2008, USFWS 2008a and Spies et al. 2010 among others).

Effects of Past Logging and Barred Owls

Biological Assessment (page 39): The effect of thinning and fuels reduction treatments on spotted and barred owl interactions is not well studied. In Washington State, studies of radio telemetry marked

Page 48


barred owls indicate that barred owls have smaller home range sizes than spotted owls, and that they prefer older contiguous forested habitat with low slope positions and gentle gradients, high amounts of canopy closure (Hamer et al. 2007, Singleton et al. 2010). There are also indications that barred owls are competitively displacing spotted owls from larger patches of older and larger diameter forest habitat (Pearson and Livezey 2003, USDI 2008b, Singleton et al. 2010). Recent studies and evaluations of habitat use between the two species indicate that barred owls are preferentially packing into larger patches of older forest, low slope and gentle topography and displacing spotted owls to areas of higher slope position and younger, smaller diameter and more fragmented forests (Buchanan et al. 2004, Hamer et al. 2007, Singleton et al. 2010). However, barred owls are also documented to use a wider variety of habitat types and successional classes than are spotted owls, suggesting that fragmentation of habitat may not impacted barred owls as much as it would spotted owls (Courtney et al. 2004). There are potential implications of these findings to the post treatment use of habitat by both spotted and barred owls. It is unknown if there are barred owls in the D-Bug action area. However, if present, it may be that barred owls could vacate stands treated as a result of the D-Bug project as the treatments would reduce canopy cover and increase habitat fragmentation, decreasing their suitability as NRF habitat for both species. There may be potential for the displacement of spotted owls using adjacent non treated stands by barred owls dispersing from treated stands, but this has not been documented before in scientific literature. Barred owls are a larger, more aggressive owl, and have been documented to be more dominant and aggressive when interactions between the two species take places (USDI 2008, Van Lanen 2010). However, thinning treatments could result in a smaller impact to barred owls than to spotted owls as barred owls are able to exist in a wider range of habitat types and successional classes (Courtney et al. 2004). Any benefits to stand resiliency as a result of these treatments would equally benefit barred owls and spotted owls, as their habitat niches are very similar. Barred owls are also disclosed as a threat on pages 13-14 of the Biological Assessment. The Biological Assessment includes a discussion of past logging effects on pages 13 and 39. The Biological Evaluation discusses the cumulative effects of logging within and adjacent to the planning area on page 51.

Page 49


Attachment 4 - Aquatic Conservation Strategy Consistency Summary The Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ASC) of the Northwest Forest Plan was designed to maintain and restore ecosystem health at the watershed and landscape scales to protect habitat for fish and other riparian-dependent species and resources, and restore currently degraded habitats (NWFP, 1994). The consistency of the project with ACS is addressed in the D-Bug Hazard Reduction Timber Sale Project FEIS. The results of the watershed analyses are presented, a description of the existing condition of the important physical and biological components of the ACS are discussed, and conclusions are presented regarding how the alternatives move conditions toward desired conditions in terms of the ACS objectives are disclosed throughout Chapter 3.

This decision (Alternative 5B) would result in long-term beneficial effects to riparian forest structure and composition with increased fire resiliency and improved stand structural characteristics that more closely approximate the natural disturbance regime compared to more closed stand conditions that currently exist. As such, under this decision the S&G TM-1 (c) would be met because the silvicultural practices applied to control stocking in the riparian reserve contribute to meeting the desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. Over time the commercial thinning of the mixed conifer riparian stands would result in stands that are more likely to attain the characteristics of late seral forests, thus meeting desired conditions for riparian reserves.

The riparian reserve network for the three fifth-level watersheds that D-Bug overlays (Diamond, Lemolo, and Upper Clearwater) equates to 13,480 acres. This decision would treat less than 5% of the network. The magnitude of these beneficial effects from the action alternatives are limited since only 4-5 percent of the riparian reserve land allocation in the watersheds would experience the benefits and the rate at which these effects would accrue over time is gradual.

The FS discloses in Chapter 3 of the FEIS that there would be short term site-specific effects from project implementation including reduced canopy cover, ground disturbance, and the potential loss of snags within units. At the larger watershed scale, all the direct and indirect effects to riparian reserves would be very diluted and limited in the extent and magnitude. The possible exception would be the potential beneficial indirect effect of reduced fire behavior both within and adjacent to fuel reduction treatments. Such an effect may be realized at the watershed scale if fire behavior is substantially modified by the fuel breaks and the concentrated thinning treatments around the lakes.

The following is a summary which discloses the project’s consistency with all nine of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) Objectives:

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

Most stands in the planning area currently lack both the openings and the structural diversity consistent with natural disturbance processes. Relative to historic conditions, open conditions in today‘s low and high- elevation mixed conifer forests are well below reference conditions, particularly in the mature and late-seral age classes where most thinning is proposed. The density of trees in mixed conifer types in the planning area indicate a departure from historic conditions, particularly in the unmanaged forest at low elevations.

For mixed-conifer stands containing mature lodgepole in the overstory, indirect effects of

Page 50


treatment would include more open stands over time, less suitable mountain pine beetle habitat, and more fire-resistant and beetle-resistant mixed conifer species. Shifting the future species composition away from lodgepole pine dominance toward fire-resilient mixed conifer tree species dominance by removing some suitable host lodgepole pine and retaining fire- and beetle-resistant mixed conifer species would maintain species diversity, improve structural diversity, increase residual tree vigor, and limit the extent of mountain pine beetle habitat over time.

2) Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between

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

As disclosed in the Riparian Reserve section of the FEIS, commercial thinning of the mixed conifer riparian stands would result in stands that are more likely to attain the characteristics of late seral forests, thus meeting the desired future condition. By restoring more open stands, like those that historically developed following disturbance, the dense stem exclusion and mature mixed conifer stands would be less prone to stand-replacement fire, and more likely to develop habitat characteristics needed by riparian-dependent species. These beneficial effects would help to maintain habitat connectivity for riparian dependent species that rely on late-successional forest conditions. At the broader scale, the riparian forest treatments under the action alternatives advance the role of riparian reserves in providing connectivity within and between watersheds, consistent with ACS objective 2.

3) Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including

shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations.

The Fluvial Erosion section of the FEIS discloses that the action alternatives would not increase peak flows or accelerate sedimentation that would cause channel erosion which is consistent with ACS objective 3. No-thin stream buffers and BMPs ensure that harvest activity would not disturb stream banks or beds leading to increased sedimentation. The D-Bug alternatives were purposefully designed to lower hazardous conditions and reduce the chances of uncharacteristic fire effects. The riparian reserve thinning would improve overall health and vigor of the riparian leave trees and the potential future channel recruitment of large wood, while reducing the long-term risk of wildfire impacts including potential channel erosion.

4) Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic,

and wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities.

The Clean Water Act establishes a non-degradation policy for all federally proposed projects. This decision meets anti-degradation standards through planning, application, and monitoring of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The Environmental Protection Agency has certified the Oregon Forest Practices Act and regulations as BMPs. The State of Oregon has compared Forest Service practices with the State practices and concluded that Forest Service practices

Page 51


meet or exceed State requirements. Chapter 2 of the Final EIS lists site-specific BMPs, design criteria and resource protection measures that are common to all action alternatives.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) has identified water quality impaired streams and bodies of water throughout the State of Oregon as required by the Clean Water Act, Section 303(d). The water quality listings of the D-Bug planning area are summarized in Table 3-49 of the FEIS. Lake Creek was identified as water quality impaired for elevated water temperatures and pH. Lemolo Reservoir was also listed for elevated pH. Diamond Lake was listed for pH, aquatic, weeds/algae and dissolved oxygen. Both temperature and pH in Lake Creek are influenced by the water quality of the outflow from Diamond Lake.

The Umpqua Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) was approved in 2007 allowing for no increase in stream temperature. This decision would not have a direct or indirect effect on stream temperature as the riparian thinning would retain the effect shade in the primary shade zone along perennial streams as described in the “Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategies” (USDA/USDI, 2009). The BMPs include primary shade protection, stream course identification, limited operation near streams and directional falling where applicable, would insure protection of perennial stream shade.

Dissolved oxygen (DO) and pH would not be affected by this decision. According to the Umpqua Basin TMDL (ODEQ, 2006), Diamond Lake’s high pH and low DO levels were a result of changes in the internal lake loading of nitrogen and phosphorus, not external nutrient loading from the watershed. The internal lake nutrient output is a result of the introduction of tui chub and the subsequent population explosion changing the lake biology, which had dramatic consequences on nutrient cycling with the lake which ultimately led to algae blooms, high pH values, and reduced dissolved oxygen levels. The internal nutrient output is also the source of the pH in Lake Creek. Water quality recovery has been observed since the rotenone treatment in 2006. This decision would not result in higher nutrient input to Diamond Lake, Lemolo Reservoir, or planning area stream that would affect pH or DO.

As disclosed in the Water Quality section of the FEIS, no prolonged or adverse impacts to water quality or the associated beneficial uses of water are expected from any of the proposed activities. The long-term trend of improving water quality in the watersheds will not be set back. The planning area streams will continue to support healthy riparian, aquatic and wetland ecosystems. The action alternatives were designed to reduce the chances of uncharacteristic wildfire effects due to a lack of natural fire in both riparian and upland communities. The action alternatives proactively accomplish this in keeping with the broad landscape intent of the ACS while also meeting the specific requirements of ACS Objective 4.

5) Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems

evolved. Elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input, storage, and transport.

The FEIS describes the historic sediment regimes as one of occasional, episodic sediment delivery following large fires. These events were followed by years of recovery with little to no disturbance. Fire exclusion has temporarily curtailed the pre-management sediment regime of occasional, episodic sedimentation. Yet, as fire hazard builds due to the lack of natural fire in combination with the pine beetle outbreak, more extreme sediment pulses may be possible once wildfire escapes control efforts. The D-Bug alternatives were purposely

Page 52


designed to lower hazardous conditions and reduce the chances of uncharacteristic fire effects, which in turn, are expected to help maintain or restore the sediment regime. Moreover, the long-term benefits of the road maintenance and reconstruction activities under the action alternatives outweigh the small short-term impacts of road work to be implemented, as disclosed in the Fluvial Erosion section of the FEIS. As such, the action alternatives are consistent with ACS Objective 5 which calls for the restoration of sediment regimes.

6) Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian,

aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows must be protected.

The forest canopy has a major influence on snow accumulation, distribution, and melting rates. Sizeable canopy openings can result in greater snow accumulation and more rapid snowmelt in the transient snow zone (between 2,000 to 5,000 feet in elevation) compared to locations lacking large canopy openings. Standard and guideline 4 requires an analysis of forest canopy condition and effects to peak streamflows. The hydrologic recovery procedure (HRP) was used to estimate the hydrologic recovery of the forest canopy at the subwatershed, and watershed scales. The hydrologic recovery level represents an area compilation of forest canopy re-development following disturbance. It also represents the potential influence on the streamflow and stream channel effects from floods. The hydrologic recovery levels for all the transient snow zone subwatersheds are currently above the level of concern as displayed in the FEIS. Therefore, the hydrologic recovery would maintain current peak flows and avoid adverse changes to physical channel conditions and associated factors such as water quality and fish habitat. The desired condition is the protection of flow regimes in keeping with ACS Objective 6, while addressing the growing fuel load associated with the beetle infestation and moving these forest stands toward the desired range of natural variability. As disclosed in the Stream Flows section of the FEIS, no impacts to flow regimes or the associated beneficial uses of water are expected from any of the proposed activities including those actions occurring in riparian reserves such as density management, underburning, and other fuel reduction activities such as hand piling/burning, chipping and mastication. As such, the timing, magnitude, and duration of stream flows are protected under all action alternatives, consistent with ACS Objective 6.

7) Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation

and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands.

As disclosed above in the Unique Habitats section of the FEIS, no measurable negative impacts to the wetlands are expected from any of the proposed activities in any of the action alternatives including road work, thinning, burning, or yarding activities. As such, there would be likely no measurable effect upon water tables associated with the project’s wet areas so wet areas would remain unaltered and wet, consistent with ACS Objective 7.

A similar action common to the action alternatives is the decommissioning of 0.8 miles of Road 6592-100, which is an abandoned segment of old Highway 230. This road segment was built through a wetland. The original construction placed fill in the wetland that interrupted

Page 53


surface and subsurface flow paths, which dried part of the wetland. The decommissioning would remove the road fill and reconnect these flow paths to restore wetland function consistent with ACS objective 7, which calls for the restoration of water table elevation in meadows and wetlands. Moreover, the road decommission in a wetland would restore the presently impacted water table of that area, proactively addressing the requirements of ACS objective 7.

8) Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant

communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration and to supply amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability.

The density of trees in mixed conifer types in the planning area indicates a departure from historic conditions, particularly in the unmanaged forest at low elevations. The desired condition for riparian reserves is increased species and structural diversity that would approximate the effects of fire that has been excluded while lowering the risk of stand replacement fire in keeping with ACS objective 8.

The commercial thinning of the mixed conifer riparian stands would result in stands that are more likely to attain the characteristics of late seral forests thus meeting the desired future condition. By maximizing the amount of riparian treatment in uncharacteristically dense mixed conifer stands, portions of the riparian reserve network in the planning area would be more representative of the disturbance regimes of mixed conifer forest types.

The FEIS acknowledges that thinning the mixed conifer stands under the action alternatives would lower snag and down wood recruitment rates by removing trees that would die from suppression mortality or from pine beetles. The majority of the snag recruitment loss from the low thinning in mixed conifer would be from smaller-sized trees because suppression mortality typically kills smaller, suppressed trees rather than the larger dominant trees.

The loss of wood recruitment to perennial stream channels would be largely mitigated by the 50- 60-foot no-cut buffers, because most of the wood that naturally recruits to streams comes from within the first 65 feet of the stream (Murphy and Koski, 1989; McDade, et. al., 1990). This decision would not have a direct or indirect effect on stream temperature as the riparian thinning would retain the effect shade in the primary shade zone along perennial streams as described in the “Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategies” (USDA/USDI, 2009). There would be a decreased potential for large-scale, high-severity fire and an increase in potential for smaller scale fires to create snag patches and areas of future downed wood recruitment from fallen snags. The project would restore species composition and diversity and continue to supply sufficient coarse woody debris in riparian areas sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability.

9) Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native

plant, invertebrate and vertebrate riparian-dependent species.

As disclosed in the Stream Channel section of the FEIS, the restorative riparian thinning in mixed conifer stands would be consistent with ACS objective 9, because the thinning would provide long-term habitat for riparian-dependent plant and animal species. By restoring more open stands, like those that historically developed following disturbance, the dense stem

Page 54


exclusion and mature mixed conifer stands would be less prone to stand-replacement fire, and more likely to develop habitat characteristics needed by riparian-dependent species. Alternative 2 and 5 NWFP Riparian Reserve Acres by Unit

RIPARIAN RESERVE RIPARIAN RESERVE RIPARIAN RESERVE RIPARIAN RESERVE

PRESCRIPTION UNIT

ALT_2 acres

ALT_5 acres

PRESCRIPTION UNIT

ALT_2 acres

ALT_5 acres

PRESCRIPTION UNIT

ALT_2 acres

ALT_5 acres

PRESCRIPTION UNIT

ALT_2 acres

ALT_5 acres

2 5.5 5.5 53 0.9 0.9 111 7.0 7.0 200 20.4 20.4 3 2.3 2.3 56 1.0 1.0 112 0.5 0.5 202 4.5 4.5 5 0.0 0.0 57 2.2 2.2 113 14.6 4.4 203 9.1 9.1 6 16.9 16.9 58 1.6 1.5 114 3.0 2.5 204 4.2 4.2 7 7.3 7.3 59 0.0 0.0 115 2.8 0.0 205 3.5 3.4 9 3.9 3.9 60 2.8 116 0.0 0.0 215 8.3 11 19.0 19.0 61 3.4 117 0.8 0.8 216 0.0 12 5.7 5.7 62 14.2 9.5 118 52.0 27.5 223 0.8 15 5.6 5.6 63 15.1 15.1 120 4.1 230 0.6 16 1.7 1.9 64 11.7 11.3 130 2.1 300 15.3 17 1.2 1.2 65 0.1 0.5 131 5.1 997 2.5 18 2.1 0.9 66 1.9 1.9 132 10.3 998 0.2 19 0.6 0.6 69 37.0 37.7 135 0.7 0.7 999 3.3

20 2.3 2.3 71 0.1 0.1 143 0.0 752 604 21 1.4 1.4 72 6.5 6.5 159 0.3 22 4.0 2.6 73 71.3 162 0.0 0.0 23 0.1 75 2.3 2.3 163 1.8 1.8 24 0.1 0.1 76 3.7 3.7 164 49.5 37.6 25 2.9 2.4 80 1.5 165 0.1 0.1 26 0.8 82 25.4 25.4 167 0.1 0.1 27 0.1 0.1 86 11.2 11.2 169 0.8 0.8 28 1.7 1.1 88 1.1 170 6.5 6.5 29 4.8 89 1.6 1.6 171 12.6 12.6 30 3.7 3.7 90 6.2 6.2 172 1.3 1.3 31 5.8 5.8 91 1.0 0.6 173 0.8 0.8 32 7.6 1.1 94 0.7 0.7 174 2.4 2.4 33 0.3 0.2 95 15.7 15.7 175 1.3 0.1 34 0.1 0.1 98 13.4 13.4 178 7.0 7.0 35 7.6 6.4 99 3.2 3.2 179 8.1 8.1 37 3.3 3.3 100 8.5 183 4.0 40 9.1 9.1 101 0.2 0.2 185 2.7 0.5 42 9.0 7.0 104 9.3 7.6 189 0.1 1.2 44 6.4 6.4 105 20.5 20.5 192 0.0 0.0 45 22.6 22.6 106 3.2 3.2 194 0.0 0.0 46 0.7 0.7 107 9.8 9.8 195 0.1 0.1 47 2.2 2.2 108 6.7 6.7 196 0.0 51 2.4 2.4 109 7.7 7.7 197 0.6 0.6 52 1.7 1.7 110 2.6 2.6 199 18.9 12.5

Acres displayed in the table above are acres of proposed activity that are outside of prescribed riparian buffers but still within Riparian Reserve buffers as designated under the NWFP (ROD pp 9, April 1994). The Riparian Reserve Acres by Unit for this decision can be found in Table 1 and Table 2.

Page 55

Attachment 5 - Economic Efficiency Analysis for Record of Decision 2 The direct economic effects of the alternatives are displayed in Table 13. The standard criterion for deciding whether a government program can be justified on economic principles is net present value (NPV) – the discounted2 monetized3 value of expected net benefits (OMB A-94).

Many factors affect the NPV of a commercial timber harvest alternative, including what revenues and costs to include, the timing of these events, the species, size, and volume per acre harvested, and the logging systems used. Logging and transportation of logs to mills is by far the largest cost center in the commercial harvest treatments. The action alternatives have been designed with the least-cost logging methods that are consistent with standards and guidelines. Generally, mechanical, ground-based logging methods are the lowest cost.

Biomass harvest has been modeled in this analysis. Biomass is considered small diameter trees, tops, and other woody material that does not meet sawlog specifications. Biomass can be used for energy production, fuelwood, pulp, or other specialty products. Generally, if this material is brought to the landing as part of the sawlog harvest operation, it may be economical to haul this material to a facility for production when the markets are favorable. Table 13 displays biomass amounts that may be economically feasible to produce.

The non-commercial harvest treatments are primarily fuel reduction operations. These are included in this analysis as they represent costs to the federal government, although not associated with any sale of timber.

Table 13. Economic Efficiency Analysis. This Decision

(Alt. 5B)

Timber Volume (MBF)4 19,292 Total Commercial Harvest Acres 799

Volume (MBF)/Acre 24.2 Potential Biomass (green tons) 965

Total Treatment Acres 850 Total Present Value Benefits

Gross Benefits $7,905,360 Value/MBF5 $410

Value/Commercial Harvest Acre $9,894 Total Present Value Costs

2 Discounting is the process of calculating the present value of a future amount of money. 4% is the standard discount rate for long-term projects (OMB A-94). 3 Lit. “to give the character of money to.” A cost or benefit is monetized when it is expressed in terms of money. 4 MBF is thousand board feet. The Forest Service estimates MBF using east-side Scribner rules, therefore the volume as shown, is higher than if west-side, long log Scribner rules would be applied. 5 West side delivered log prices have been adjusted to reflect equivalent east side values due to the differences in scaling rules.

Page 56


This Decision (Alt. 5B)

FS Contract Prep & Admin $534,638 Logging $5,499,657

Timber Sale Slash Disposal $244,395 Road Work $23,081

Reforestation $0 Non-Timber Sale Treatments $45,946

Total Cost $6,368,340 Cost/MBF $330

Total Cost/Commercial Harvest Acre $7,970 Total Cost/Total Treatment Acre $7,492

Net Present Value $1,537,020 NPV/ Commercial Harvest Acre $1,924

Stumpage (2015 dollars) $2,369,089 Predicted Stumpage Price/MBF $122.80 Potential Return to the Federal

Treasury (2015 dollars) $2,313,189

Forest Service planning costs are not included in the economic efficiency analysis since they are considered sunk (OMB A-94).

The action alternatives would be marketed as individual contracts. These sales would be offered in a public auction to achieve the highest return possible6. It is anticipated that the post-sale mitigation requirements and other treatments could be fully paid for by stumpage7 from the timber sales.

The alternative shows a positive net present value and would be considered advantageous to the U.S. Government from an economic standpoint. The change from the original D-Bug economic analysis is due primarily to the recovery of the local log markets.

Log prices fluctuate due to a variety of market forces, many of which are external to Douglas County and Oregon. Typically, log prices are higher in the winter months and lower in the summer/fall, reflecting the availability of logging due to weather. The recent recession and slowdown in nation-wide housing caused the local log market to fall drastically from 2006 to 2009. Figure 2 displays a composite log price average ($/mbf) for the local Douglas County market since 1990 using Oregon Department of Forestry log price information (ODF 2014). The data in Figure 2 are not adjusted for inflation and are equated to west side long log Scribner scaling rules.

6 Individual timber sales would be appraised and offered at fair market value, or the minimum to cover reforestation costs and a $0.50/ccf return to the Treasury, whichever is higher. 7 Stumpage is the value of the timber “on the stump.” It is the timber sale contract minimum value and is determined by subtracting logging, road work, and slash disposal costs from the delivered log price. Timber sale purchasers may bid more in a competitive auction. The actual monetary return to the U.S. Treasury is determined by subtracting all post sale costs from the stumpage.

Page 57


The economic efficiency analysis displayed in Table 13 uses average local log prices from the most recent four quarters, adjusted for short log volume. Log prices hit historic lows during the 1st quarter of 2009 and have since come back to near average levels. The outlook for continued recovery is somewhat strong, and indications are for housing to continue to improve. It would be speculative to predict the local markets at the time of sale offer or operation.

Figure 2. Average Composite Douglas-fir Log Prices, Douglas County Market Area

200.00300.00400.00500.00600.00700.00800.00900.00

1000.00

Average DF Log Prices

Page 58

D-Bug Hazard Reduction Timber Sale Projecta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...The...

Documents

Transcript of D-Bug Hazard Reduction Timber Sale Projecta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...The...