Habitat Conditions

Environmental Assessment

United States Department of Agriculture Grassy Fire Salvage Forest Service Lakeview Ranger District April 2005 Fremont-Winema National Forests Lake County, Oregon

For Information Contact: Rick Elston 65600 Highway 31 P.O. Box 129 Silver Lake, OR 97638 (541) 576-7569

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Table of Contents

Summary Alternative 1 – No Action...... S-1 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action...... S-1 Alternative 3...... S-2 Document Structure ...... S-2

Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Action Background...... 1-2 Purpose of and Need for Action...... 1-2 Lakeview Federal Sustained Yield Unit ...... 1-6 Proposed Action...... 1-6 Management Areas and Management Direction...... 1-8 Relationship Between Purpose, Underlying Needs, and Actions...... 1-14 Relationship Between Underlying Needs and Proposed Action (Discussion) .. 1-16 Scope of the Project, Analysis, and Decision Framework...... 1-22 Public Involvement ...... 1-24 Key Issues ...... 1-27 Analysis Issues and Other Issues ...... 1-29

Chapter 2 Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action Introduction...... 2-2 Alternative Development (Background)...... 2-2 Alternatives...... 2-2 Precision of Information ...... 2-3 Alternative 1 – No Action...... 2-3 Design Elements of Alternative 1 -...... 2-3 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action...... 2-5 Design Elements of Alternative 2 –...... 2-6 Alternative 3...... 2-11 Design Elements of Alternative 3 –...... 2-12 Mitigations and Resource Protection Measures...... 2-14 Alternatives and Design Elements Eliminated from Detailed Study...... 2-19 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Study...... 2-19 Mitigations and Other Measures Considered But Not Adopted ...... 2-24 Summary Comparison of Alternatives...... 2-34

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3 Introduction...... 3-2 Forest Vegetation ...... 3-3 Purpose and Need / Key Issues...... 3-3

Analysis Area...... 3-3 Analysis Methods...... 3-3 Regulatory Framework ...... 3-4 Existing Condition ...... 3-8 Environmental Consequences...... 3-9 Consistency with the Forest Plan and Other Regulatory Direction ...... 3-15 Fire and Fuels...... 3-16 Introduction...... 3-16 Purpose and Need / Key Issues...... 3-16 Regulatory Framework ...... 3-17 Additional Background Information...... 3-18 Existing Condition ...... 3-17 Analysis Method ...... 3-20 Environmental Consequences...... 3-21 Consistency with Forest Plan and Other Laws ...... 3-31 Wildlife...... 3-32 Purpose and Need / Key Issues...... 3-32 Regulatory Framework ...... 3-32 Environmental Consequences...... 3-33 Snag and Downed Wood Dependant Species:...... 3-33 Draft Klamath Tribes Forest Management Plan Snag Retention Levels...... 3-36 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species/Management Indicator Species (MIS) ...... 3-44 Biological Evaluation for Forest Service Sensitive Species...... 3-48 Management Indicator Species (MIS) ...... 3-59 Other Wildlife Species of Interest...... 3-84 Partners In Flight Focal Species ...... 3-89 Fisheries and Watershed ...... 3-91 Introduction...... 3-91 Purpose and Need ...... 3-93 Regulatory Framework ...... 3-93 Soils...... 3-94 Water Quality...... 3-100 Stream Channel, Riparian Vegetation, and Fish Habitat Conditions...... 3-103 Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive (PETS) Fish Species within the Affected Subwatersheds ...... 3-110 Region 6 Sensitive and Management Indicator Aquatic Species within the Affected Subwatersheds...... 3-110 Environmental Consequences...... 3-111 Determination of Effects to Sensitive Fish Populations ...... 3-129 Mitigation and Resource Protection Measures Common to All Action Alternatives...... 3-129 Consistency with the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) – Alternatives 2 and 3 ...... 3-130

Economics ...... 3-131 Introduction...... 3-131 Purpose and Need ...... 3-131 Regulatory Framework ...... 3-132 Analysis Method ...... 3-132 Existing Condition ...... 3-133 Environmental Consequences for Economic Impact...... 3-134 Consistency with Forest Plan...... 3-135 Inventoried Roadless Areas and Other Unroaded Areas...... 3-136 Inventoried Roadless Areas ...... 3-136 Introduction...... 3-136 Regulatory Framework ...... 3-136 Existing Condition ...... 3-136 Environmental Consequences...... 3-137 Consistency with Forest Plan and Other Laws and Regulations ...... 3-137 Other Unroaded Areas...... 3-137 Introduction...... 3-137 Regulatory Framework ...... 3-138 Analysis Area...... 3-138 Environmental Consequences...... 3-139 Consistency with Forest Plan and Other Laws and Regulations ...... 3-149 Noxious Weeds ...... 3-150 Introduction...... 3-150 Management Directives ...... 3-151 Existing Condition ...... 3-151 Environmental Consequences...... 3-153 Project Specific Mitigation and Resource Protection Measures / Prevention Strategy...... 3-155 Biological Evaluation – Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants ...... 3-156 Summary of Findings:...... 3-156 Introduction...... 3-157 Proposed Project ...... 3-157 Step 1 – Pre-Field Review ...... 3-158 Step 2 - Field Reconnaissance ...... 3-158 Step 3 – Determination of Effects...... 3-158 Conclusion – Baker’s Globe Mallow...... 3-159 Conclusion – Leather Lichen...... 3-159 Conclusion – Wrinkled Jelly Lichen...... 3-160 Appendix A of Biological Evaluation...... 3-160 Range...... 3-161 Introduction...... 3-161 Background...... 3-161 Current Use ...... 3-161 Range Vegetation (Upland) Existing Condition...... 3-161 Riparian Forage Existing Condition ...... 3-162

iii

Proposed Actions ...... 3-162 Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives ...... 3-162 Cumulative Effects...... 3-163 Mitigations ...... 3-163 Cultural Resources...... 3-164 Introduction...... 3-164 Regulatory Framework ...... 3-164 Analysis Area...... 3-166 Analysis Methods...... 3-166 Existing Condition ...... 3-168 Inventory Method...... 3-169 Environmental Consequences...... 3-170 Mitigation and Monitoring...... 3-170 Treaty Rights...... 3-172 Regulatory Framework ...... 3-172 Analysis Area...... 3-174 Environmental Consequences...... 3-174 Consistency with Fremont Forest Plan, MOA, and other Regulations...... 3-174 Recreation and Scenic Resources Report ...... 3-175 Introduction...... 3-175 Existing Condition ...... 3-175 Environmental Consequences...... 3-176 Consistency with Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan...... 3-178 Air Quality...... 3-179 Regulatory Framework ...... 3-179 Analysis Methods...... 3-181 Environmental Consequences...... 3-181 Consistency with Forest Plan...... 3-183 Roads / Transportation ...... 3-184 Introduction...... 3-184 Regulatory Framework ...... 3-184 Existing Condition ...... 3-185 Analysis Method ...... 3-186 Assessing Benefits, Problems, and Risks ...... 3-190 Describing Opportunities and Setting Priorities ...... 3-190 Environmental Consequences...... 3-191 Environmental Justice...... 3-193 Other Disclosures...... 3-194 Long-term Site Productivity ...... 3-194 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... 3-195 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments to Resources ...... 3-195 Consumers, Civil Rights, Minority Groups, or women...... 3-197

Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination Grassy Fire Salvage Project Interdisciplinary Team ...... 4-2 Parties Contacted During Scoping or Consultation ...... 4-2 Scoping Responses Received...... 4-3 Comments Received During 30-Day Comment Period...... 4-3 Content Analysis Summary ...... 4-4 Literature Cited ...... 4-19 Literature Cited in Comment Letters ...... 4-29

Appendices Appendix A - Cumulative Effects...... A-1 Appendix B - Mitigation Details...... B-1 Appendix C - DecAid Background Information...... C-1

List of Tables

Chapter 1 Table 1-1: Relationship Between Underlying Needs and Proposed Action Elements...... 1-15

Chapter 2 Table 2-1: Comparison of Non-Commercial Restoration-Only Alternative with Alternative 1...... 2-5 Table 2-2: Commercial Harvest Units – Alternative 2 ...... 2-7 Table 2-3: Snag Retention – Alternative 2 ...... 2-9 Table 2-4: Transportation System Needs...... 2-10 Table 2-5: Haul Routes ...... 2-10 Table 2-6: Commercial Harvest Units – Alternative 3 ...... 2-12 Table 2-7: Snag Retention – Alternative 3 ...... 2-13 Table 2-8: Mitigations Considered but not Adopted ...... 2-25 Table 2-9: Comparison of Alternatives Based on How They Respond to the Need for Action...... 2-34 Table 2-10: Comparison of Alternatives...... 2-35

Chapter 3 Table 3-1: Fuel Conditions With No Harvest (Alternative 1) ...... 3-25 Table 3-2: Typical Resource Production Rates* per Fuel Model...... 3-25 Table 3-3: Typical Resource Production Rates* per Fuel Model...... 3-28 Table 3-4: Existing Snags by Size Class within Proposed Units and Snag Retention Areas...... 3-35 Table 3-5: Alternative 2 Snags Retained within Salvage Units...... 3-38

Table 3-6: Alternative 2 Snag retention within Snag Retention Areas and Units...... 3-38 Table 3-7: Alternative 3 Snags Retained within Salvage Units...... 3-40 Table 3-8: Alternative 3 Snag Retention within Snag Retention and Snag Habitat Areas and Units...... 3-40 Table 3-9: Comparison of Snag Retention Levels for Alternatives 2 and 3...... 3-42 Table 3-10: Wildlife Species, Status, Presence, Habitat Occurrence, and Comments ...... 3-45 Table 3-11: Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 on Gray Flycatchers ...... 3-49 Table 3-12: Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 on Wolverines ...... 3-52 Table 3-13: Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 on Pallid Bats ...... 3-56 Table 3-14: Fremont-Winema National Forest Management Indicator Species ...... 3-59 Table 3-15: Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 on Mule Deer ...... 3-62 Table 3-16: Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 on Black-backed Woodpecker ...... 3-66 Table 3-17. Comparison of Snag Retention Levels for Alternatives 2 and 3...... 3-68 Table 3-18: Summary of direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 on Red-naped Sapsucker...... 3-71 Table 3-19: Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 on Northern Goshawks ...... 3-75 Table 3-20: Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 on Marten...... 3-78 Table 3-21: Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 on Pileated Woodpeckers...... 3-81 Table 3-22: Summary of Direct and Indirect effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 on Prairie Falcons ...... 3-85 Table 3-23: Species Identified for the Subprovince Central Oregon/Klamath Basin in the “Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the East-slope of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington” (Altman, 2000) that May be Found within the Grassy Salvage Project Area...... 3-90 Table 3-24: Total Subwatershed Acres and Forested Area Acres ...... 3-92 Table 3-25: Compaction Sampling Transects...... 3-97 Table 3-26: Summary of Mass Movement Hazard in the Analysis Area...... 3-99 Table 3-27: Road Densities and Road Impact Index ...... 3-102 Table 3-28: In-channel Habitat Conditions in Reach 1 of Honey Creek, Summer 2004...... 3-104

Table 3-29: Subwatershed Sensitivity ...... 3-121 Table 3-30: Summary of Effects to Watershed and Fish Habitat Indicators by Alternative...... 3-130 Table 3-31: Economic Impact of Timber Sale Activities ...... 3-135 Table 3-32: Alternative 2 Timber Harvest Units Within ONRC Unroaded Area 3-140 Table 3-33: Other Alternative 2 Components Within ONRC Unroaded Area.....3-140 Table 3-34: Summary of Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species With a Presence (or Habitat Presence) within the Unroaded Area – All Alternatives...... 3-144 Table 3-35: Alternative 3 Timber Harvest Units Within UNRC Unroaded Area.3-145 Table 3-36: Other Alternative 3 Components Within ONRC Unroaded Area.....3-145 Table 3-37: Noxious Weed Sites Surveyed Within the Burn Boundary - September and October 2004...... 3-152 Table 3-38: Noxious Weed Sites Surveyed Outside the Burn Boundary ...... 3-152 Table 3-39: Roads within Analysis Area (Bold Indicates Different Condition Than Planned in ATM Plan)...... 3-187 Table 3-40: Roads Proposed for Use in Alternatives 2 and 3...... 3-192 Table 3-41: Road Reconstruction – Alternatives 2 and 3...... 3-192 Table 3-42: Fire and Salvage Effects in Logged Units and Control Units (Lone Pine)...... 3-195

Chapter 4 Table 4-1: Content Analysis Summary...... 4-4

Appendix A Table A-1: Fire History and Suppression – All Ownerships ...... A-4 Table A-2: Prescribed Fire – National Forest...... A-6 Table A-3: Vegetation Treatments – National Forest...... A-7 Table A-4: Timber Salvage Harvest – Private Lands ...... A-9 Table A-5: Wildlife Habitat and Watershed Improvement Projects - NF ...... A-9 Table A-6: Diversions, Ditches, and Other Uses – All Ownerships...... A-10 Table A-7a: Livestock Grazing Allotments – National Forest ...... A-12 Table A-7b: Livestock Grazing Allotments – Honey Creek Allotment Utilization Levels – 1991 - 2004 ...... A-13 Table A-8: Personal Use Firewood – National Forest...... A-14 Table A-9: Noxious Weed management Activities – National Forest ...... A-15

Appendix B Table B-1: Cross Drain Spacing Guide ...... B-10 Table B-2: Cross Drain Spacing Guide - Timber ...... B-18

vii

Appendix C Table C-1: Potential Snag and Down Wood Tolerance Level Applications and Locations Applied for the Grassy Project ...... C-7 Table C-2: Potential Snag Distribution by Size Class Using DecAid Data for the Grassy Project...... C-7 Table C-3: Potential Snag Distribution by Size Class/Tolerance Level Using DecAid Data for the Grassy Project...... C-8

List of Figures

Summary Figure S-1: Vicinity Map...... S-4

Chapter 1 Figure 1-1: Area of Dense Lethal Fire Severity (in Proposed Action Unit 8)...... 1-4 Figure 1-2: Management Areas Within the Grassy Project Area ...... 1-13

Chapter 2 Figure 2-1: Alternative 2...... 2-39 Figure 2-2: Alternative 3...... 2-40

Chapter 3 Figure 3-1: Blackened Multi-Storied Ponderosa Pine Stand (foreground) and Plantation Trees with Green Needles (background) ...... 3-25 Figure 3-2: ONRC Unroaded Areas - Alternative 2 ...... 3-141 Figure 3-3: ONRC Unroaded Areas - Alternative 3 ...... 3-146

viii Summary

SUMMARY

The Lakeview Ranger District on the Fremont-Winema National Forests is proposing to salvage fire-damaged trees within the perimeter of the Grassy Fire. The lightning-caused fire began August 13, 2004. The fire encompassed approximately 4,202 acres, including 1,436 acres of National Forest lands, 136 acres Bureau of Land Management lands, and 2,630 acres of lands in private ownership in Lake County, Oregon (see Vicinity Map). The analysis area for cumulative effects includes the Middle Honey and Upper Honey subwatersheds of the Honey/Fish Creek Watershed.

The analysis will consider the effects of salvaging fire-damaged trees in excess of those needed to meet “Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” (1989, as amended) (also referred to as the “Forest Plan” or the “LRMP”) Standards and Guidelines for wildlife, riparian zones, and soil productivity.

The area is characterized by shrub/grassland/ plant communities at the lowest elevations and by ponderosa pine and ponderosa pine/white fir/mixed-conifer forested stands, interspersed with young plantations, throughout most of the area. Both ponderosa pine and white fir lose commercial value and suitability for sawtimber rapidly following fire damage. The only perennial fish-bearing stream within the project area is Honey Creek. Riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) for this perennial stream, as well as for intermittent streams within the project area, will be incorporated into project proposals.

The Forest Service evaluated the following alternatives:

Alternative 1 – No Action Under this alternative, no commercial salvage, commercial thinning, stocking level control, reforestation, fuels treatments, transportation system improvements, wildlife enhancement projects, watershed restoration projects, or old growth management (including LRMP amendment), unless authorized by another planning process would occur in response to the fire. Ongoing management practices such as road maintenance, fire suppression, and personal use firewood cutting would continue, as would previously authorized road management (decommissioning and closure under the existing Access Plan), noxious weed preventions and control, and fire suppression rehabilitation activities such as rehabilitation of firelines and drainage improvements on roads that were used during suppression.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative 2 was identified as the proposed action in initial project scoping, and as the preference of the Responsible Official at the start of the 30-day public comment period. This alternative includes approximately 4,900* thousand board feet (mbf) of salvage timber harvest from approximately 589 acres within the fire perimeter. Ponderosa pine with less than 30 percent of the green crown that existed prior to the fire, or 51 percent or more of the bole scorched, would be considered dead and eligible for salvage harvest. White Fir with less than 50 percent of the green crown that existed prior to the fire, or 30

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Summary - 1 Summary percent or more of the bole scorched, would be considered dead and eligible for salvage harvest. Snags would be retained to meet Standards and Guidelines from the Forest Plan, as amended. Commercial thinning, and salvage harvest is proposed in three predominantly green units, totaling 61 acres. Activity-created fuels would be treated though combinations of whole tree yarding (WTY), yarding with tops-attached-to-last- log (YTA), lop and scatter, prescribed fire, or crushing where slope and soil conditions allow. Planting with ponderosa pine tree seedlings is proposed for 749 acres.

Alternative 3 Alternative 3 is designed to retain a greater number of snags than Alternative 2. Salvage design would be the same as Alternative 2, except for trees that are greater than 20.9 inches dbh. If trees greater than 20.9 inches dbh have any green needles remaining, discernable from the ground, they would be retained (not salvage harvested). Other salvage criteria remain unchanged from Alternative 2. Alternative 3 drops commercial thinning and salvage in the three predominately green units, instead maintaining them as snag habitat areas with small tree thinning. This alternative includes approximately 4,800* thousand board feet (mbf) of salvage timber harvest from approximately 589 acres within the fire perimeter. Activity created fuels would be treated as in Alternative 2. Planting with ponderosa pine tree seedlings is proposed for 749 acres.

*The salvage volumes displayed in this analysis document are estimates only. Actual volumes that would be offered through a salvage sale would be determined through implementation of the decision and could vary from those shown herein.

Forest Plan Amendment Both Alternatives 2 and 3 include a non-significant Forest Plan amendment to the Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. One of the allocated old growth parcels in the project area was affected by the fire to the extent that it is no longer suitable old growth habitat. Another parcel that is about 1.3 miles southeast of this burned area would be re-designated as old growth (LRMP Management Area 14).

Document Structure The Forest Service has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) in compliance with the “National Environmental Policy Act” (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and state laws and regulations. This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into five parts:

Purpose Of And Need For Action This section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the Agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service initially informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded.

Summary - 2 Grassy Fire Salvage EA Summary

Description of Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action This section provides a more detailed description of the Agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on issues raised by the public, other agencies, and Forest Service personnel, within a framework guided by prospective attainment of purpose and need. This discussion also includes mitigation measures. Alternatives that were considered but not analyzed in the same level of detail as Alternatives 1 through 3 are discussed. Finally, this section provides summary tables that briefly compare Alternatives 1 through 3 in terms of project purpose and need and issues.

Environmental Consequences and Alternative Comparison This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by displaying the effects in regard to topics, including purpose and need or key issues that are pertinent to that specific resource area.

Consultation and Coordination This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the EA, as well as a bibliography of literature cited in this EA.

Appendices The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the EA.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in specialist reports contained in the project record located at the Lakeview Ranger District Office in Lakeview, Oregon.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Summary - 3 Summary

Figure S-1: Grassy Fire Salvage Project Vicinity Map

Summary - 4 Grassy Fire Salvage EA

Chapter 1

Purpose of And Need For Action

Background...... 2 Purpose of and Need for Action ...... 2 Lakeview Federal Sustained Yield Unit ...... 6 Proposed Action ...... 6 Management Direction ...... 8 Forest Plan Management Areas and Forest Plan Direction...... 9 Relationship Between Purpose, Underlying Needs, and Actions...... 14 Relationship Between Underlying Needs and Proposed Action (Discussion)...... 16 Scope of the Project, Analysis, and Decision Framework ...... 22 Public Involvement...... 24 Key Issues...... 27 Analysis Issues and Other Issues...... 29

Chapter 1

CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

Background Historically, frequent, low intensity wildland fire was a natural phenomenon in eastern Oregon ecosystems. Suppression of these fires became the norm beginning with European settlement of the West and the establishment of National Forests. Nearly a century of effective fire suppression has been a primary factor in the interruption of frequent, low intensity fire and subsequent development of much denser forests than occurred historically. When a fire start occurs in today’s typical ponderosa pine forest, the overall stand density and the presence of ladder fuels can lead to fire behavior that is unlike the fires that occurred under historical stand conditions.

On the afternoon of August 13, 2004, the lightning-caused Grassy Fire began on the Lakeview Ranger District. The fire burned approximately 4,202 acres, including 1,436 acres of National Forest System lands, 136 acres Bureau of Land Management lands, and 2,630 acres of lands in private ownership. The National Forest System lands in the fire area consist of approximately 1,436 acres within the Honey Creek Watershed in the North Warner Mountains on the Lakeview Ranger District. Specifically, the legal description is: Sections 29 – 32, T36S, R22E, Section 1, T37S, R21E, and Sections 5 – 6, T37S, R22E, WM surveyed, Lake County, Oregon (Figure S-1: Vicinity Map in the preceding Summary section). The cumulative effects analysis area includes the Upper and Middle Honey Creek subwatersheds of the Honey/Fish Creek Watershed within the Warner Basin.

Purpose of and Need for Action The area is currently characterized by forests of ponderosa pine and mixed ponderosa pine/white fir with lethal fire effects (about 1,025 acres), where less than 10 percent of the tree canopy survived. These areas are interspersed with about 250 acres of lighter burned forest where differing fire intensities created a mosaic of moderate and light effects to vegetation. Ponderosa pine and white fir quickly lose commercial value and their suitability as the raw material for sawtimber rapidly deteriorates following fire mortality. A few stands that remain predominately green consist of high-density, mixed conifer species.

The project area is primarily allocated to MA 5 in the Forest Plan (see later section in Chapter 1 for additional information). The Regional Forester’s Eastside Forest Plans Amendments #1 and #2 modified the objectives for MA 5. While MA 5 is still to be managed for the commercial production of sawtimber and forage for domestic livestock (within Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines for all resources), the Regional Forester’s amendments have shifted the focus toward promoting and maintaining Late/Old Structural (LOS) characteristics that include large diameter, open-canopy structure. MA 5 areas are to be managed with an objective of creating a healthy forest condition through control of stocking levels, species mix, and protection from insects, disease, and other damage while moving forest stands toward structural conditions that are within the Historic Range of Variability (HRV). Historic Range of Variability refers to structural forest conditions that are based on pre-settlement conditions. Moving forest stands

Chapter 1 - 2 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1

toward the Historic Range of Variability is desirable because such conditions provide the most sustainability in long term. Sustainability refers to the ability of forested systems to withstand or resist rapid and widespread structural change due to fire, insects, and disease.

The Lakeview Ranger District, Fremont-Winema National Forest, has developed project proposals, analyzed in this EA, to support the purposes of this project. It is expected that the projects analyzed in this EA would be implemented between 2005 and 2009. The purposes of this project are to:

• As rapidly as feasible, restore a sustainable ponderosa pine forest in the Grassy Fire area.

• Provide the highest level of local job support and recovery of commercial timber value that is compatible with the first purpose above and with the standards and guidelines in the Fremont N.F. Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP).

• Promote riparian and upland habitats in the Grassy Fire area that meet the desired conditions established by the Fremont N.F. LRMP.

The underlying needs for action derive from the differences between current resource conditions and desired, sustainable, resource conditions as discussed in the LRMP (“Forest Plan”), as amended. Throughout this document, references to the “LRMP” indicate that plan, as amended (see later section, Forest Plan Management Areas and Forest Plan Direction). Desired conditions are based on Forest Plan direction and management objectives. The proposed action is designed to move current resource conditions closer to the desired conditions.

There are four underlying needs for the project:

The need for forest stands with structural conditions closer to the Historic Range of Variability (HRV) within the project area. The LRMP, as amended, provides direction to move forest stands toward these conditions, including the development of large diameter, open canopy structure and open park-like stands. For eastside low-elevation forests, such conditions offer the best likelihood of sustainability over the long term. Before Euro-American settlement, forests within the project area were maintained in this healthy, sustainable condition by repeated low-intensity fires. These fires killed most small trees and a few larger trees without destroying the structure of the forest.

Successful long-term development of a sustainable forest depends on successful reforestation, on facilitating the eventual return of characteristic fire (i.e. frequent, low-intensity, stand-tending fire) to areas that were historically fire-dependent, and on maintaining stand conditions and fuels conditions that do not contribute to future fires with large-scale stand replacement mortality. Some green stands within the project area currently exhibit densities that are well outside the HRV. Such high densities do not promote the development of sustainable stands. At the same time, the 2004 fire created areas of very high tree mortality. In these areas, the future conditions that would result from the Grassy Fire, in the absence of some form of active management, are not expected to place the area on a successional pathway that as rapidly as feasible restores a sustainable ponderosa pine forest in the Grassy Fire area. These areas are not likely to re-grow

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1 - 3 Chapter 1 large ponderosa pines (the large, open canopy structure directed by the LRMP) for hundreds of years without artificial reforestation, since most of the seed trees perished.

In addition, since live tree densities were very high (in relation to historical norms) before the 2004 fire, and the fire resulted in over 1,000 acres of area with lethal fire severity (in terms of both overstory and understory vegetation), the current amount of standing dead trees is also well above historic norms. Within 10 to 20 years, these dead standing trees will become down logs, creating fuels conditions that are also outside of historic, sustainable norms.

Fig. 1-1: Area of Dense Lethal Fire Severity (in Proposed Action Unit 8, a Helicopter Unit)

Following a fire start, while large woody material has a substantially lesser role in determining initial fire behavior than do smaller components of the fuelbed, accumulations of large dead woody fuel, especially containing larger diameter decayed pieces, can hold smoldering fire on a site for extended periods (Brown et al., 2003). While Brown et al. defines coarse woody debris as beginning at 3 inches diameter breast height (dbh), “larger diameter” and “large pieces (greater than 10-inch diameter)” are reported by Brown et al. as having their own specific role in fire behavior. Torching, crowning, and spotting, which contribute to large fire growth, are greater where large woody fuels have accumulated under a forest canopy and can contribute to surface fire heat release. If the large woody fuel is decayed, its contribution is considerably greater, similar to fire in heavy slash (Brown et al., 2003).

It should be noted that differing scientific conclusions have been cited by the public, during the comment period for this project, about the influence of large logs on fire behavior. Some comments regarding removing larger logs through salvage harvest state that removing large pieces of downed woody material from the forest floor impacts the ability of the forest floor to hold and retain moisture and, therefore, removing these logs deprives the forest of a structural component that can moderate fire behavior. These differing conclusions are apparently the result of factors that vary with geography and climate. One of the most frequently cited references in

Chapter 1 - 4 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1 supporting these comments (Amaranthus et al., 1989) is highly pertinent to Douglas-fir forests of the Siskiyou National Forest. See Chapter 3, Fire and Fuels “Additional Background Information” for discussion of the applicability of the Amaranthus study to this project. While large fuels do indeed retain moisture longer than small fuels, measurements of fuel moisture in the dry semi-arid regions of Oregon that are relevant to this project have shown that during the period of highest wildfire danger (July and August), fuel moistures have typically been very low across the entire range of fuel sizes. At the point where large fuels are at very low moisture levels, they cease their contribution to localized moisture regimes and simply become flammable fuel that exacerbates fire behavior and contributes to a higher intensity, longer duration fire.

The role of large logs during the Grassy Fire is noted in Fire Behavior Forecasts (Martin, Stover and Ziel, August 2004) that were issued during the suppression action. Three days following the fire start, despite moisture being expected, “…extremely dry fuel conditions will still be in effect for the large down fuel.” (Martin et al., 2004) Five days after the start, “…extremely dry fuel conditions will still be in effect for the large down fuel and will continue to burn until they are put out.” (Martin et al., 2004) This behavior is consistent with Brown et al. (Brown et al., 2003) relating to the role of large down wood.

Developing a forest with structural conditions closer to HRV requires future fuel loads low enough to safely re-introduce fire as a periodic disturbance agent. Areas of heavy fuel loading, either from large down fuels or concentrations of smaller fuels, present unacceptable risks in terms of control of prescribed fire if they are left in place. By removing some of the dead trees from the area, future use of prescribed fire, a relatively economical way to create and maintain healthy forest conditions, will be made more feasible.

The need for commercially valuable timber from the project area. The LRMP directs or authorizes the production of timber, including salvage timber, from most of the management allocations within the project area, within standards and guidelines established to meet a variety of other resource objectives. There is currently a short-term opportunity to capture value from the trees killed in the fire and a long-term opportunity to develop a sustainable forest that will yield future commercial volume in accordance with management direction. In some parts of the project area there is a need for some road reconstruction and minimal temporary road development so the dead trees can be removed safely and economically.

Prompt action is needed to capture the commercial value of the burned timber, allowing for production of a wood product and contributing to the local economy. The lumber and wood products sector, including secondary wood products, is a large contributor to the economic well being of the Lakeview, Oregon area. The Grassy Fire Salvage project is within the Lakeview Federal Sustained Yield Unit. Contributions to the local economy are made not only by direct employment and salaries, but also because many local businesses derive a portion of their sales from primary wood products employees.

The need for wildlife habitat within the project area, including snags and down wood and live forest. The LRMP directs retention of certain levels of these habitat components. The objective of this direction is to ensure sale activities are designed to retain or develop habitat to provide for

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1 - 5 Chapter 1

the needs of snag and down wood dependent species, old growth dependent species, threatened, endangered and sensitive (TES) species, and other species. The project area includes two allocated old growth habitat parcels. One of these was not affected and the other was burned to the extent that it is no longer providing suitable habitat.

Aspen trees provide important components of wildlife habitat. Generally, aspen stands are declining throughout the western U.S. and may be currently at only 5 percent of pre-settlement occurrence (Wall et al., 1999). Though it is expected that aspen would respond positively to the effects of the fire, there are two sites in the Grassy project area at which competing live conifers continue to have a detrimental effect on aspen.

The need for high-quality fish and riparian habitat within the project area. The LRMP establishes an objective of managing all waterbodies (Management Area 15) to maintain or improve water quality, fish habitat, recreation opportunities, and riparian habitat for dependent wildlife species (see later section in this Chapter on Forest Plan Direction). Approximately 1.2 miles of Honey Creek are within the fire perimeter. Fire in the Honey Creek Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) was of a low intensity throughout. Two sites that have been identified as having less than desired condition are: a fire-affected reach of First Swale Creek that lacks large wood and in which most of the streambanks are in a burned condition, and a small (less than 4-foot) active headcut in First Swale Creek near the upper edge of the fire.

Lakeview Federal Sustained Yield Unit This project occurs within the Lakeview Federal Sustained Yield Unit. The Chief of the Forest Service established the Lakeview Federal Sustained Yield Unit on October 10, 1950. The Unit was established in recognition of the important interrelationship between the Fremont National Forest and the local communities of Lakeview and Paisley, to promote their economic stability. The revised Policy Statement (01/11/01) recognizes that community economic stability is dependent on a healthy forest; therefore, the revised Policy Statement includes goals intended to promote a sustainable forest ecosystem within the Unit Area (hereafter referred to as the Lakeview Federal Stewardship Unit or “the Unit”). These goals are:

1. Sustain and restore a healthy, diverse, and resilient forest ecosystem that can accommodate human and natural disturbances.

2. Sustain and restore the land’s capacity to absorb, store, and distribute quality water.

3. Provide opportunities for people to realize their material, spiritual, and recreational values and relationships with the forest.

The Unit goals are consistent with the overall management goals and objectives for the Fremont National Forest as established by the LRMP.

Proposed Action The action proposed by the Lakeview Ranger District to meet the purpose and need includes commercial salvage of fire-killed trees, commercial thinning, fuels treatments, stocking level

Chapter 1 - 6 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1

control (small green tree thinning), reforestation (planting of tree seedlings), wildlife enhancement projects, watershed restoration projects, and an LRMP Amendment to allocate an area to old growth management. Connected actions include transportation system improvements and use, strategies for retention of snags for cavity-dependent species, and fuels treatments (slash disposal). On-going actions authorized by previous or concurrent decisions in and near the project area include: fire suppression rehabilitation, road management (both decommissioning and closure), noxious weed prevention, noxious weed control, and grazing management.

Specifically the Proposed Action includes:

Commercial Salvage (Salvage Of Fire-Killed Trees) - 589 acres, 10 units, 4,944 MBF. Two helicopter units and eight ground-based yarding system units. No salvage in RHCA (Riparian Habitat Conservation Area). The acres included as commercial salvage in the proposed action specifically correlate to the portions of the project area on which a commercial product could be viably removed while adhering to the LRMP direction for the protection of all resources.

Commercial Thinning - 61 acres commercial, three units, 377 MBF (these areas would also be precommercially thinned) - one helicopter unit and two ground-based yarding system units. Precommercial-only thinning outside of proposed timber sale units would consist of 73 acres.

Fuels Treatments (Slash Disposal) – Whole tree yard (WTY), yard with tops attached (YTA – also known as LTA – “leave tops attached”), lop and scatter, hand pile and burn, and underburn. Treatment varies by site, dependent on slope, soils, fuels characteristics, and cost.

Snag Retention - Within harvest units and snag retention areas in proximity to units, which total 744 acres, the following numbers of snags would be retained: 1,896 (10-14.9” dbh); 1,468 (15- 19.9” dbh); and 1,166 (greater than 20” dbh). Additional snags, including those within the project area boundary that are outside of harvest units or snag retention areas, would also remain, providing they do not present a hazard under OSHA guidelines.

Stocking Level Control (small tree thinning) - Areas of high density, multi-storied mixed conifer stands that are still predominately green, 61 acres within Units 12-14 and 73 acres outside of timber sale units, would be thinned to favor ponderosa pine trees on an average 20 foot x 20 foot spacing.

Reforestation - 749 acres of planting with ponderosa pine tree seedlings at a rate of approximately 250 trees per acre. This includes 589 acres within salvage units and 160 acres outside of salvage units.

Transportation System Improvements and Use - No new specified road construction is proposed in association with any of the management activities included in this alternative. Reconstruction would consist of adding “padding “(using dirt or rock) in several locations to facilitate haul. Approximately 300 feet of temporary road would be used for access into one timber sale unit (Unit 6) that would be on the existing roadbed of an unclassified road. One new temporary road, about 250 feet in length, is expected. This road would provide access to a landing location in Unit 5, and would be entirely within timber sale unit.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1 - 7 Chapter 1

Wildlife Enhancement Projects - Two approximately ¼ acre stands of aspen would receive enhancement work through the thinning of live competing conifers less than 21” dbh in their immediate vicinity.

Watershed Restoration Projects – These projects would include repair of an existing headcut in First Swale Creek and the felling of up to 35 fire-killed trees into the stream channel of First Swale Creek to increase large woody debris.

LRMP Amendment - A non-significant Forest Plan amendment to the Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1989), as amended, would be implemented to meet the need for desired old-growth habitat conditions. One old growth parcel within the fire, (PPGOGO214051N), was affected by the fire to the extent that it is no longer suitable old growth habitat. Approximately 6 acres of this parcel are included in proposed timber sale unit 9. This 6-acre portion would be re-designated as MA 5. The remainder of affected old growth area, which is in the RHCA of Honey Creek, would be re-designated as MA 15 (Fish and Wildlife Habitat/Water Quality). Another parcel, (PANANA200161N), which is about 1.3 miles southeast of the affected old growth area, would be re-designated as MA 14. This parcel is currently identified as available old growth replacement.

Further details of the Proposed Action (analyzed in this document as “Alternative 2") are presented in Chapter 2, along with descriptions of all alternatives considered or analyzed.

The proposed action helps move the project area towards desired conditions described in the Forest Plan. The proposals include design features or mitigations to make them consistent with the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines of the Forest Plan. This EA documents the site- specific implementation of the Forest Plan.

Management Direction Development of this Environmental Assessment follows implementing regulations of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), Council of Environmental Quality, Title 40; CFR, Parts 1500-1508, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (“LRMP” or “Forest Plan,” USDA 1989). The analysis of the standards and guidelines and desired conditions in the LRMP is documented in the FEIS for the Fremont LRMP (or “Forest Plan”). The FEIS for the Forest Plan describes eight alternatives for managing the land and resources of the Fremont National Forest, including an alternative that is described as the Preferred Alternative. It presents and compares these management alternatives, and discloses the economic and environmental consequences of their implementation. This analysis is tiered to the analysis that is documented in the FEIS for the Forest Plan. The Grassy Fire Salvage Project is a site-specific application of the direction provided in the LRMP.

Many federal and state laws, including the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA), Endangered Species Act, and Clean Air Act, also guide this analysis (see “regulatory Framework” headings in Chapter 3 for various resources).

Chapter 1 - 8 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1

Forest Plan Management Areas and Forest Plan Direction Since the project area lies entirely within the boundaries of the Fremont portion of the Fremont- Winema National Forests, the relevant general management direction is found in the Fremont National Forest LRMP and associated amendments. The Forest Plan specifies Forest-wide and Management Area goals, objectives, and standards that define desired conditions and provide for land uses and resource outputs.

The primary amendments to the LRMP are: Regional Forester’s Eastside Forest Plans Amendments #1 (1994) and #2 (1995), which provide direction for retention and promotion of Late/Old structural (LOS) forest characteristics and the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH; 1995), which provides interim direction to protect habitat and populations of resident native fish. The LRMP, as amended, contains Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines. In addition, Standards and Guidelines for specific areas (termed "Management Areas" or MAs) are stipulated in the LRMP.

Management Areas and associated Standards and Guidelines are described in Chapter IV of the Forest Land Resource Management Plan. National Forest System lands affected by the fire within the project area include Management Areas 1, 5, 6, 14, and 15. In limited cases, some MAs are not mutually exclusive and "overlap" each other. For example, MA 6 / Scenic and MA 15 / Fish and Wildlife Habitat/Water Quality can exist on the same acre(s), such as where a National Recreation Trail scenic corridor is in close proximity to a stream. Therefore, the acres shown below, when totaled, slightly exceed the overall acreage of the project area. In the event of overlap, the combination of management directions are used to determine the appropriateness of specific management activities. On the other hand, most MAs are mutually exclusive (such as MA 5 / Timber-Range production and MA 14 / Old Growth) and cannot "occupy" the same acre(s).

MA 1: Mule Deer Winter Range (approximately 269 acres; 19 percent of the project area). The Forest Plan states, “Food, cover, and human disturbance will be managed on mule deer winter range to provide the habitat needed to meet the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Klamath Tribes herd management objectives” (LRMP, 132). Emphasis is on improving forage and thermal cover, and, where site capabilities allow, maintaining 40 to 50 percent thermal cover and at least 80 percent of potential habitat effectiveness for mule deer. Forest Plan guidelines state that habitat improvement (in mule deer winter range) can include prescribed burning and mechanical ground and vegetative disturbance after evaluation of effects on habitat and non-target species (Fremont National Forest LRMP, 132).

MA 5: Timber and Range Production (approximately 1,090 acres; 76 percent of the project area). These acres are allocated for commercial production of sawtimber and forage for domestic livestock and must meet LRMP Standards and Guidelines for all resources. The Regional Forester’s Eastside Forest Plans Amendments #1 and #2 modified the objectives for MA 5. While MA 5 is still to be managed for the commercial production of sawtimber and forage for domestic livestock (within Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for all resources), the Regional Forester’s amendments have shifted the focus toward retaining and promoting Late/Old structural (LOS) characteristics. MA 5 areas are to be managed with an objective of creating a healthy forest condition through control of stocking levels, species mix, and protection

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1 - 9 Chapter 1 from insects, disease, and other damage while moving forest stands toward structural conditions that are within the Historic Range of Variability (HRV). Historic Range of Variability refers to structural forest conditions that are based on pre-settlement conditions. Moving forest stands toward the Historic Range of Variability is desirable because such conditions provide the most sustainability in the long term. Sustainability refers to the ability of forested systems to withstand or resist rapid and widespread structural change due to fire, insects, and disease.

The Regional Forester’s amendments contain direction that is intended to allow the culturing of overstocked stands with the objective of retaining and promoting the Late/Old structural (LOS) characteristics in the stand. For the stand treatments contained in the action alternatives, the following direction from the Regional Forester’s amendments specifically applies:

• No net loss of LOS components • Outside of LOS the intent is to maintain and/or enhance LOS components by adhering to the following standards: • Maintain all live trees greater than or equal to 21” dbh (diameter at breast height). • Manipulate vegetative structure that does not meet late and old structural (LOS) conditions in a manner that moves it toward these conditions as appropriate to meet HRV (Historical Range of Variability). • Maintain open, park-like stand conditions where this condition occurred historically. • Manipulate vegetation in a manner to encourage the development and maintenance of large diameter, open canopy structure. • Maintain connectivity and reduce fragmentation of LOS stands, by maintaining or enhancing the current level of connectivity between LOS stands and old growth habitats. The Wildlife Standards of the Regional Forester’s amendments contain direction for all sale activities, including salvage, for the maintenance of snags and down logs. These standards and guidelines for snags and downed wood are designed to provide the amount of snags and downed wood required for 100 percent of potential population levels of primary cavity excavators, to be determined using the best available science on species requirements.

MA 6B: Scenic Viewshed (approximately 20 acres; 1 percent of the project area) The visual corridor associated with the Fremont National Recreation Trail (NRT) #160 (part of the Warner Mountains Trail System) is allocated to MA 6B (Forest Plan Map, Alternative F – Preferred). While allowing for timber management, the overall objective in MA 6B is to provide an attractive, natural appearing forest visual character. The Forest Plan contains guidelines for land management prescriptions that are designed to promote the visual integrity of landscapes in the foreground-viewing zone (Forest Plan, page 114).

MA 14: Old-Growth Dependent Species Habitat (approximately 62 acres; 4 percent of the project area). The goal of MA 14 is to manage stands of old growth on the Forest to maintain minimum viable populations of dependent, native vertebrate species. When events such as wildfire have affected a designated old growth stand to the point that it is no longer considered suitable habitat, the Forest Plan directs that a new old-growth stand should be delineated to replace the original habitat.

Chapter 1 - 10 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1

MA 15: Fish and Wildlife Habitat/Water Quality (approximately 65 acres; about 5 percent of the project area). The aquatic and riparian zones of all drainages and water bodies, and their immediately adjacent uplands will be managed to meet the objectives of (MA 15). MA 15 will be managed to maintain or improve water quality, fish habitat, recreation opportunities, and riparian habitat for dependent wildlife species. MA 15 includes streams of all classes, as well as ephemeral draws, seeps and springs, and moist or wet lodgepole pine sites. The Forest Plan amendment for the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH, 1995) amended the standards and guidelines by creating Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) and Riparian Management Objects (RMO’s). All project actions must be in compliance with INFISH.

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, as defined in INFISH, are portions of watersheds where riparian dependent resources receive primary emphasis and management activities are subject to specific standards and guidelines. INFISH Standards and Guidelines for Timber Management (TM-1) prohibits timber harvest within RHCAs, except as follows:

Where catastrophic events such as fire, flooding, volcanic, wind, or insect damage result in degraded riparian conditions, allow salvage and fuelwood cutting in RHCAs only where present and future large woody debris needs are met and where cutting would not retard or prevent attainment of other Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) and where adverse effects can be avoided to inland native fish.

Standard RHCA widths are as follows:

(Category 1) Perennial Fish Bearing Streams • The area on either side of the steam extending from the edges of the active stream channel to the top of the inner gorge, or the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of two site-potential trees, or 300 feet slope distance (600 feet, including both sides of the stream channel), which ever is greatest.

(Category 2) Perennial non-Fish Bearing Streams • The area on either side of the steam extending from the edges of the active stream channel to the top of the inner gorge, or the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential trees, or 150 feet slope distance (300 feet, including both sides of the stream channel), which ever is greatest.

(Category 3) Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater than 1 acre • The body of water or wetland and the area to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, or to the extent of the seasonally saturated soil intermittent stream channel or wetland and the area to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation or to a distance equal to the height of one site potential tree, or 150 feet slope distance from the edge of the wetland, whichever is greatest.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1 - 11 Chapter 1

(Category 4) Intermittent streams and wetlands less than 1 acre • The intermittent stream channel and the area to the top of the inner gorge. • The intermittent stream channel or wetland and the area to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation. • The area to the edge of the channel or wetland to a distance equal to the height of one- half site potential tree, or 50 feet slope distance, which ever is greatest.

Because RHCA widths are prescriptive they sometimes vary from what was classified as MA 15 (Riparian Area) in the Forest Plan.

Chapter 1 - 12 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1

Figure 1-2: Management Areas Within the Grassy Project Area

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1 - 13 Chapter 1

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for Snags - Many wildlife species rely on moderate to high levels of snags and down logs for nesting, roosting, denning, and feeding. In accordance with “Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment 2” (1995), Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for snags and down wood are designed to correspond to the minimum required for 100 percent of potential population levels of primary cavity excavators. In order to meet the 100 percent potential population standard, the Fremont National Forest Plan Standard for snags is 3 snags per acre greater than 15” DBH (20” preferred) and greater than 20’ tall, and 1 snag per acre 10” DBH (12” preferred) and greater than 20’ tall. Current direction and experience in applying these standards support a design in which snag retention can be achieved by using reserve clumps that are dispersed throughout the area, as well as dispersed snags and clumps within salvage units, rather than on a per every-acre basis. Such a design better accounts for the varied habitats preferred by different snag dependent species, as well as allowing implementation (salvage and planting) to occur with substantially less conflict occurring between the desire to retain snags for wildlife and worker safety guidelines.

Road Best Management Practices and Timber Best Management Practices - Best Management Practices (BMPs) are the primary mechanisms to enable the achievement of water quality standards (Environmental Protection Agency, 1987). BMPs have been selected and tailored for site-specific conditions to arrive at the project level BMPs for the protection of water quality. BMPs are a supplement to the “General Water Quality Best Management Practices: Pacific Northwest Region” (1988). See Appendix B for complete documentation of BMPs.

Relationship Between Purpose, Underlying Needs, and Actions The overall purpose of the project is to carry out the direction and intent of the Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended, within the project area. Existing conditions within the project area do not comply with the desired conditions described in the LRMP and have generated several needs for action in order to reach such compliance. The set of proposed actions was developed to respond to these underlying needs. The following table identifies each action element and the underlying need to which it responds.

Chapter 1 - 14 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1

Table 1-1: Relationship Between Underlying Needs and Proposed Action Elements NEED FOR: Forest stands Wildlife habitat High-quality with structural including snags, fish and conditions Commercially down wood and riparian ACTION closer to HRV valuable timber live forest habitat Commercial ♦ ♦ Salvage Commercial ♦ ♦ Thinning ♦ Fuels Treatments ♦ Snag Retention ♦ Stocking Level Control ♦ ♦ Reforestation ♦ ♦ ♦ Transportation System Improvements ♦ ♦ Wildlife Enhancement Projects ♦ Watershed Restoration Projects ♦ ♦ LRMP Amendment - Designate OG ♦ ♦ = Action Responds to Need

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1 - 15 Chapter 1

Relationship Between Underlying Needs and Proposed Action (Discussion)

Need for: Forest Stands with Structural Conditions Closer to the Historic Range of Variability Current and Desired Conditions The LRMP, as amended, establishes an objective of creating a healthy forest condition through control of stocking levels, species mix, and protection from insects, disease, and other damage, while moving forest stands toward structural conditions that are within the Historic Range of Variability (HRV). Historic Range of Variability refers to the dynamic structural forest conditions based on pre-settlement conditions. Moving forest stands toward the Historic Range of Variability is desirable because such conditions provide the highest degree of sustainability. The 2004 fire occurred within a forest characterized by a high tree density and, in many areas, a multi-storied structure that was outside of HRV. This condition was a primary contributing factor to the stand replacing fire behavior that occurred in parts of the Grassy Fire. General characteristics of most of the forested acres in the project area before the advent of regular fire suppression and commercial logging activity include the following: • The stand types were primarily ponderosa pine. They were part of an ecological system that maintained a continuous canopy of mature ponderosa pine, with variations in density, but in a generally open stand condition. During this period of relatively low stand density (10 to 35 trees per acre), individual tree vigor was sufficient to produce enough seed crops to perpetuate the stand.

• These low density, open, park-like stand conditions were maintained by frequent low- intensity fires. This kept fuel loads relatively low.

• Most of the seed produced by a ponderosa pine does not disperse much farther than the height of the cone on the parent tree. Ponderosa seeds do have wings, but the seed is heavy and does not travel far from the tree. This suggests that stand openings created by fire, insects, or disease mortality within ponderosa pine types would have been small enough to allow reliable natural regeneration, since, otherwise, the almost continuous ponderosa pine canopy documented in historic accounts before the 1900s would not have been present.

As a result of regular fire suppression, as well as logging and grazing practices, beginning about 1900, the general condition common to most of the ponderosa pine forests on the Fremont National Forest began to be characterized by increasing densities in comparison to HRV. Additionally, more stands exhibited multi-storied structure than was characteristic of HRV. Just before the 2004 fire, these stands were considered to be outside of HRV and outside the range of adaptability for ponderosa pine stands to sustain themselves over the long term. Conditions following the fire, in which many large and old trees were killed, represent a further departure from the single story late and old (LOS) structural condition.

Chapter 1 - 16 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1

The fire behavior demonstrated in the higher vegetative mortality areas of the Grassy Fire was outside the range of historical fire behavior for the ponderosa pine type in this area. These fires killed seed trees across relatively large areas, compared to the low-intensity fires more characteristic of this region. Ponderosa pine is very slow to re-establish in areas of complete mortality greater than a few acres in size, because of its relatively heavy seed. Without planting, very little ponderosa pine establishment would occur in areas that lack enough seed trees, and development of a sustainable stand of LOS ponderosa pine could take up to several hundred years. The actual time would depend on the distance to seed-producing trees, how far their progeny were able to spread, how quickly those trees produced seed, and how far they spread it.

In general, fire-killed trees occur across the landscape over hundreds of acres that burned during the 2004 fire, including large areas where more than 50 percent of the trees were killed. Of the total area that burned on National Forest System lands (1,436 acres), approximately 240 acres burned with a low intensity, 145 acres burned with a moderate intensity and 1,051 acres burned with a high intensity. In this discussion, intensity refers to the amount of biomass consumed. In the area of high intensity, the fire consumed most of the existing biomass. The highest fuel post-fire loading observed in the high and moderate burn intensity areas was less than 5 tons per acre. The fuel loading observed in the low fire intensity burn area was observed at approximately 9 tons to the acre.

The post-fire hazard for the high intensity acres is currently low. There is no surface fuel component other than the occasional patches of duff and litter. This profile lacks the fine fuel and dead component necessary for a ground fire to carry. The post-fire hazard rating is expected to increase in the long term due to the increase in the brush component coming in after the fire and the existing snags falling down to create ground fuel.

The post fire hazard for the moderate intensity acres is currently moderate. The fuel loading will build at a faster rate than the high burn intensity level due to the fact that there are small trees, needles, and limbs that were not consumed in the fire. This scorched but unconsumed material will start falling to the forest floor, accumulating and adding to the increase in the brush component coming in after the fire and the existing snags falling down to create ground fuel.

The post fire hazard for low-intensity acres is currently high. This is due to the fact there was little consumption of both vertical and horizontal fuel loading. These stands are still characterized by densities that are well above sustainable historic conditions.

Proposed Actions for Developing Forest Stands with Structural Conditions Closer to HRV As noted earlier, long-term development of sustainable forest conditions depends on reforestation; on returning characteristic fire to an area, and on maintaining stand conditions and fuels conditions that do not contribute to future fires with large-scale stand replacement events.

Planting with ponderosa pine seedlings is proposed on approximately 749 acres, including areas proposed for salvage harvest and other areas that experienced loss of stocking due to fire.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1 - 17 Chapter 1

The other important component of developing a long-term sustainable forest is low intensity, stand-tending fire. This requires maintaining stand conditions and fuels conditions that allow for periodic application of low-intensity prescribed fire and do not contribute to stand replacement fire. In this regard, commercial removal of some of the tree boles (down to a 9” dbh) will prevent the development of a fuel model 12, with its substantial large wood component, from occurring in the area. Prescribed fire is an important tool that would be expected to be used in the relatively near future within areas that are reforested and could be used immediately in areas that burned lightly enough that reforestation is not needed.

The stocking level control (small tree thinning on 134 acres both inside and outside of units) would be a step, consistent with LRMP direction, in moving stands toward structural conditions that are within the Historic Range of Variability (HRV). Future steps, such as the application of prescribed fire, would need to be taken in order to continue movement to sustainable conditions.

Need for: Commercially Valuable Timber from the Project Area Current and Desired Conditions Authority to address situations involving salvage of insect-infested, dead, damaged, or down timber and to remove associated trees for stand improvement is found in the National Forest Management Act of 1976, sec. 14(h) (16 U.S.C. 472a(h)). Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2435.04i directs that it is the responsibility of the District Ranger to identify timber stand areas having threatened or actual tree mortality and initiate actions to aggressively address potential salvage situations.

The Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP, 1989) includes Forest-wide management goals to:

• Provide sawtimber and other wood products (including firewood for personal or commercial use) to help sustain a viable local economy. • Strive for economically efficient management. The LRMP also includes Forest-wide management objectives to offer affordable sales. In addition, Forest-wide standards supplement national and regional policies, standards, and guidelines found in Forest Service manuals and handbooks relevant to timber harvesting include:

• Providing well-designed timber sales to be affordable under average market condition at time of sale. • Increasing the use of available wood fiber consistent with management objectives and economic principles. Actions taken as part of the salvage harvest must comply with all aspects of the Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1989, as amended), including protection of wildlife habitat and consideration of existing resource characteristics. The timber burned within the Grassy Fire presents an opportunity to respond to the direction described above.

Chapter 1 - 18 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1

Proposed Actions for Salvaging Commercially Valuable Timber The proposed action includes salvage harvest on approximately 589 acres. As a general rule of thumb, in ponderosa pine stands, trees with less than 30 percent green crown would be considered for salvage harvest. Predicting whether conifers damaged by wildfire will live or die is not an exact science. However, it is important to establish criteria for when to consider a tree as dead and to anticipate likely mortality conditions to effectively plan treatments and design elements such as salvage harvest, reforestation, fuels reduction, wildlife leave areas, and riparian area rehabilitation. The challenge is to predict with a high degree of confidence which trees have sustained enough damage to make mortality very likely within one to three years following the fire.

For many years the standard of 30 percent or less live crown (for mature trees that have achieved much of their height growth potential) was used as the key indicator of imminent mortality on the Fremont-Winema National Forests. This standard means if a tree retains less than 30 percent live green crown following a fire, it is regarded as very likely to die within one year. This 30 percent standard was a modified version of Guidelines for Estimating the Survival of Fire- Damaged Trees in California (Wagener, 1961). Within the last decade, managers have used varying standards of live crown retention as an indicator of survival or mortality. In the nine years prior to 2002, the Fremont-Winema National Forests experienced several fires, including the Thomas Fire, the Lone Pine Fire, the Robinson Springs Fire, and the Toolbox Fire. For these fire areas, the guideline used for predicting which trees were very likely to die varied between the 20 percent live crown minimum or the 30 percent live crown minimum. Monitoring of these fires has shown a consistency with findings by Wagener (1961), Ryan (1982), Agee (1993) and Scott (2002).

Instances of survival of more severely burned pines that are mature and achieved most of their height growth have been reported. These reports generally occurred in areas of a cool portion of a wildfire or during a prescribed burn, not the types of areas typically considered for salvage. These conditions did give the crowns the appearance of crown scorch, but did not produce high enough temperatures to be lethal to the buds or crowns themselves. These observations represented unusual situations. Mike Price of the Sierra National Forest observed a very unusual situation where a number of trees presumed to have been killed by fire, in an area of a cool backburn, did flush their buds and produced green foliage. He also observed that a significant number of these died shortly after the observation of new foliage, and the rest of the trees are not likely to survive beyond 2003 (Eglitis, 11/24/2003). With regards to long-term tree survival, Price’s observations are consistent with the example of the Pine Springs Fire (Burns, Oregon, 1990), which covered 90,000 acres and damaged large ponderosa pines. An extensive salvage project was carried out and all pines with less than 20 percent live crown were salvaged. Twelve years later there is no surviving tree on that burn site with less than a 40 percent crown (Eglitis 11/24/2003).

Using researchers’ findings, in combination with this local experience, the Grassy Interdisciplinary Team certified silviculturist determined that for the purposes of the Grassy Fire project, a fire-damaged ponderosa pine tree with less than 30 percent live green crown will be considered dead.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1 - 19 Chapter 1

Most of the proposed timber salvage units would be harvested using ground-based logging systems. Access for salvage would include the use of classified, temporary, and unclassified roads. Connected actions in association with salvage include:

• Road reconstruction.

• Temporary road (re-opening of existing routes and an estimated 250 feet of new temporary road with unit 5).

• Treatment of slash.

• Water barring, and erosion control measures such as scattering of slash on skid trails.

Salvaged trees would supply raw materials to local industry and, ultimately, wood products used by the public.

The economic impact of potential timber sales would benefit local forest workers and mill workers as well as local retail and service businesses. The greatest impact would, however, be limited to the period during which logging operations are active. That period is expected to be less than one year, although some work may go on for up to five years.

Need for: Wildlife Habitat, Including Snags and Down Wood and Live Forest Current and Desired Conditions Snag and Down Wood Habitat - Many wildlife species rely on snags and down logs for nesting, roosting, denning, and feeding. The fire created optimal habitat both for species that generally favor large snags (such as Lewis’ woodpecker) and those that favor smaller snags (such as black- backed woodpecker). These habitats will persist until trees begin falling in large numbers, which is anticipated to begin within 7 to 10 years. Overall, within the Grassy Salvage analysis area, snag levels are currently above Forest standards and guidelines of four snags per acre due to the Grassy Fire. In addition, due to the nature of the stands, the height of the snag component in the Grassy area meets LRMP standards for snag height. In plantations, snag habitat is generally lacking, while in unmanaged areas, snag habitat created by the fire consists of hundreds of acres of snags of varying sizes.

Reconnaissance indicates that down wood densities vary across the Grassy Fire area. Most of the area appears to be below the standard and guidelines of 80 lineal feet/acre in ponderosa pine; however, there are some down logs, both from trees and snags felled during suppression efforts and from trees that have fallen. Down wood levels are changing daily and will continue to change as snags fall. Further description of habitat characteristics can be found in the Wildlife section of Chapter 3.

Old Growth Dependent Species - Approximately 5 percent of the project area is within Management Areas 14 (Old-Growth Dependent Species Habitat). Old growth stands were impacted by the fire. The LRMP directs that when events such as wildfire have affected a

Chapter 1 - 20 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1

designated old growth stand to the point that it is no longer considered suitable habitat, a new old-growth stand should be delineated to replace the original habitat.

Proposed Actions to Provide Wildlife Habitat, Including Snags and Down Wood and Live Forest Snag and Down Wood Habitat - Snag retention is designed to provide the amount of snags and downed wood required for 100 percent of potential population levels of primary cavity excavators. In the long term (10 to 30 years), snags are expected to fall and cavity-nesting habitat would not be available. Retention of snags for snag and down wood dependent species would be achieved through two strategies: 1) Retention of specifically identified areas of habitat being prescribed as “no-salvage” areas, and 2) Retention prescriptions within proposed commercial salvage units.

Old Growth Dependent Species - MA3 and MA 14 are allocated to help maintain viable populations of dependent native vertebrate species including goshawks, black-backed woodpeckers, pine marten, and pileated woodpeckers. The 1989 Fremont LRMP did not indicate specific locations for old growth (MA 3 and MA14), but rather a grid-type map that showed approximate locations, with actual locations of areas to be “selected by a team composed of timber and wildlife as a minimum.” This occurred for many portions of the Lakeview Ranger District between 1989 and 1996 as projects were site-specifically planned. The mere identification of replacement areas, following events such as wildfire, has no immediate effect on old growth-dependent species because the areas are currently there whether they are identified or not. However, including a site-specific Forest Plan amendment to allocate a replacement old growth area (MA 14) for the parcel that was affected by the fire to the extent that it is no longer suitable old growth habitat, as a part of the Proposed Action, helps ensure the future management of the newly designated area to maintain old growth habitat.

Need for: High-Quality Fish and Riparian Habitat Current and Desired Conditions Immediately following suppression, the Burn Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) team completed analysis of the hydrological effects of the Grassy Fire. The BAER team concluded that 100 percent of the soils within the fire perimeter experienced a low severity burn. The fire produced a black surface burn, which had minimal effect on water absorption, and no post-fire soil-water repellency. The soil hazard rating for the vast majority of the burned area is low to moderate, with only 66 acres rated as high.

Approximately 1.2 miles of Honey Creek is within the fire perimeter. Fire in the Honey Creek Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) was of a low intensity throughout. Along Honey Creek there was generally a buffer between the fire and the stream. Field reconnaissance led to

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1 - 21 Chapter 1 the estimation of less than 5 percent of the streambanks being in a burned condition. No instream large wood was consumed.

The Forest Plan directs that the aquatic and riparian zones of all drainages and water bodies and their immediately adjacent uplands be managed to meet the following objectives: maintenance or improvement of water quality and fish habitat; providing recreation opportunities; and maintenance and improvement of riparian habitat for dependent wildlife species. The Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) (USDA 1995) amended the Forest Plan to establish the creation of riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) with the objectives and desired conditions of:

• Protecting soil productivity and maintaining land stability. • Meeting state water quality standards by applying soil and water conservation practices. • Protecting water for non-consumptive uses, including fish habitat, recreational uses, stream channel maintenance, and aesthetics. • Maintaining high quality water in domestic-use watersheds. • Protecting riparian areas to prevent adverse effects on stream channel stability and fish habitat. • Reducing sediment from existing open roads by applying Best Management Practices (BMP) standards. • Improving water infiltration and hydrologic function on closed roads where prudent. • Reconnecting native trout populations by removing, replacing, or repositioning culverts that are barriers to fish passage. • Adding woody debris to certain severely burned stream segments to improve fish hiding cover and increase habitat complexity. • Planting appropriate tree species in certain burned riparian areas to improve aquatic and riparian habitat. • Improving existing stream crossings to accommodate a 100-year flood.

Proposed Actions to Improve Riparian Habitat Project activities such as placement of large woody debris and repair of the headcut on First Swale Creek are in direct response to the immediate need to attain Riparian Management Objectives.

Scope of the Project, Analysis, and Decision Framework The scope of the project and the decision to be made are limited to: salvage of fire-killed trees, green stand thinning (both commercial and small tree), reforestation (planting) of tree seedlings, riparian restoration and wildlife enhancement projects, and a LRMP Amendment to allocate an area to old growth management. Connected actions to be decided upon include: road

Chapter 1 - 22 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1

maintenance and reconstruction, temporary road re-use and about 250 feet of construction, strategies for retention of snags for cavity-dependent species, and activity fuels reduction (slash disposal). Mitigation and monitoring within areas burned by the Grassy Fire of 2004 will also be decided upon. The project is limited to National Forest System lands within the project area.

The analysis of effects in this document includes cumulative effects of other activities (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future). These include a variety of past events and management activities, including the fire itself (2004), past timber harvesting, and road construction. The past events and activities are reflected in the descriptions of the affected environment in Chapter 3, and summarized in Appendix A. Relevant and applicable past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities on private, state, and other federal lands are also considered in the analysis of cumulative effects. This analysis accounts for salvage harvest that has already occurred on the majority of merchantable fire-killed timber on private lands. Key Issues and analysis issues were determined though both public and within-agency comments. Given the issues raised in comments, the number of potential combinations and permutations of alternative strategies, activities, prescriptions, and locations of activities present a potential for several possible alternatives.

The range of alternatives considered in this analysis was influenced by key issues raised by the public, within a framework guided by prospective attainment of purpose and need. The alternatives considered in this analysis represent a reasonable range of approaches to burned area management that are responsive to the stated purpose and need.

The actions proposed in the document are not intended to serve as a general management plan for the area. If the Responsible Official selects an action alternative as a result of the analysis, implementation of the activities specifically identified will begin as soon as possible and without further NEPA documentation. The Responsible Official could also modify a selected alternative to address issues at the time of decision. Additional information about what is within and not within the scope of this proposed action and analysis is provided in the description of the issues and alternatives, including “Alternatives Considered But Not Given Detailed Study” in Chapter 2.

The Responsible Official for this proposal is the Forest Supervisor of the Fremont-Winema National Forests. Based on the analysis in this EA, the Responsible Official will make the following decisions and document them in a Decision Notice:

• The extent, if any, of commercial salvage, commercial thinning, fuels treatments, snag retention, stocking level control, reforestation, transportation system improvements and use, wildlife enhancement projects, and watershed restoration projects to be implemented, and, if implemented, where and how these activities would be conducted.

• Resource protection measures, including mitigation (See “Mitigation and Resource Protection Measures/Monitoring” in Chapter 2).

• Appropriate monitoring requirements to evaluate project implementation.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1 - 23 Chapter 1

• Whether to adopt a site-specific Forest Plan amendment, the nature of the amendment, and whether the amendment would be a significant change to the Forest Plan.

The decision regarding which combination of actions to implement will be determined by comparing how each factor of the project purpose and need is met by each of the alternatives and the manner in which each alternative responds to the key issues raised and public comments received during the analysis. The alternative that the Responsible Official determines will provide the best achievement of prospective results in regard to purpose and need, while accounting for the issues and public comments, will be selected for implementation.

The Responsible Official also decides:

• Whether this action will have a significant impact upon the quality of the human environment and thus require development of an EIS.

• If a selected action alternative is consistent with the Forest Plan.

• If there is a reasonable expectation that anticipated funding is adequate to complete any required monitoring and evaluation of the project.

Public Involvement The NEPA process and the associated Forest Service implementing regulations provide for and encourage open public involvement. The NEPA phase of a proposal begins with public and agency scoping. Scoping is the process used to identify major issues and to determine the extent of environmental analysis necessary for an informed decision to be made concerning a proposed action. Issues are identified, alternatives are developed, and the environmental analysis is conducted and documented.

The Klamath Tribes was initially made aware of the proposal through written requests on September 24, 2004 to Elwood Miller Jr., The Klamath Tribes Natural Resources Director and Gerald Skelton, The Klamath Tribes Culture and Heritage Director, to proceed with expedited public scoping. The request included a brief description of the draft Proposed Action and a map of the project area. The process for expedited scoping in the event of unplanned factors (such as fire) is outlined in a 1999 “Memorandum of Agreement between The Klamath Tribes and the U.S. Forest Service” (U.S. Forest Service and Klamath Tribes 1999). The Klamath Tribes Forester, Will Hatcher, provided notification that the Natural Resource Department concurred with the expedited public scoping.

Once a specific set of management activities was formulated into a proposed action, initial public scoping occurred. The proposed action was contained in a scoping packet that was mailed to the public and agencies for comment on September 28, 2004. The packet was sent to area post offices, adjacent landowners, and government agencies at all levels, conservation and environmental organizations, livestock and timber industry representatives, and other private individuals that are on the Lakeview Ranger District NEPA mailing list. The cover letter that accompanied the September 28, 2004 initial scoping indicated that, following alternative

Chapter 1 - 24 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1

development and analysis, a 30-day public comment period would be announced. The Grassy Fire Project Proposed Action was also available at the following website: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/winema/management/analyses/grassyfire/

This initial scoping process produced responses from:

1) Kyle Haines, Klamath Forest Alliance 2) Chandra LeGue, Oregon Natural Resources Council 3) Mike Anderson, The Wilderness Society (member of the Lakeview Stewardship Group) 4) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nancy Gilbert 5) Rick Brown, Defenders of Wildlife (member of the Lakeview Stewardship Group)

All comments received during initial scoping were read by the ID Team and other staff to ensure consideration of every comment during the analysis process. All mailing lists, scoping documents, and responses are on file at the Lakeview Ranger District office. Responses were also posted at the above website. Using the comments from the public and other agencies, the interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues to address in the analysis.

A full description of the proposed action and a preliminary version of the EA (often referred to in the project file as the “comment EA”) were made available for a 30-day public comment period between January 14, 2005 and February 14, 2005. This included copies being mailed to interested parties, a legal notice in the Klamath Herald and News, and a notice in the Lake County Examiner. During this time the preliminary version of the EA was posted on the Forest website for public review. The proposal has also been listed in two consecutive issues of the quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions (October 2004 and January 2005). On two occasions the Lakeview Stewardship Group included updates on the project on their meeting agendas.

The Forest Service received six separate pieces of mail during the comment period and one shortly after the close of the comment period. All comments received were reviewed. Substantive comments received the focus during this review. Substantive comments are defined by 36 CFR part 215, 215.2 (Definitions) as “Comments that are within the scope of the proposed action, have a direct relationship to the proposed action and include supporting reasons for the Responsible Official to consider” (Federal Register June 4, 2003).

Comment letters were read by the ID Team, other staff, and the Responsible Official. All comments were included in a content analysis process, which compiled, categorized, coded, and captured the full range of public viewpoints and concerns. Content analysis ensures that every comment is considered at some point in the decision process. Content analysis determined that the comment letters included approximately 60 coded categories and 93 scientific or commentary references as substantiation.

The evaluation of the comments is documented in a 32-page tabular document entitled 2005_03_08_Grassy_comment_analysis_and_response_table. This 32-page document is in the project record and is available for review upon request. In the interest of EA length, a summarized version of that table is included in Chapter 4 of this EA. At numerous locations throughout this EA, a notation appears that states, “The preceding (or following) discussion is

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1 - 25 Chapter 1

partially in response to a public comment received during the 30-day comment period for this project.” The references cited in the comment letters were also individually evaluated. A list of citations from the comment letters is included in Chapter 4 (end of “Literature Cited” section). The complete record of the public involvement process is available for review in the project file.

Issues Issues are points of discussion, debate, or dispute about environmental effects that may occur as a result of the proposed action or an alternative. Issues provide focus and influence alternative development, including development of mitigation measures to address these potential environmental effects, particularly potential negative effects. Issues are also used to display differing effects between the proposed action and the alternatives regarding a specific resource element.

The Grassy ID Team, team leader, and responsible official sorted the comments received during initial scoping, from five sources, into categories to help issue tracking and response. The issues are categorized as follows:

• Key issues: Issues used to develop the alternatives and design activities to carry out the action alternatives. Typically, this involved consideration of the issue and potential responses to the issue in varying ways that would still contribute toward meeting Purpose and Need. A summary of effects in relation to the Key Issues is presented in Table 2-10, Chapter 2. A more detailed discussion of these effects in regard to each issue is presented in Chapter 3, Environmental Consequences.

• Analysis issues: Issues addressed in the effects analysis and used to compare alternatives, though they did not result in differing design elements between alternatives. These issues are generally less focused on the elements of Purpose and Need than are the Key Issues. However, due to their importance in providing the Responsible Official with complete information, they are identified in this chapter and analyzed in Chapter 3. A summary of effects in relation to the many of the Analysis Issues is presented in Table 2- 10, Chapter 2.

• Other Issues: Issues, concerns, or opinions that are: 1. Addressed by mitigation or by design features in all action alternatives

2. Addressed through adherence to standard policies (such as Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) Standards and Guidelines, established Memorandum of Agreement, or other policy)

3. Beyond the scope of this project, including issues that provide none or only minimal opportunity to respond to the stated Purpose and Need.

A summary of the content analysis of initial scoping responses and their categorization into issues is located in the Grassy Planning Record.

Chapter 1 - 26 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1

Key Issues The alternatives respond to the following key issues identified during initial project scoping, both public and internal. The key issues are specific to the proposed actions and the project area. Indicators for each issue will help to evaluate how each of the alternatives addresses issues. Indicator evaluations are provided later in this Chapter in the “Comparison of Alternatives” section. Key Issue One: Commercial salvage can adversely impact snag and down wood habitat through the removal of snags. Many wildlife species rely on moderate to high levels of snags and down logs for nesting, roosting, denning, and feeding. The abundance and usefulness of the snag habitat component, particularly for snag and down wood dependent species, could potentially be negatively impacted by salvage operations. Scoping respondents offered the following input or suggestions on this topic:

• All large dead trees (greater than 20 inches dbh) and 50 percent of each size class smaller than 20 inches dbh should be protected. The best snag leave trees are the largest old growth trees, which provide longest lasting habitat.

• Retain sufficient large snags to meet Lakeview Federal Sustained Yield Unit goal to restore “a healthy, diverse, and resilient forest ecosystem that can accommodate human and natural disturbances.” Consider Snag Retention guidelines in Klamath Tribes forest management plan.

• Retain adequate amount of legacy standing and down, especially the largest diameter snags. Fully define hazard tree removal strategy.

• Only salvage trees with no green needles.

Fremont National Forest LRMP standards and guidelines for snags and downed wood are designed to provide the amount of snags and downed wood required for 100 percent of potential population levels of primary cavity excavators, to be determined using the best available science on species requirement. Recent science, represented by “DecAid” (or the “Decayed Wood Advisor for Managing Snags, Partially Dead Trees, and Down Wood for Biodiversity in Washington and Oregon” (Mellen et al., 2002), is one of the information sources that is used to consider potential effects on snag and down wood-dependent species.

See Chapter 3 “Wildlife” for a full discussion of habitat for snag and down wood dependent species.

Issue Indicator No alternative will be developed that does not meet Forest Plan standards for snag retention; however, alternatives may vary in the numbers of snags to be retained. The following indicator will be used to evaluate this issue:

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1 - 27 Chapter 1

Snag numbers retained, by alternative, by size class, within proposed harvest units and within snag retention areas or snag habitat areas (with only small tree thinning) in the Grassy Salvage Project. This will be supplemented with a narrative discussion of effects specific to snag and downed wood dependant species, as well as effects on management indicator species that rely on snags and downed wood.

Key Issue Two: Some public input emphasizes that salvage does not contribute to ecological recovery. Further, that the range of alternatives should include restoration without commercial salvage. This issue embodies public input on which overall approach to post-fire management best accomplishes actual recovery and restoration. In response to the Proposed Action, which represents an active approach to post-fire management, several scoping respondents expressed that overall recovery would be better achieved through an approach that did not include the proposal to commercially salvage fire damaged trees. While this issue was used to influence alternative development, it was done so within a framework that retained consideration for the stated purpose and need of the project. For that reason, no alternative (other than Alternative 1, No-Action) was individually developed and analyzed that did not respond to the purpose of local job support and recovery of commercial timber value. Further discussion of this aspect of this issue can be found in Chapter 2 under the heading “Alternatives and Design Elements Considered But Not Fully Analyzed.” Scoping respondents offered the following input or suggestions on this topic:

• A non-commercial “Restoration Only” alternative, with no road construction, would provide a full range of alternatives. Consider an alternative that includes closing and decommissioning all “non-essential” roads, thinning of plantations and young dense stands around fire-killed areas, improving fish passage, doing bank stabilization projects, culvert work, riparian plantings, fencing out or eliminating grazing, removing noxious weeds, and conducting other activities such as deciduous and aspen planting.

• Consider an alternative based on the Beschta Report (no logging on sensitive sites; protect all live trees; retain all snags greater than 20”dbh and 50 percent of snags in each size class below 20” dbh). Note: The Beschta Report (Beschta, et al., 1995) is centered on the common theme that natural patterns and processes provide the best pathway to recovery, and that, “Human intervention on the post-fire landscape may substantially or completely delay recovery.” In other words, it recommends an approach that is in substantial agreement with a (passive) ‘restoration-only’ alternative, as was suggested during scoping.

• Salvage logging almost never produces ecological benefits.

• Salvage sets back vegetative recovery and contributes to loss of vegetative diversity.

• Salvage logging contributes to the loss of legacy structures.

Chapter 1 - 28 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1

Issue Indicators For this project, recovery is defined as the long-term development of sustainable LOS forest stands with structural conditions closer to HRV. Recovery and maintenance of sustainable forests in areas that have burned depend first on reforestation occurring, either through natural means or planting, and then maintaining conditions that sustain the forest through time (i.e. do not contribute to uncharacteristic fire behavior).

The following indicator will be used to evaluate each of the alternatives regarding the vegetation aspect of this issue:

Acres, by alternative, on which a combination of actions would occur that increase the potential for achieving sustainable old forest conditions. Such conditions are discussed as “reference conditions.” Reference conditions are described as low-density ponderosa pine, characterized by large trees with few small trees.

The following indicator will be used to evaluate each of the alternatives regarding the fuels aspect of this issue:

Does Fuel Model 12 occur during the expected succession of fuel conditions that would follow implementation of a given alternative?

Analysis Issues and Other Issues Other than the issues described above, several issues or concerns were raised during project scoping, either externally or internally, which were not used as key elements to develop major differences in the alternatives. In some cases these led to the adoption of design elements or mitigations that were common to all action alternatives. The effect of the alternatives regarding these issues was considered during the analysis and is disclosed in Chapter 3 “Environmental Consequences.”

Several of these issues, for instance “Wildlife,” represent specific aspects of a general resource area that differ from the elements that were captured above under “Key Issues.”

Issue: Other Wildlife Habitat, (TES and MIS species) could be negatively impacted by the proposed action (salvage logging, thinning, roads).

Scoping respondents offered input, concern, or suggestions pertaining to:

• Management Indicator Species (MIS) - all • Mule Deer (an MIS) • Northern Goshawk (an MIS) • American Pine Marten (an MIS) • Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species (TES)

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1 - 29 Chapter 1

• The need to use on-the-ground wildlife surveys to develop Alternatives • Helicopter logging can disrupt wildlife • Negative effects on wildlife from existing roads

Issue Indicators • For Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species - In addition to the narrative comparison of effects, a determination of effect:

Threatened or Endangered Species • NE = No Effect from the project on the species or critical habitat. • LAA = The project may affect and is likely to adversely affect the species or critical habitat. • NLAA = The project may affect the species or critical habitat, but those effects are not likely to adversely affect the species or critical habitat • BE = The project would benefit a species or its habitat.

Candidate or Sensitive Species • NI = No Impact • MIIH = May impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species.

• For MIS - A narrative, comparative discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects.

Issue: Protect, maintain, or increase old growth. Analyze effects on old growth dependent species

Scoping respondents offered the following input or suggestions on this topic:

• Maintain or increase old growth. Use LRMP amendment to allocate new old growth area.

• Avoid commercial harvest and roads in late-seral forests.

• Analyze effects on old growth dependent species (goshawk, bats, Canada lynx, *woodpeckers,*pine marten, California wolverine, great gray owl, pygmy nuthatch, bald eagle). * = MIS

Issue Indicators A narrative, comparative discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects.

Issue: Salvage, thinning, and roads can adversely affect water quality, fish habitat, and riparian condition and diminish proper watershed function. Salvage logging and connected actions can adversely impact soils.

Chapter 1 - 30 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1

Scoping respondents offered the following input, suggestions, or concerns pertaining to this topic:

• Use BMPs, mitigations, channel stabilization, and other projects to protect water quality and fisheries • Negative effects from thinning on watershed

• Negative watershed effects from temporary road construction

• Identify temporary road locations, as well as road reconstruction locations

• Negative effects on water quality and riparian habitat from salvage

• Salvage and road construction does not contribute to Lakeview Federal Sustained Yield Unit goal to “restore the land’s capacity to absorb, store, and distribute quality water”

• Ground based logging can damage soils

• Negative effects (including cumulative) on soils from proposed activities causing erosion, compaction, displacement, disruption of natural soil recovery processes and loss of nutrients.

• Emphasize use of existing landings and skid trails. Avoid new landings on sensitive soils. Keep landings small.

Issue Indicators • Watershed Function - determination of effect (Improve; Maintain; Degrade) on the functionality of: Uplands Roads Soil Riparian Vegetation and Bank Stability Channel Condition Pool frequency, Large Wood Frequency Temperature Fine Sediment

• Soil Compaction: Percent of potential increase. Is the increase, if any, within guidelines? (Yes or No?)

• INFISH Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs): Would or would not retard/prevent attainment of (RMOs)? Would or would not adversely affect native fish?

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1 - 31 Chapter 1

These issue indicators are supplemented by a narrative, comparative discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects

Issue: The proposed actions (salvage and thinning) have the potential to increase the risk of future wildland fire.

Scoping respondents offered the following input or suggestions on this topic:

• Salvage increases fine fuels (fire risk)

• Logging removes large wood that absorbs water and serves as a reservoir during dryer summer months.

• Prevention of reburn (through salvage) is a questionable premise

• Treat harvest slash and small trees to reduce fuels

• Thinning increases risk of fire (decreases effectiveness of shaded fuel break)

Issue Indicators • Occurrence of Fuel Model 12 in the expected succession of fuel conditions? (Yes/No)

• A narrative, comparative discussion of effects, including fuel model analysis

Issue: The activities in the proposed action could contribute to the spread of noxious weeds and have a negative impact on sensitive plant species or vegetative composition.

Scoping respondents offered the following input or suggestions on this topic:

• Salvage contributes to spread of noxious weeds

• Monitor and control noxious weeds

• Sensitive plant species could be negatively effected

• Protect sensitive plants populations from noxious weeds, compaction and erosion by excluding project work from sites

• Use native seed in reforestation

Issue Indicators • A narrative, comparative discussion of effects

Chapter 1 - 32 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1

Issue: Unroaded Areas, specifically an area in the Honey Creek canyon (reported as 1,258 acres by public input), could be adversely impacted.

Scoping respondents offered the following input or suggestions on this topic:

• Avoid timber harvest and roads in unroaded areas greater than 1,000 acres

• Prepare an EIS if timber harvest would occur in an inventoried roadless or uninventoried unroaded areas

Issue Indicators • Acres within the identified unroaded area where logging, thinning, or planting would occur

• Miles of road improved, constructed or used within the identified unroaded area

• A narrative, comparative discussion of effects

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 1 - 33

Chapter 2

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Introduction ...... 2-2 Alternative Development (Background) ...... 2-2 Alternatives...... 2-2 Precision of Information...... 2-3 Alternative 1 – No Action ...... 2-3 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...... 2-5 Alternative 3 ...... 2-11 Mitigations and Resource Protection Measures/Monitoring...... 2-14 Alternatives and Design Elements Eliminated from Detailed Study ...... 2-19 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Study ...... 2-19 Mitigations or Other Measures Considered But Not Adopted ...... 2-24 Summary Comparison of Alternatives ...... 2-34

Chapter 2

CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

Introduction This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Grassy Fire Salvage project. A summary of the manner in which the alternatives respond to the purpose and need and to the issues, followed by an issue-related effects comparison, is displayed at the end of this chapter.

Alternative Development (Background) Alternatives were developed to respond to the purpose and need in accordance with the Forest Plan, as amended. All alternatives that were developed and analyzed in the Grassy Fire Salvage project, including the snag distribution strategies contained in those alternatives, are fully compliant with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, as amended. In developing snag retention strategies, the ID Team used a planning process that focused on adherence to existing land management planning frameworks and guidelines, while consulting current scientific documentation on the natural systems within the analysis area. This consultation is documented by citations throughout the text and in the References section of this EA.

Alternatives Three alternatives were considered, fully developed, and analyzed. These are: • Alternative 1 – No Action. • Alternative 2 – Proposed Action • Alternative 3 – Alternative to the Proposed Action. In this alternative no commercial thinning or salvage would occur in three predominantly green stands (Alternative 2 units 12, 13 and 14). In addition (in the salvage units 1-9 and 11) the determination of which trees would be harvested for salvage, if they are greater than 21 inches dbh, is modified from Alternative 2. In response to Key Issue #1, in Alternative 3, for trees greater than 21 inches dbh, only those trees with no green needles discernable from the ground would be harvested. The alternatives were developed based on varying responses to the key issues discussed in Chapter 1, with actions that respond to meeting purpose and need and design features and mitigation requirements related to the issues and public concerns. The following major actions are discussed, particularly as they differentiate the alternatives: • Commercial Salvage • Commercial Thinning • Fuels Treatments

Chapter 2 - 2 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2

• Snag Retention • Stocking Level Control (small tree thinning) • Reforestation (planting) • Transportation System Improvements and Use • Wildlife Enhancement Projects • Watershed Restoration Projects • Old Growth Management • Mitigation and Resource Protection Measures

Precision of Information Acres, miles, other quantifiable amounts, and mapped unit boundaries used to describe these alternatives are based on the best available information. Information used in designing the alternatives was generated from a mix of extensive field reconnaissance (from September 2004 until November 2004), use of ortho-photos, of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology, and various resource-specific databases.

Ongoing management practices (such as road maintenance, fire suppression, and personal use firewood cutting) would continue with the selection of this alternative.

Other future activities including road management (decommissioning and closure under the existing Access Plan) and noxious weed preventions and control (under the existing Forest-wide EA) would also occur. These activities are authorized by recent existing decisions. The North Warner Access and Travel Management Plan authorizes 2.0 miles of road decommissioning (or obliteration) and 3.9 miles of road blocking within the Grassy Project area.

Activities that fall under fire suppression rehabilitation planning would be completed in the near future. In general, this includes rehabilitation of firelines and drainage improvements on roads that were used during suppression.

Specific grazing management adjustments, beginning in 2005, would be implemented through provisions of existing permits that allow incorporation of necessary adjustments into annual operating plans. During the recovery period, planned grazing management techniques to minimize cattle use and allow vegetative recovery in the burned area include the use of an allotment rider.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2 - 3 Chapter 2

Livestock will be deferred from the burn area until late September when livestock will move through the south end of the Grassy area as they return to private land.

Design Elements of Alternative 1 - Commercial Salvage None. Commercial Thinning None.

Fuels Treatments None. All fuels, both live and dead trees, would be left in place.

Snag Retention All snags would be retained in the short term (until natural down fall).

Stocking Level Control (small tree thinning) None

Reforestation (planting) Areas would be left to reforest naturally; no trees would be planted.

Transportation System Improvements and Use None.

Wildlife Enhancement Projects None.

Watershed Restoration Projects None, other than those authorized by the existing fire suppression rehabilitation plan. This includes seven locations at which road drainage improvements will be implemented.

Old growth management No change from the existing allocations.

Given the existence of existing decisions and currently available authorities, Alternative 1 is similar in many respects to the “non-commercial restoration-only” alternative suggested during initial project scoping. As can be seen in the following table, this is particularly true in regard to those design elements that were suggested by the Klamath Forest Alliance as part of a “non- commercial restoration only” alternative during initial public scoping.

Chapter 2 - 4 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2

Table 2-1: Comparison of Non-Commercial Restoration-Only Alternative with Alternative 1 Suggested Design Element of “Non-Commercial Restoration-Only” Alternative Similarity to Alternative 1 No salvage Same as No Action No road construction Same as No Action Same as No Action, because the activity is under Closing and decommissioning all “non- existing authority (North Warner Access and essential” roads Travel Management Plan) Not a feature of the No Action, but authorization of this activity (included in Alternatives 2 and 3) Thinning of plantations and young may be achievable through a decision dense stands around fire-killed areas memo/categorical exclusion No identified need in this area. If needed, authorization of this activity may be achievable Improving fish passage through a decision memo/ categorical exclusion No identified need in this area. If needed, authorization of this activity may be achievable Doing bank stabilization projects through a decision memo/ categorical exclusion Same as No Action, because the activity is under existing authority. The identified improvement on Road 012 (drivable rock drain) is planned under Culvert work existing fire suppression rehabilitation plans No identified need in this area. If needed, authorization of this activity may be achievable Riparian plantings through a decision memo/ categorical exclusion Same as No Action because this can be implemented through provisions of existing Fencing out or eliminating grazing permits Same as No Action, because the activity is under Removing noxious weed existing authority Not a feature of the No Action, but authorization of this activity (similar to actions included in Other activities, such as deciduous and Alternatives 2 and 3) may be achievable through a aspen planting decision memo/categorical exclusion

Analysis of Alternative 1, because of its similarities with a “non-commercial restoration-only” alternative, provides the opportunity to compare and disclose information to the Responsible Official and to the public regarding the Key Issue: “Some public input emphasizes that salvage does not contribute to ecological recovery. Further, that the range of alternatives should include restoration without commercial salvage.”

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action This alternative represents a more detailed version of the initial proposed action, presented to the public for scoping on September 28, 2004. As additional reconnaissance occurred, formulation of

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2 - 5 Chapter 2 additional design-specifics became practical. This alternative is in response to the purposes and needs identified in Chapter 1.

Design Elements of Alternative 2 Commercial Salvage This alternative includes the harvesting of burned trees on approximately 589 acres, in 10 harvest units. In addition, burned trees in three predominately green units (see Commercial Thinning below), totaling 61 acres would be harvested. See also Table 2-10 and the map of Alternative 2 (Figure 2-1). Estimated timber volumes and logging systems, by unit, are reported in Table 2-2.

Harvest would occur as soon as possible, likely beginning in the summer of 2005, to capture as much timber value as possible. Ponderosa pine with less than 30 percent of the green crown that existed prior to the fire, or 50 percent or more of the bole scorched, would be considered dead and eligible for salvage harvest, with no diameter limits, if not reserved for retention for habitat or other resource reasons (see Snag Retention, below). White Fir with less than 50 percent of the green crown that existed prior to the fire; or 30 percent or more of the bole scorched, would be considered dead and eligible for salvage harvest, with no diameter limits, if not reserved for retention for habitat or other resource reasons (see Snag Retention, below). White fir differs from ponderosa pine in that it is shade tolerant and extremely susceptible to being killed by fire because of its thin bark. See Chapters 1 and 3 for additional discussion on the determination of the salvage guidelines. The remaining 816 acres of National Forest System lands within the fire perimeter would not receive any commercial harvest treatments.

Based on past experience and estimated timing of harvest (approximately 11 to 14 months following the fire event) it is expected that trees down to a 9 inch diameter breast height (dbh) would be included in the salvage timber sale(s). Both of the Lakeview RD post fire salvage sales that have occurred in the past 2 to 3 years have included timber sale contract utilization standards down to 9 inches dbh. Both sales operated though much of the summer following the fire without adjustment from that. In the late summer and fall, as deterioration advanced (now 13+ months after the fires) the contract standard for sawlogs, based on factors relating to merchantability (percent soundness), resulted in some trees between 9” and about 12” to be determined not merchantable (personal communication Ron Perozzi, South Zone Sale Administration, 2005) (the preceding discussion is partially in response to a public comment received during the 30 day comment period for this project).

All roads that are used for timber haul would receive road maintenance in accordance with the timber sale contract, including dust abatement. All roads that are used for timber haul or other contractor access are subject to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. Within units, hazard tree felling is included in the salvage volume.

The amount of hazard tree felling is typically difficult to accurately estimate. However, based on reconnaissance of the project area and of the haul route, it is expected that between 10 and 20 MBF outside of units would be felled to achieve hazard abatement, including both live and dead trees. The hazard is approximately equally divided between areas outside the units (but inside the sale area) and areas along the external haul routes. This estimate is based on personal communication with Fremont-Winema National Forest South Zone Timber Program Manager.

Chapter 2 - 6 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2

The criteria that would determine whether hazard tree abatement would be accomplished through “fall and leave” vs. “fall and remove” would be based on LRMP standards and guidelines for down wood. In all action alternatives, fall and remove trees could be “included timber” in a timber sale by approval under timber sale contract provisions. Fall and remove would be applied only to trees in areas that are in excess of Standards and Guidelines (80 lineal feet of downed wood per acre on at least 40 acres)

Commercial Thinning Harvesting of both dead and live trees is proposed in 3 units (units 12, 13, and 14), totaling 61 acres. These areas can be described as having pockets of dead trees intermingled with pockets of predominately green trees. Salvage of dead trees would use the same guidelines as described above. These 61 acres of predominately or intermingled green, forested stands would be thinned to enhance development of sustainable conditions Late/Old structural (LOS) conditions. Commercial thinning would retain all live trees 21” dbh and greater, and thin small/medium size trees (7 or 9 to 20.9”) dbh. In pockets of predominately live (or green) trees thinning would be targeted to basal area of 60 square feet.

Table 2-2: Commercial Harvest Units – Alternative 2 Est. Volume Logging Unit Number Est. Acres (MBF) System General Rx 1 364 3,373 Ground-based Salvage 2 2 26 Ground-based Salvage 3 9 64 Ground-based Salvage 4 37 343 Ground-based Salvage 5 8 88 Ground-based Salvage 6 67 124 Ground-based Salvage 7 25 232 Ground-based Salvage 8 41 380 Helicopter Salvage 9 33 305 Helicopter Salvage 11 3 9 Ground-based Salvage 12 23 98 Ground-based Harv Green w Salv 13 23 217 Ground-based Harv Green w Salv 14 15 62 Helicopter Harv Green w Salv Total Harvest Area = 650 acres Estimated Salvage Volume = 4,944 MBF Estimated Volume in Predominantly Green Units = 377 MBF Total Estimated Volume = 5,321 MBF Logging Systems: Helicopter – 3 units, 89 acres Ground-Based – 10 units, 561 acres

No commercial harvest is proposed within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs)

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2 - 7 Chapter 2 down to 9 inches dbh, would provide the initial step of fuels reduction. In all ground-based units, trees 21 inches dbh or less would be whole tree yarded, meaning they would be yarded in one piece with tops and limbs attached. In all units except helicopter, for trees greater than 21 inches dbh, tops would be left attached to the last log and yarded to the landing (unless they break off). Due to the nature of the fire in many areas there are few remaining needles and reduced quantities of small limbs remaining that would contribute to post-salvage fuel loadings. Limbs and tops piled at the landing would be burned, when in prescription, at the landings. About 25 acres of landing area is anticipated. By removing the 9” and above standing dead material in units 1 through 11, additional ground fuel treatments would not be needed. A 20-ton per acre criteria was set for determining the need to treat natural fuels.

The Stocking Level Control (small tree thinning) described below also provides an initial step toward fuels reduction. The activity fuels created from the stocking level controls outside the timber sale units, 73 acres, and the pre-commercial thinning in units 12, 13, and 14 would be treated by lop and scatter. The lop and scatter method of fuels treatment would require further treatment by either the use of prescribed fire, as a connected action, or crushing where slope and soil conditions allow. Crushing would only occur in areas with soil types and slopes found to be compatible with the treatment. All crushing areas will be approved by the project hydrologist/soil scientist. Crushing would be limited to slopes less than 35 percent.

Snag Retention Strictly speaking, this is not an “action.” It is not, for instance, snag-creation, which would be an action. Snag retention is a design element. However, varying responses to the key issue of “Commercial salvage can adversely impact snag and down wood habitat through the removal of snags” were an acknowledged part of alternative development process from the beginning of the planning process. These considerations have remained central through the design and analysis of the alternatives. For that reason, the snag retention strategies that are included in the alternatives are presented here under the “actions” heading.

Snags would be retained to meet “Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment 2” (1995) Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for providing for 100 percent of potential population levels of primary cavity excavators. Retention of snags for snag and down wood dependent species would be achieved through two primary strategies: 1.) Specifically selected no-salvage/no treatment “snag retention areas” in proximity to harvest units; and 2.) Retention in the interior of harvest units. Snags that are representative of the species mix of a given site would be selected. In addition, other areas of no-salvage or other treatment contribute to habitat for snag and down wood dependent species. These areas are not quantified in this section, but instead will be discussed for their effect, in the Wildlife section of Chapter 3. See the analysis presented in Chapter 3 for unit- by-unit snag retention quantities.

DecAID (the Decayed Wood Advisor for Managing Snags, Partially Dead Trees, and Down Wood for Biodiversity in Washington and Oregon - Mellen et al., 2003) is considered by many to be the “best science” currently available, and it synthesizes and summarizes available information on snags and down wood quite well. The information from DecAID, as identified in Appendix C of

Chapter 2 - 8 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2

this EA was considered in determining the appropriate number of snags to retain and the amount of down wood to retain.

Table 2-3: Snag Retention – Alternative 2 Snags >10- Snags 15-19.9” Location Acres 14.9” DBH DBH Snags >20” DBH Within Proposed Harvest Units 650 879 751 449 Snag Retention Areas in Proximity to Units 94 1,017 717 717

Total* 744 1,896 1,468 1,166 *The above numbers reflect snag retention only within harvest units or snag retention areas. Snags (uninventoried) within the 692 acres that are outside of the above areas, but inside the project area, would also remain.

Large Woody Debris - During implementation of salvage harvest, all existing down wood would be left onsite at levels necessary to meet the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.

Stocking Level Control (small tree thinning) Within Units 12, 13, and 14 there are areas of high density, multi-storied mixed conifer stands that are still predominately green. Thinning of small, understory trees is proposed within these three timber sale units, totaling approximately 61 acres, plus 73 acres outside of timber sale units. Thinning would favor ponderosa pine trees and would be implemented on an average 20 foot x 20 foot spacing.

Reforestation (planting) Planting would occur within all areas of timber salvage (589 acres) as well as other areas of young plantations that experienced loss of stocking due to fire (160 acres). An estimated total of 749 acres would be planted with ponderosa pine tree seedlings at a rate of approximately 250 trees per acre. This rate reflects the relatively high rate of seedling mortality expected in this location in the northeastern Warners. The South Warner project of three years ago experienced approximately 50 percent mortality of seedlings.

Transportation System Improvements and Use No new specified road construction is proposed in association with any of the management activities included in this alternative. The following existing transportation routes within the project area, displayed on the Alternative maps, would be used to facilitate timber haul: Roads 124, 125, 126, 128, 133, 134, 135, and 136 (see Figure 2-1). The current condition of these roads varies between closed, opened by fire suppression activity and opened prior to fire suppression. In all cases an existing roadbed is present. Necessary routine maintenance, including re-opening, would precede their use for this project.

In addition, transportation system needs include adding “padding “(using dirt or rock) to facilitate haul, brushing and drainage improvements as needed (see table below). These drainage

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2 - 9 Chapter 2 improvements have been planned and authorized under existing fire suppression rehabilitation plans, but are listed here for information purposes.

Table 2-4: Transportation System Needs Road Total Reconstruction Number Length Miles Proposed Road Action

3615352 3.069 0.2 1 drain dip, relay cmp Drain dips-3, reshape ditch, install 3720012 3.694 3.4 rock ford, reshape ditchouts

3615013 0.4 Pad over boulders, drainage

3720125 0.13 0.13 Brush, cmp in irrigation ditch Subgrade re-enforcement, creek 3720132 0.1 crossing

3720136 0.6 Brushed, scatter

TOTAL 4.83

Approximately 300 feet of temporary road would be used for access into Unit 6. This temporary road would be on the existing roadbed of an unclassified road. One new temporary road, about 250 feet in length, is expected. This road would provide access to a landing location in Unit 5 (in the NW 1/4, SW 1/4 of Section 32). It would be entirely within timber sale unit.

All road-related activities would follow the direction contained in BMPs (Appendix B). Following project activity, management of all roads in the project area would follow direction contained in the existing Road Access and Management Plan. Under the decisions documented by that plan, this would mean that within the project area, 2.0 miles of road would be obliterated, 3.9 miles would be blocked and 5.7 miles would remain open.

External haul routes would be as follows:

Table 2-5: Haul Routes

Haul Route Units 3615 All 3616 6, 7, 13 3720 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12

The following rock quarries have existing stockpiles of surfacing that may be used as needed for maintenance or reconstruction:

• Vee Lake Quarry - located at T36S, R22E, Section 30, SWSE. • Can Springs Quarry - located at T37S, R21E, Section 24, SWNW.

Chapter 2 - 10 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2

Wildlife Enhancement Projects Within proposed timber sale unit 12 there are two approximate ¼-acre stands of aspen that would receive enhancement work through the thinning of green competing conifers (less than 21” dbh) in their immediate vicinity.

Watershed Restoration Projects Stream restoration work would include repair of an existing headcut in First Swale Creek and the felling of up to 35 fire killed trees into the stream channel of First Swale Creek to increase large woody debris. The headcut repair would use an excavator to re-shape the site, followed by the placement of wood and rock.

Old growth management A non-significant Forest Plan amendment to the Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1989), as amended, would be implemented to meet the need for desired old- growth habitat conditions, as described in the Forest Plan, for lands allocated to Management Area 14 – Old-Growth Dependent Species Habitat. The project area includes two designated MA 14 parcels. The Forest Plan, on page 197, states “Salvage operations will take place only when catastrophic events occur (such as wildfire, insect infestations, windthrow, etc.), and the affected old growth stand is no longer considered suitable old growth habitat. A new old growth stand should be delineated to replace the original habitat.”

The fire affected one of these parcels, PPGOGO214051N, to the extent that it is no longer suitable old growth habitat. Approximately 6 acres of this parcel is included in proposed timber sale unit 9. This 6-acre portion of PPGOGO214051N would be re-designated as MA 5. The remainder of PPGOGO214051N, 24 acres that are in the RHCA of Honey Creek, would be re-designated as MA 15 (Fish and Wildlife Habitat/Water Quality). Another parcel, 59 acres designated as PANANA200161N, which is about 1.3 miles southeast of PPGOGO214051N, would be re- designated as MA 14 (it is currently identified as available old growth replacement).

Mitigation and Resource Protection Measures/Monitoring See later section in this Chapter.

Alternative 3 This alternative is in response to the Key Issue: “Commercial salvage can adversely impact snag and down wood habitat through the removal of snags.”

Alternative 3 is designed to retain a greater number of snags than Alternative 2. It drops commercial harvest (salvage or green) in the three predominately green units (Units 12, 13, and 14), though it retains the stocking level control (small tree thinning) in those units. For the remaining units (1 through 9 and 11), trees (if 21 inches or greater dbh) are eligible for salvage harvest only if they have no green needles remaining.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2 - 11 Chapter 2

Design Elements of Alternative 3 Commercial Salvage This would be the same as Alternative 2, except for trees that are greater than 20.9 inches dbh. If trees greater than 20.9 inches dbh have any green needles remaining, discernable from the ground, they would be retained (not salvage harvested). For trees 20.9 inches dbh or smaller, the salvage harvest guidelines are the same as for Alternative 2.

The same hazard tree considerations that were discussed under Alternative 2 would apply.

Table 2-6: Commercial Harvest Units – Alternative 3

Est. Volume Logging Unit Number Est. Acres (MBF) System General Rx

1 364 3306 Ground-based Salvage 2 2 25 Ground-based Salvage 3 9 63 Ground-based Salvage 4 37 336 Ground-based Salvage 5 8 86 Ground-based Salvage 6 67 122 Ground-based Salvage 7 25 227 Ground-based Salvage 8 41 372 Helicopter Salvage 9 33 299 Helicopter Salvage 11 3 9 Ground-based Salvage Total Harvest Area = 589 acres Estimated Salvage Volume = 4,845 MBF Estimated Volume in Predominantly Green Units = 0 MBF Total Estimated Volume = 4,845 MBF Logging Systems: Helicopter – 2 units, 74acres Ground-Based – 8 units, 515 acres

No commercial harvest is proposed within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs)

Commercial Thinning None. Units 12,13 and 14 (from Alternative 2), which contain pockets of dead trees intermingled with pockets of predominately green trees, would not be commercial harvested (salvage or green). In Alternative 3, these units, totaling 61 acres, become snag habitat areas in which only small tree thinning would occur.

Fuels Treatments By using whole tree yarding (WTY) and yarding with tops-attached-to-last-log (YTA), the commercial timber sale operation itself, which is expected to include the salvage of dead trees down to 9 inches dbh, would provide the initial step of fuels reduction. In all ground-based units, trees 21 inches dbh or less would be whole tree yarded, meaning they would be yarded in one piece with tops and limbs attached. In all units, except helicopter, for trees greater than 21 inches

Chapter 2 - 12 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2 dbh, tops would be left attached to the last log and yarded to the landing (unless they break off). Limbs and tops piled at the landing would be burned, when in prescription, at the landings. About 25 acres of landing area is anticipated. By removing the 9” and above standing dead material in units 1 through 11, additional ground fuel treatments would not be needed. A 20-ton per acre criteria was set for determining the need to treat natural fuels.

The Stocking Level Control (small tree thinning) described below also provides an initial step toward fuels reduction. The activity fuels created from the stocking level controls outside the timber sale units, a total of 134 acres, would be treated by lop and scatter. The lop and scatter method of fuels treatment would require further treatment by either the use of prescribed fire, as a connected action, or crushing where slope and soil conditions allow. Crushing would only occur in areas with soil types and slopes found to be compatible with the treatment. All crushing areas will be approved by the project hydrologist/soil scientist. Crushing would be limited to slopes less than 35 percent.

Snag Retention Snags would be retained to meet “Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment 2” (1995) Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for providing for 100 percent of potential population levels of primary cavity excavators. Retention of snags for snag and down wood dependent species would be achieved through two primary strategies: 1.) Specifically selected no-salvage/no treatment “snag retention areas” or “snag habitat areas” (with only small tree thinning) in proximity to harvest units; and 2.) Retention in the interior of harvest units. Snags that are representative of the species mix of a given site would be selected. In addition, other areas of no-salvage or other treatment contribute to habitat for snag and down wood dependent species. These areas are not quantified in this section, but instead will be discussed for their effect, in the Wildlife section of Chapter 3. See the analysis presented in Chapter 3 for unit-by-unit snag retention quantities.

The information from DecAID, as identified in Appendix C of this EA was considered in determining the appropriate number of snags to retain and the amount of down wood to retain.

Table 2-7: Snag Retention – Alternative 3 Snags >10-14.9” Snags 15-19.9” Location Acres DBH DBH Snags >20” DBH Within Proposed Harvest Units 589 836 682 461 Snag Retention/Snag Habitat Areas in Proximity to Units 155 1562 1872 956

Total* 744 2,398 2,554 1,417 *The above numbers reflect snag retention only within harvest units or snag retention/snag habitat areas. Snags (uninventoried) within the 692 acres that are outside of the above areas, but inside the project area, would also remain.

Large Woody Debris - Same as Alternative 2

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2 - 13 Chapter 2

Stocking Level Control (small tree thinning) Alternative 3 drops commercial harvest in Units 12, 13, and 14. These 61 acres of high density, multi-storied mixed conifer stands would still receive stocking level control (small tree thinning) with Alternative 3. Additionally, the same 73 acres of stocking level control (outside of timber sale units) that are included in Alternative 2 would be thinned in Alternative 3, for a total of 134 acres of stocking level control. Thinning would favor ponderosa pine trees and would be implemented on an average 20 foot x 20 foot spacing.

Reforestation (planting) Same as Alternative 2.

Transportation System Improvements and Use Same as Alternative 2.

Wildlife Enhancement Projects Same as Alternative 2

Watershed Restoration Projects Same as Alternative 2.

Old Growth Management Same as Alternative 2.

Mitigation and Resource Protection Measures/Monitoring See below.

Mitigations and Resource Protection Measures/Monitoring The following design features and/or mitigation measures are an integral part of Alternatives 2 and 3. Monitoring strategies are also included below, by resource area.

Wildlife 1. No activities (including, but not limited to, logging, hauling, road reconstruction/rehabilitation, or other major activity) would occur during the prairie falcon breeding season (April 1 – August 1), unless a Wildlife Biologist determines that no prairie falcons are attempting to nest by June 1. Monitoring of a potential nest site will occur in the spring of 2005. If it is determined that prairie falcons are not nesting, then the limited operating period (LOP) can be released with a letter to the file. If prairie falcons are found to be nesting, all activities would be restricted until August 1 as follows:

• no ground activities within a ¼ mile of the eyrie • no helicopter activities within ½ mile of the eyrie

Chapter 2 - 14 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2

• no road use within ¼ mile of the eyrie by agency or contractor personnel • no personnel either agency or contractors within ¼ mile of the eyrie • no reforestation within ¼ mile of the eyrie

If an active eyrie is located in this area, the following restrictions would be applied until after August 1:

• No harvest in units 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 • No harvest in unit 1 west of the main ridge and 200-feet east of the main ridge • Use of the 012 road by all vehicles within ¼-mile of the nest would be prohibited

See Chapter 3, Wildlife section, “Prairie Falcon” heading for additional detail.

2. If an active raptor nest is found during project design, layout, or implementation, Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines would be followed and the South Zone Wildlife Biologist would be contacted. The Forest Plan (page 108) states “Major activities such as logging and road construction adjacent (300 yards) to active raptor nests, should be postponed until young have fledged (usually around July 30).”

3. Should any listed endangered or threatened species be found during project activities within, adjacent, or near enough to the project that activities could be a disturbance, activities will be halted until their effects can be determined and their significance assessed.

Fisheries and Watershed 1. No activity would occur within any RHCA with the following exceptions: a) watershed restoration projects and, b) potential road drainage improvements. Standard RHCA widths will be used as follows:

(Category 1) Perennial Fish Bearing Streams – Honey Creek • The area on either side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream channel to the top of the inner gorge, or the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of two site-potential trees, or 300 feet slope distance (600 feet, including both sides of the stream channel), which ever is greatest.

(Category 2) Perennial non-Fish Bearing Streams – First Swale Creek • The area on either side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream channel to the top of the inner gorge, or the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 150 feet slope distance (300 feet, including both sides of the stream channel), which ever is greatest.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2 - 15 Chapter 2

(Category 3) Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater than 1 acre • The body of water or wetland and the area to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, or to the extent of the seasonally saturated soil intermittent stream channel or wetland, and the area to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of one site potential tree, or 150 feet slope distance from the edge of the wetland, whichever is greatest.

(Category 4) Intermittent streams and wetlands less than 1 acre • The intermittent stream channel and the area to the top of the inner gorge. • The intermittent stream channel or wetland and the area to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation. • The area to the edge of the channel or wetland to a distance equal to the height of one-half site potential tree, or 50 feet slope distance, which ever is greatest.

2. All instream work would be conducted between July 1st and September 15th, as recommended by the Oregon Guidelines for Timing of In-Water Work to Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources (ODFW 2000).

3. The guidelines in the Fremont Soil Productivity Guide (USDA, 2000 and 2002) shall be followed for the protection of soil during any project activity (See Appendix B – Mitigation Details, for the complete content of the Soil Productivity Guide).

4. Best Management Practices – All roadwork associated with implementation of Grassy Fire Salvage will follow the Roads Best Management Practices (Fremont National Forest Supplement; Appendix B). All timber sale-associated work will follow the Timber Sale Best Management Practices (Fremont National Forest Supplement; Appendix B). Included in these BMPs are requirements to rehabilitate all temporary roads, either through recontouring, in the event a cut slope/fill slope has been created, or through subsoiling or scarification to a depth of eight inches. In addition, landings and skid trails that exhibit characteristics of compaction (i.e. platy structure) will be subsoiled or scarified to a depth of eight inches following coordination between Forest Service employees representing sale administration, the noxious weed program, and soils/hydrology.

5. Crushing will only occur in areas with soil types and slopes found to be compatible with the treatment. All crushing areas will be approved by the project hydrologist/soil scientist. Crushing will be limited to slopes less than 35 percent.

While formal sediment monitoring is not scheduled, follow-up reconnaissance during and after logging will occur. The recent Grizzly Fire/Cub Salvage project on the Lakeview Ranger District provides an example. Post-operation photos and field observations by the fisheries biologist for that salvage project verified that the same protective measures incorporated into the Grassy project design were effective in protecting all stream channels within the project area, ranging from small intermittent channels to perennial fish-bearing streams from adverse effects. This included both

Chapter 2 - 16 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2

Helphenstein Creek and Muddy Creek (the preceding information is partially in response to a public comment received during the 30 day comment period for this project).

On-going long-term monitoring that would pertain to fisheries and watershed includes grazing effectiveness monitoring which began in 1997 to determine the effect of grazing standards on stream channel conditions. Preliminary results of this effectiveness monitoring show that application and adherence to grazing standards has lead to improving stream channel and fish habitat conditions in grazed areas, which is the case in Honey Creek.

Other on-going range monitoring in the area includes utilization and stubble height monitoring. This monitoring has indicated that standards for the Honey Creek Allotment have been satisfactory since 1995. The two monitoring locations in the project vicinity, which are located in meadows, were not burned by the 2004 Grassy Fire.

Improvements to Protect 1. The existing water diversion and ditch, which removes water from Honey Creek, will be protected during all operations. Use of existing Road 125, which crosses this ditch, and accesses parts of Unit 5, will occur in a manner that does not effect the functioning of the ditch.

Noxious Weeds (Site-Specific Application of Noxious Weed Prevention Policies – Authorized under existing Integrated Weed Management (IWM) Decision Notice)

1. Existing noxious weed sites will be treated in 2005. This shall be coordinated through the Forest weed coordinators. Harvesting personnel, road maintenance personnel, and Forest Service staff will be provided a map on weed locations within the area. Any newly found sites shall also be avoided.

2. Areas infested with weeds will not be used as log deck landings.

3. Preventive measures to be included in timber contract provisions are:

• Prevent future noxious weed infestations by avoiding areas of infestation when possible during activities.

• Use timber sale contract provisions for requiring all off-road logging and construction equipment to be free of noxious weeds prior to moving onto the sale area and/or moving between units on the sale area that are known to contain noxious weeds. Specifically, use C (T) 6.35: Equipment Cleaning (July 2001) or the latest available. This provision requires the purchaser to certify that his equipment is weed free and to identify measures taken to ensure that off-road equipment is free of noxious weeds. The Forest Service would reserve the right of inspections prior to use of the equipment and to verify that each piece operating in the forest is clean.

• Any new infestations identified will be reported to the other party promptly for further prevention of spread.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2 - 17 Chapter 2

4. The Fremont-Winema Native Species Plan will guide all future applications of seed associated with this project. For this project, any seeding would occur only after post-sale activity monitoring determined the need for seeding. It is expected that monitoring will indicate that natural revegetation is sufficient and that no seeding is needed. At any rate, the timber sale contract will not include requirements to seed. Landings and temporary roads will be monitored for a minimum of three years after timber management activities by the district and/or weed coordinator. A map of the landing locations and any newly found noxious weeds sites will be provided to the district weed coordinator following the timber sale. Follow up treatment of found noxious weed sites will be determined on a priority basis by weed coordinators (the preceding is partially in response to a public comment received during the 30 day comment period for this project).

5. Invasive Plants Contract Provisions will be included in all contracts dealing with off-road equipment. This provision requires certification that off-road equipment is free of noxious weeds prior to the start up of operations.

6. Activities (harvesting, road maintenance, or other) on new or existing weed sites should not occur when noxious weeds are flowering and seeding, as seeds will quickly establish on the nearby disturbed soil. If activity is necessary during this time, weeds shall be pulled or tops cut and bagged in a plastic bag for proper disposal. Otherwise, the site shall be flagged for avoidance until it can be properly treated. Coordination between Sale Administration and the Forest Noxious Weed program shall occur regarding known sites (each 0.1 acre) in Units 9 and 11. Sites in these units will either be avoided by operations, or, as described above, weeds will be pulled.

7. Prevent the introduction of new noxious weeds caused by moving sand, gravel, borrow, and fill material from known infested pit materials. Maintain stockpiled, un-infested material in a weed- free condition.

8. Road maintenance, decommissioning, and closures will avoid existing and newly discovered weeds sites.

9. Education/awareness is considered a central element of an overall IWM prevention strategy. On-going training in noxious weed identification, early detection, reporting, mapping, and initial control will be continued. Monitoring would occur in accordance with the on-going IWM program. For this project, harvest landings, in particular, are areas of continued disturbance and more sensitive to invasion from noxious weeds.

Sensitive Plants 1. Typical habitat for Baker’s Globe Mallow (Illiamna bakeri) is similar to the habitat found in the Grassy Fire Salvage project area. No plants were found during 2004 surveys, but populations may increase with mechanical disturbance and fire. Monitoring for the future presence of this species will continue through the first two summers after the fire.

Cultural Resources 1. Activities in Harvest Unit #1 and Harvest Unit #12 will be monitored by the assigned Archaeologist, due to their close proximity to historic Fort Warner.

Chapter 2 - 18 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2

2. There will be pre-operations coordination between the assigned Archeologist and the Sale Administrator to insure that all information pertaining to cultural resource protection, including known site locations, protocol by which sites have been identified on the ground, and how sites have been identified on working copies of the sale area map, has been provided.

3. If sites are discovered during on-the-ground preparation of sale units or at any time during harvest or any ground disturbing activity, the assigned Archaeologist will be notified. The site will be reviewed on the ground and protection measures will be developed. Project activity will stop in the immediate area while a plan to mitigate the effects is formulated. Once the mitigation work is completed and resources are protected, project activity may proceed.

Recreation 1. Material to be salvaged within 150 feet of the Fremont National Recreation Trail (NRT #160) will be directionally felled, skidded, or yarded away from the trail wherever practical.

2. Crossings of the NRT with skidding equipment will be minimized, with the optimum number of crossings being none.

3. If crossings of the NRT are unavoidable, cross at right angles to the trail. The impacted portions of trail tread will be rehabilitated.

4. Use existing landings or new landings 200 feet or further away from the NRT, preferably screened from the trail by residual forest or topography, unless no practical options exist.

5. Areas of light project-generated slash in close proximity to trails will be lopped and scattered a minimum of 15 feet off of trail tread.

6. Heavy project-generated slash requiring piling in the vicinity of trails or developed recreation sites will be piled a minimum of 50 to 75 feet away from the trail, using natural visual screening wherever practical.

7. Planting will not occur within 6 feet of either side of the centerline of the NRT.

Alternatives and Design Elements Eliminated from Detailed Study During development of the proposed action and consideration of public responses to initial project scoping, several design features, strategies, or alternatives were considered. Only alternatives or specific design elements that were responsive to purpose and need were fully developed and analyzed. Alternatives or design elements that were considered but not fully developed are discussed below.

Alternatives Considered, But Eliminated from Detailed Study Non-commercial, restoration-only An alternative or strategy that was considered during the analysis was a “non-commercial, restoration-only” alternative. See the discussion of Alternative 1 (earlier in this Chapter) for a

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2 - 19 Chapter 2 comparison between such an alternative, as suggested in an October 20, 2004 letter from the Klamath Forest Alliance, and the no-action alternative (Alternative 1). A similar request for a more passive recovery was contained in an October 25, 2004 letter from the Oregon Natural Resources Council, which also requested a “non-commercial, restoration-only” alternative. It also suggested that an alternative based on the 1995 Beschta Report be considered (no logging on sensitive sites; protect all live trees; retain all snags greater than 20”dbh and 50 percent of snags in each size class below 20” dbh).

Since the 1995 Beschta recommendations largely rely upon a passive approach to restoration (including the recommendation that replanting should be conducted only under limited conditions), consideration of Alternative 1 provides an analysis of some of the components of this approach. The range of activity included in the fully developed action alternatives, combined with consideration of the effects of the no-action alternative, offer a sufficient display of trade-off and variation of effect to explore the issue embodied in the question of success of recovery through active management vs. recovery through a limited (or even non-) intervention approach. Much of the information needed to evaluate the “non-commercial, restoration-only” alternative suggested by the Klamath Forest Alliance is provided to the public and to the Responsible Official by the analysis of Alternative 1. This is especially true in the case of the Grassy Project area, because there are current authorities for action under several existing decisions. For example, the North Warner Access and Travel Management Plan authorizes 2.0 miles of road decommissioning (or obliteration) and 3.9 miles of road blocking in the Grassy Project area. See Table 2-1 for other examples of available restoration or enhancement actions under existing authority.

Information about the effects of other design elements of this alternative (“Thinning of plantations and young dense stands around fire-killed areas” and “aspen planting”) is available because of similar actions included in Alternatives 2 or 3.

In addition to the above reasons, this alternative was not analyzed in detail because it would not meet purpose and need, in regard to the following purposes: • As rapidly as feasible restore a sustainable ponderosa pine forest in the Grassy Fire area.

• The need for forest stands with structural conditions closer to the Historic Range of Variability (HRV) within the project area.

• The need for commercially valuable timber from the project area.

Purpose and need for this project resulted from direction contained in the LRMP, as amended. The amendments, particularly Regional Forester’s amendment #1 and #2, direct the maintenance and development of sustainable forests with LOS structural conditions. Accomplishing that objective

Chapter 2 - 20 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2

while at the same time producing a commercial timber product are consistent with LRMP direction, particularly for the over 1,000 acres of MA 5 within the project area. The 589 acres included as commercial salvage in the proposed action specifically correlate to the portions of the project area on which a commercial product could be viably removed while adhering to the LRMP direction for the protection of all resources.

One of the primary factors the Responsible Official will use to select an alternative for implementation, as disclosed in Chapter 1, is an examination of how each alternative meets the project purpose and need. In that case, fully analyzing an alternative that would minimally achieve some elements of purpose and need, and would achieve nothing (0.0 MMBF) toward recovery of commercial timber value, also a purpose and need, does not provide the responsible official with information that is needed to make an informed decision.

One of the most important factors for development of a sustainable ponderosa pine forest in the Grassy area is the future use of prescribed fire. As disclosed in Chapter 3, in the Fire and Fuels or the Forest Vegetation sections, a scenario in which future fuel loadings (and arrangement) of large woody pieces are not reduced through salvage removal and fuels treatment, and in which planting does not occur, would not place the areas with lethal fire severity on a successional pathway over time that leads to the establishment of a sustainable ponderosa pine forest. The above conclusion was reached by the certified silviculturist on the Grassy IDT (see Chapter 3 Forest Vegetation section). Yet, neither amelioration of future fuel loadings nor planting of conifers would occur in Alternative 1 or in a “non-commercial, restoration-only” alternative that included the elements suggested during initial public scoring. The following discussion displays (italicized) and considers some of the key recommendations in the 1995 Beschta Report: Salvage logging should be prohibited in sensitive areas (including): severely burned areas, on erosive sites, on fragile soils, in roadless areas, in riparian areas, on steep slopes, and on any site where accelerated erosion is possible and Prohibit yarding systems that rely on tractors and skidders. - The primary factors considered in the determination not to apply the broad-brush Beschta recommendations on this topic were site-specific terrain and soils factors, site-specific monitoring results, and the incorporation into all action alternatives of the Fremont National Forest Soil Productivity guidelines, including guidelines on their use of low ground pressure equipment (see Appendix B – Mitigation Details; Fremont National Forest Soil Productivity Guide). The terrain within the fire perimeter is mostly of gentle slope (16 to 35 percent). Areas with steep slopes that are proposed for harvest would be harvested by helicopter logging. As noted in Chapter 3 (Fisheries and Watershed section), the extent to which logging exacerbates the soil, sediment, and hydrological problems in a post-fire landscape depends on the site characteristics, logging methods, and whether new roads will be needed. Monitoring for the presence of compaction and other detrimental soil conditions was conducted in the post-fire area during 2004. The project area was measured for compaction along 12 transects, at about 240 sample points. Four transects were located in previously harvested areas within the Grassy area. Detrimental compaction was not found for any of the transects, including the transects located in previously harvested stands. Post-harvest soil compaction monitoring was also completed in the summer of 2004 in the Grizzly Timber Sale area (Cub Salvage EA). Salvage had been completed

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2 - 21 Chapter 2 one year prior to the monitoring. The soils in the Cub Salvage harvest area are similar to the soils found in the Grassy project area. The soil compaction monitoring in the Cub Salvage area indicated no detrimental compaction had occurred as a result of salvage harvest. Additional consideration of the resources related to the other Beschta Report recommendations included above (under ‘sensitive areas’) is included in Chapter 3 sections on: “Fisheries and Watershed” and “Inventoried Roadless and Unroaded”. Active reseeding and replanting should be conducted only under limited conditions – The Interdisciplinary Team Silviculturist determined that not planting ponderosa pine seedlings in a timely manner would lead to one of two scenarios: the first scenario would produce a white fir- dominated forest, the second scenario would produce a grass/forbs/shrub-dominated ecosystem. Neither scenario would predict that ponderosa pine would form a major component of the post-fire vegetation. This is due to the limited ability for pine to seed over large areas, the large expanses of burned area where live ponderosa pine does not exist, and the long intervals between cone crops where ponderosa pine viable seed is abundant.

Leave 50 percent of the standing dead trees – Leaving standing dead trees was central to both the stated purpose and need and to a specific key issue. For this reason, the planning considered the need to leave standing dead trees from the beginning. The Beschta Report recommendation does not include specific citations or prescriptive reasons as to why the “50 percent” level was selected (as opposed to some other figure). The levels of snag retention developed during the site-specific planning for the Grassy project are the product of guidance contained in existing land management planning frameworks (Fremont LRMP, as amended) and a site-specific application of current scientific documentation. Specifically, this proposed salvage project considered the information on snags and down wood available in DecAID or the “Decayed Wood Advisor for Managing Snags, Partially Dead Trees, and Down Wood for Biodiversity in Washington and Oregon” (Mellen, et al., 2002), and considered Forest direction issued to insure compliance with Regional Forester direction to maintain 100 percent potential population levels of primary cavity nesting species. Under this guidance, the action alternatives were designed to respond in a varying manner to Key Issue #1 (snag and down wood habitat), within a framework defined by project purpose and need. See the Wildlife section of Chapter 3 for a full discussion of this topic. Alternative 1 would retain 100 percent of the standing dead trees. Alternatives 2 and 3 would retain varying amounts. Determine the need to undertake road maintenance, improvement or obliteration - This is essentially incorporated into all action alternatives, as well as (largely) the no-action alternative. A roads analysis process was used to prepare the North Warner Access and Travel Management Plan (Fremont National Forest 2001), which includes closing and decommissioning roads both within and outside the project area. The 1995 Beschta Report has been supplemented by the article “Postfire Management of Forested Public Lands of the Western United Sates” which appears in the August 2004 issue of Conservation Biology, pages 957 to 967 (Beschta, 2004). The article (referred to in the following discussion as “Beschta 2004”) contains similar recommendations to those contained in the 1995 Beschta Report and presents useful supporting information on the need to evaluate post-fire restoration treatments from the perspective of ecosystem recovery. There are however, notable differences, discussed below, between some of the principles and assumptions presented in Beschta 2004, and the specifics of the Grassy Fire area and the Grassy Fire Salvage Project.

Chapter 2 - 22 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2

As noted in the Conservation Biology article (page 959), “Postfire landscapes are…the result of vital disturbance processes in forests. The biota in these forests is adapted to and often dependent upon the occurrence of fires having highly variable frequency (return interval), season of occurrence, size, severity, and ecological impact.” While it is true that the forests in the Grassy area, and much of the Fremont-Winema National Forest, historically (pre-1900) adapted to frequent fire occurrence, there is a primary difference between the Grassy area and Grassy Fire and the “disturbance processes” and “adapted” scenarios referred to in Beschta 2004. Put simply:

• ponderosa pine stands with 400 to 800 trees per acre (which characterized much of the Grassy area before the Grassy Fire),

• stand-replacement fire behavior (as occurred in the August 2004 Grassy Fire),

• and dense stands of fire-killed trees (current condition)

do not represent a condition of ecological normalcy or sustainability. Rather, all three are examples of the uncharacteristic conditions or are the result of uncharacteristic conditions. Historically, ponderosa pine forests on the Fremont National Forest were characterized by a non- lethal understory fire regime. The above conditions or results are all associated with fires that are highly lethal to forested vegetation. As discussed in Chapter 3 of this EA, in the Forested Vegetation section, approximately 80 percent of the forested communities within the Grassy project area experienced lethal fire behavior in August 2004.

Another departure from some of the fire and post-fire effects discussed in Beschta 2004 and the localized conditions in the Grassy area pertains to soils. Pages 960 and 961 of Beschta 2004 respectively include the following quotes: “After fire, some soils may exhibit a water-repellant (hydrophobic) condition that reduces the infiltration of water” (with cite to DeBano et al. 1998) and “Soil compaction can persist for 50-80 years in many forest soils and even longer in areas with high clay content” (with cite to Quigley and Arbelbide 1997). The soils in the Grassy area are characterized or have reacted differently. As discussed in Chapter 3 (Fisheries/Watershed section), the Burn Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) report concluded that the fire produced a black surface burn, which had minimal effect on water absorption, and no post-fire soil-water repellency. As noted above, the extent to which logging exacerbates soil problems in a post-fire landscape depends on site characteristics. Compaction monitoring was performed in 2004 on the nearby Grizzly Timber Sale area (a 2003 post-fire salvage sale) that indicated no detrimental compaction attributable to that timber sale activity.

On two counts, the nature of the Grassy Fire Salvage project appears to vary from the general characterizations of salvage logging presented in Beschta 2004 (from page 963): “Postfire salvage logging has sometimes been justified on the assumption that >50 percent crown scorch results in tree mortality”. The Grassy project uses a 30 percent green crown criteria for determining mortality for the primary tree species occurring in the project area, ponderosa pine. Again from page 963: “Postfire salvage logging, based primarily on economic values, typically only removes the largest trees…” The Grassy project includes removal; in its action alternatives, down to 9” dbh. This is a reasonable expectation if salvage occurs in a timely manner before the completion of another summer (2005). Even in the case of the Toolbox Fire (Silver Lake Ranger District,

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2 - 23 Chapter 2

July, 2002) and post fire-salvage sales (Summer/Fall of 2004), which occurred two years following the fire, salvage harvest routinely included trees down to 12” dbh. This expectation is further supported by the personal communication with Ron Perozzi, South Zone Sale Administration, described earlier in this Chapter under “Design Elements of Alternative 2 - Commercial Salvage”.

Mitigations or other Measures Considered But Not Adopted Included in both action alternatives are design elements; mitigations and resource protection measures (pertaining to wildlife, fisheries and watershed, noxious weed prevention, sensitive plants, cultural resources, and recreation); and monitoring, as described earlier in Chapter 2. The overall focus of those measures is to insure that significant impacts do not result from project implementation. The environmental consequences of the alternatives, with those features in place, are discussed in detail in Chapter 3. As noted in several findings in Chapter 3, localized or short- term adverse impacts on specific resources are expected to occur as a result of implementation of the action alternatives. The potential size and scope of those impacts and potential measures to mitigate or eliminate the impacts are displayed in the following table.

Chapter 2 - 24 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2

Table 2-8: Mitigations Considered But Not Adopted

Measure or Size or Scope Design of the Impact Element and any Considered Reason an Impact of this Size or Scope is not Resource Adverse Impact Differences to Mitigate Significant Between Alt. 2 Why Mitigation Measure or or Eliminate and 3 in Size Design Element was not Adverse or Scope Adopted Impacts

Future grazing Measures can be (livestock and implemented through wildlife) could reduce 749 acres of Previous similar projects cited in Chapter 3 provisions of existing Forest probability of planted were successfully reforested with planted permits. If damage is Veg. successful ponderosa pine None within ponderosa pine. Planting at a rate of occurring from wildlife, establishment of pine seedlings in the scope of approximately 250 trees per acre has been actions outside the scope of seedlings. both 2 and 3. this project shown to result in acceptable levels of stocking. this project are available. Effect would be short term and localized. Sexton’s plots were re-measured in 1999 and 2003. The analysis of the re-measurement Sexton (1998) found showed that the differences between the salvage logging salvaged and non-salvaged plots were lessening, resulted in a large both in terms of abundance and species richness Forest decrease in (see Chapter 3“Other Disclosures – Long-Term Veg. understory biomass, Site Productivity”). Slightly more than a decade Alternatives are within Forest species richness, following the fire, the Sexton study site is Plan standards and guidelines. species diversity, characterized by extensive needlegrass and Measure would be counter to growth of ponderosa Alt. 2 and 3 – shrub component. The impact is minimal in the purposes and needs for pine, and survival of 589 acres of terms of the overall vegetative development commercial timber bitterbrush. salvage. No salvage period. production. Wildlife: Area is further from Lakeview compared to 3 Snag and Firewood cutting may Minimal area, other recent fires (Appendix A-14). Many snag Outside scope of proposal. Down result in loss of some confined to less No firewood retention/snag habitat areas are detached from Firewood cutters from the Wood snags and down than 80 acres cutting open roads (Figure 2-1 and 2-2). Alt. 3 would local communities depend on Dependent wood for habitat (true close to open within the provide 61 acres of additional habitat to that a supply of snag and down Species for Alt. 1 also). roads. project area. provided by Alt 2. wood for firewood.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2 - 25 Chapter 2

Table 2-8: Mitigations Considered But Not Adopted (continued)

Alternatives are within Forest Overall, both positive and negative effects from Plan standards and guidelines. Salvage and Alt. 2 – 589 the action alternatives are noted in Chapter 3. Measure would be counter to commercial thinning acres of Considering all factors, the Biological the purposes and needs for Wildlife: activities would salvage and 61 Evaluation (BE) found that Alt. 2 or Alt. 3 may commercial timber Gray remove trees that acres of affect individuals, but are not likely to result in production, and developing Flycatcher would provide beetles thinning. a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability forest stands with structural for forage, causing Alt. 3 – 589 No salvage or for the gray flycatcher. Alternative 3 has no conditions closer to HRV, the gray flycatcher to acres of commercial commercial thinning and provides 61 more because salvage and thinning adjust foraging areas. salvage. thinning. acres of snag habitat than Alt. 2. help achieve these needs. Based on No salvage, Short-term negative project area road effects related to size and reconstruct., Overall, both positive and negative effects from increased human use wolverines commercial the action alternatives are noted in Chapter 3. Alternatives are within Forest during project large home thinning, Considering all factors, the Biological Plan standards and guidelines. Wildlife: implementation. ranges, it is stocking Evaluation (B.E.) found that Alt. 2 or Alt. 3 may Measure would be counter to Wolverine Could cause estimated that level control, impact individuals but would not result in a the purposes and needs for wolverines (if up to one male wildlife trend toward Federal listing. No habitat would commercial timber present) to adjust use and one female projects, or be removed, modified, or altered. There would production, developing forest or movement could be watershed be long-term beneficial effects from stocking stands with structural patterns. affected. restoration level control and tree planting. conditions closer to HRV.

Chapter 2 - 26 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2

Table 2-8: Mitigations Considered But Not Adopted (continued)

Based on available Alternatives exceed Forest Commercial salvage habitat and Plan standards. Alternative 3 and commercial scope of the would retain 22% more large thinning would project, it is Overall, both positive and negative effects from snags than Alt. 2. Measure decrease snag estimated that the action alternatives are noted in Chapter 3. would be counter to the Wildlife: densities. By up to 100 Considering all factors, the Biological purposes and needs for Pallid Bats removing an individuals No salvage, Evaluation (BE) found that Alt. 2 or Alt. 3 may commercial timber additional 35 snags, may be or impact individuals but would not result in a production, developing forest watershed restoration affected. Most commercial trend toward Federal listing. Project would still stands with structural project would of this through thinning. No retain numerous large snags and the rock conditions closer to HRV and negatively affect noise watershed outcrops would continue to be present, so developing high-quality fish pallid bats. disturbance restoration adequate roosting habitat should be maintained. and riparian habitat. Measure would be counter to Salvage and the purposes and needs for commercial thinning Overall, both positive and negative effects from commercial timber may delay response the action alternatives are noted in Chapter 3. production, and developing for some forage Alt. 2 – 589 Under Alternative 2, approximately 56 percent forest stands with structural Wildlife: species and acres of of the area would not be harvested, (60 percent conditions closer to HRV, Mule Deer negatively impact salvage and 61 with Alternative 3) and these areas should allow because salvage and thinning mule deer. Increased acres of for unimpeded forage production. Monitoring help achieve these needs. human use during thinning. (Malaby2002) has shown that the effects of Impacts would be short term. implementation may Alt. 3 – 589 No salvage or salvage logging following wildfire are short Alternatives 2 and 3 are negatively impact acres of commercial term. In the longer term, thinning could result within Forest Plan standards mule deer. salvage thinning. in increased forage production. . and guidelines.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2 - 27 Chapter 2

Table 2-8: Mitigations Considered But Not Adopted (continued)

Salvage and commercial thinning may cause direct harm if individuals are nesting in a felled tree or cause nest Alt. 2 – 589 Wildlife: abandonment. There acres of Black- would be indirect salvage and 61 In each action alternatives a significant number backed effects to black- acres of of snags would be retained that would provide Wood- backed woodpeckers thinning. foraging habitat. Both action alternatives peckers by decreasing prey. Alt. 3 – 589 include snag retention designs that exceed Wildlife project acres of Forest Plan standards. Foraging habitat Measure would be counter to (aspen) would salvage. Both No salvage, potential would be greatest with Alternative 3, the purposes and needs for negatively affect Alternatives commercial as a larger number of snags would be retained. commercial timber black-backed two ¼ acre thinning or The small ½ acre of conifer removal for aspen production, and developing woodpeckers by areas of aspen wildlife enhancement would have negligible effect on forest stands with structural reducing conifers. project. projects future conifer snag numbers on any scale. conditions closer to HRV. Stocking level control (small tree thinning) In each action alternative, a significant number Wildlife: could negatively of snags would be retained that would provide Black- affect future habitat current habitat that exceeds Forest Plan backed by reducing future 134 acres of standards. Alternative 3 would provide 61 acres Measure would be counter to Wood- snag numbers (it small tree of additional habitat to that provided by the purpose and need for peckers would reduce the thinning with Alternative 2. Long-term development of LOS developing forest stands with number of trees that both action No stocking should promote habitats with historical snag and structural conditions closer to die over time). alternatives. level control down wood components. HRV.

Chapter 2 - 28 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2

Table 2-8: Mitigations Considered But Not Adopted (continued)

Within the burned National Forest lands adjacent to the private land salvage (the Grassy Outside scope of proposals. Wildlife: Project Area) an overall average snag density of Obligation under NEPA is to Black- Recent salvage on 6 snags per acre (Alternative 2) and 8.5 snags consider cumulative impacts backed private land has per acre (Alternative 3) would be retained from past, present, future Wood- decreased habitat for 450 acres of None within within areas proposed as salvage unit or snag activity regardless of peckers black-backed private land the scope of retention/habitat area near salvage unit. Both ownership. This has been woodpeckers. salvage this project Alternatives exceed Forest Plan standards. done (See Chapter 3). Alt. 2 – 589 acres of Overall, both positive and negative effects from Salvage and salvage and 61 the action alternatives are noted in Chapter 3. A commercial thinning acres of large number of snags will be retained to would remove trees thinning. provide adequate habitat (6 snags per acre- Wildlife: containing heart-rot, Alt. 3 – 589 Alternative 2; and 8.5 snags per acre - Red-naped which would provide acres of Alternative 3). Alternatives are within Forest Sapsucker nesting habitat. salvage. Plan standards and guidelines. Aspen Measure would be counter to Stocking level control 134 acres of No salvage or enhancement project would directly benefit this the purposes and needs for could negatively affect small tree commercial species, which favor and are closely associated commercial timber red-naped sapsuckers thinning with thinning. No with large aspen trees. Long-term development production, and developing by causing fewer trees both action stocking of LOS should promote habitats with historical forest stands with structural to die. alternatives. level control. snag and down wood components. conditions closer to HRV.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2 - 29 Chapter 2

Table 2-8: Mitigations Considered But Not Adopted (continued) Size or Scope Measure or

of the Impact Design

and any Element

Differences Considered Reason an Impact of this Size or Scope is not Resource Adverse Impact Between Alt. 2 to Mitigate Significant Why Mitigation Measure or and 3 in Size or Eliminate Design Element was not or Scope Adverse Adopted Impacts

Alt. 2 – 589 ac. Overall, both positive and negative effects from of salvage and the action alternatives are noted in Chapter 3. 61 acres of Activities are not likely to start until after the Wildlife: thinning. critical period during breeding season. Limited Measure would be counter to Northern Alt. 3 – 589 disturbance from wildlife and watershed projects purpose and need for Goshawk Increases in human acres of present acceptable trade-offs. Impacts would be commercial timber activity may cause salvage; other short term and localized. Stocking level control, production, and developing goshawks to adjust activities of reforestation, aspen enhancement and watershed forest stands with structure foraging areas. smaller scale. No activities improvement projects would all benefit goshawk. closer to HRV. Overall, both positive and negative effects from the action alternatives are noted in Ch. 3. Large quantities of down wood would become present in the future in areas outside of salvage; within salvaged areas at quantities that exceed Forest Plan standards. The needed combination of Increases in human habitat components to provide the highest activity may cause No salvage, quality marten habitat occurs in areas of mosaic Wildlife: martens to adjust Alt. 2 – 589 road burn. Alt. 3 would not include any activities, American foraging areas and acres of reconstruct., other than 61ac. of small tree thinning in such Marten use other areas. salvage and 61 commercial locations. Riparian corridors provide important Whole tree yarding acres of thinning, habitat for martens. Neither alternative would and yarding with top thinning. stocking alter such habitats. Stocking level control, Measure would be counter to attached would Alt. 3 – 589 level control, reforestation, aspen enhancement and watershed purpose and need for reduce the amount of acres of wildlife improvement projects would all benefit marten. commercial timber future down wood in salvage; other projects, or Short-term disturbance from commercial production, and developing areas and reduce activities of watershed activities or wildlife and watershed projects forest stands with structure potential habitat smaller scale. restoration present acceptable trade-offs. closer to HRV.

Chapter 2 - 30 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2

Table 2-8: Mitigations Considered But Not Adopted (continued)

Salvage activities Alt. 2 and 3 – would decrease 589 acres of amount of down salvage. Wildlife: wood, which would Recon- Overall, both positive and negative effects from Pileated decrease foraging naissance the action alternatives are noted in Chapter 3. Measure would be counter to Wood- habitat. Increased following fire Snag retention levels in the action alternatives purpose and need for pecker human use could resulted in no would continue to provide adequate habitat commercial timber cause pileated sightings or No salvage or components. Alternative 3 would provide 61 production, and developing woodpeckers to foraging other acres of additional habitat to that provided by forest stands with structure adjust use areas. evidence. activities. Alternative 2. closer to HRV. Salvage and commercial thinning outside of breeding Protective measures for prairie falcons that are Alternatives are within Forest Wildlife: season could create included in both action alternatives (see EA Plan standards and guidelines. Prairie noise disturbance that page 2-14) meet LRMP standards and Measure would be counter to Falcons could cause falcon to No salvage or guidelines. Aspen enhancement and watershed purpose and need for adjust use areas away commercial improvement projects would benefit prairie commercial timber from noise. thinning. falcons by improving habitat for prey species. production. Protective measures (Soil Within the Potential increase in detrimental compaction Productivity Guidelines) that project area, a would not exceed the maximum set by the are included in both action Ground based potential 12 Region or the Forest (20 percent). Post-harvest alternatives (see EA page 2- Soil logging systems percent soil compaction monitoring on similar project, 16 and Appendix B- causing an increase in increase in No ground- Cub Salvage (Ralston 2004), indicated no mitigation details) meet detrimental detrimental based detrimental compaction had occurred as a result Forest Plan standards and compaction. compaction. yarding of the action. guidelines.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2 - 31 Chapter 2

Table 2-8: Mitigations Considered But Not Adopted (continued)

Measure or Size or Scope Design of the Impact Element and any Considered to Reason an Impact of this Size or Scope is Resource Adverse Impact Differences Mitigate or not Significant Between Alt. 2 Why Mitigation Measure or Eliminate and 3 in Size Design Element was not Adverse or Scope Adopted Impacts

Project-generated BMPs, combined with proper unit location sediment could and design such as INFISH-compliant potentially reach fish- RHCAs and the Fremont Soil Productivity bearing streams, Guidelines, are expected to be an effective including potential combination of factors in insuring that effects sediment from from sediment will be minimal and short salvage, roadwork or term. Drainage improvements to roads would Water headcut repair (First decrease sediment generation over the long- Quality/ Swale Creek). The term (greater than 2 years). The potential Aquatic amount of fines in impact of the headcut repair would be Habitat spawning gravels minimized by the restriction of all instream may increase in the activities in compliance with Oregon short term (2 years) Guidelines for Timing of In-Water Work to Protective measures are in association with Immeasurable, No salvage, Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources (ODFW, already included in both the headcut repair as negligible short road 2000). The condition of the headcut repair action alternatives (see EA heavy equipment term (0 to 2 reconstruction site (which is currently a bare, vertical page 2-15 and Appendix B- would be operating years) increase or headcut headcut that is actively eroding during spring mitigation details). instream. in sediment. repair flows) would be improved.

Chapter 2 - 32 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2

Table 2-8: Mitigations Considered But Not Adopted (continued)

360 acres of unroaded area lie within the project area. Within these, Impacts within 123 acres of unroaded area* on actions natural appearance, (harvest, The action with the greatest potential for an solitude, unroaded planting or impact on unroaded characteristics (ground- recreation small tree based logging involving skidding and temporary opportunity or thinning) roads) would occur on about 25 acres, in six Unroaded distinctive features would occur small separate areas (Alternative 2); and 19 (canyon of Honey with Alt. 2. acres in five small separate areas (Alternative Alternatives are within Forest Creek). 102 acres 3). This is about 2% (Alt. 2) or 1.5% (Alt. 3) of Plan standards and guidelines. would occur the ONRC identified unroaded area. Impact of Measure would be counter to *Oregon Natural with Alt. 3. 250 feet of temporary road would be localized the purposes and needs for Resources Council 250 feet of No activity and of short duration (road would be obliterated commercial timber (ONRC) identified a temporary road within following use). Due to the small amount of area production, and developing 1,258-acre unroaded would be ONRC affected and the short period in which forest stands with structural area that is partially constructed identified operations would be occurring, the overall conditions closer to HRV, within the project with Alt. 2 or unroaded impacts would be minimal. because salvage and thinning area. 3. area. help achieve these needs.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2 - 33 Chapter 2

Summary Comparison of Alternatives This section presents tables that compare the alternatives by response to purpose and need and effects in regard to key issues. Refer to Chapter 3 for details. Table 2-9: Comparison of Alternatives Based on How They Respond to the Need for Action Need for forest stands Need for Need with structural commercially

Alt. conditions closer to the valuable Need for wildlife habitat Need for high-quality Historic Range of timber from within the project area, fish and riparian Variability (HRV) the project including snags and down habitat within the within the project area area wood, and live forest project area

Does not address purpose Does not address Maintains all potential nesting and Partially address P/N. No and need (P/N). Does not P/N. Salvages no foraging habitat for species that watershed or riparian include reforestation or timber. respond well to fire. Far exceeds improvement activities, fuels reduction. Relies on Removes no other alternatives. Passive other than previously 1 natural regeneration to green volume. recovery of other habitats. Does authorized road begin recovery process, and Recovers no not enhance aspen stands, so decommissioning and the recovery to then proceed commercial beneficial effect on deer fawning drainage rehabilitation. in setting with fuel loadings value. and red-naped sapsucker habitat is Allows passive recovery of that exceed historic range. foregone. riparian areas.

Addresses P/N to the Addresses P/N to Leaving snag clumps, variable greatest extent of any the greatest snag diameter sizes, and un- Mitigations and BMPs alternative. Tree planting on extent of any salvaged snag retention areas identified earlier in and 749 acres. Fuels reduction alternative. assures that suitable habitat is establishment of RHCAs includes whole tree yarding, Estimated total maintained for a variety of species. minimizes potential adverse yarding with tops-attached- commercial Snag densities would be retained effects. Restoration actions 2 to-last-log, lop and scatter, volume of 5.3 to provide for 100% potential (placement of LWD and prescribed fire, or crushing. MMBF. population levels of primary cavity repair of the headcut on Small tree and commercial Estimated Total nesters. Enhances identified aspen First Swale Creek) thinning in green stands (61 Job Support of stands, with beneficial effects on accelerate recovery in First acres) is designed to move 60 (including mule deer fawning habitat and red- Swale and Honey Creek stands toward HRV. indirect) naped sapsucker foraging habitat downstream of First Swale (redband trout habitat). Maintains more potential nesting and foraging habitat than Alt. 2, Addresses P/N to a lesser Addresses P/N to but substantially less than Alt. 1. extent Alternative 2. the slightly lesser Applies a 0% green criteria for Same as Alternative 2. Conifer planting on 749 extent than salvage of trees > than 20.9” dbh. acres. Fuels reduction is Alternative 2. Snag clumps, variable snag same as Alternative 2. Small Estimated total diameter sizes, and un-salvaged 3 tree thinning (only) in commercial snag retention/snag habitat areas predominately green stands volume of 4.8 assure that suitable habitat is (61 acres) is not as likely to MMBF. maintained for a variety of species. produce conditions within Estimated Total Snag densities would be retained the Historic Range of Job Support of to provide for 100% potential Variability (HRV) on these 54 (including population levels of primary cavity 61 acres as would indirect). nesters. Same aspen stand Alternative 2. enhancement as Alt. 2.

Chapter 2 - 34 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2

The following table presents comparisons between the alternatives, in terms of the key (or analysis issues), as well as other output comparisons. The analytical outputs represented below are intended for the purpose of quick comparisons between alternatives. Refer to Chapter 3 for details of the analysis process and for further details about the information presented below.

Table 2-10: Comparison of Alternatives

Key Issues Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Snag Size Snag Size Snag Size Class/Numbers Class/Numbers Class/Numbers Retained* Retained* Retained*

10- 15- 10- 15- 10- 15- 14.9” 19.9” >20” 14.9” 19.9” >20” 14.9” 19.9” >20” Effects on snag and down wood habitat

23,396 12,161 5,448 1,896 1,468 1,166 2,398 2,554 1,417

About 55 per acre* About 6 per acre* About 8.5 per acre* * within 744 acres of proposed units and nearby snag retention or snag habitat areas. There are snags (uninventoried) in the 692 acres of project area that are outside of units or nearby retention/habitat areas that would also remain.

Effect on future development of sustainable old forest conditions:

- In forested areas with Limits the potential for Increases the Increases the lethal fire severity old forest development probability for old probability for old (approximately 1,250 on all acres forest development on forest development on acres) 589 acres 589 acres

Contribution to - In forested areas Limits the potential for Increases the Increases the within the fire mosaic old forest development probability for old probability for old ecological (approximately 250 on all acres forest development on forest development on recovery acres) 134 acres 73 acres

Does Fuel Model 12** occur during the expected Yes (Units 12, 13 and succession of fuel 14 only) conditions? Yes No

** FM 12 has a receptive fuel bed for a high intensity fire, high heat per unit area, low rates for fireline production and does not facilitate the eventual

reintroduction of prescribed fire

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2 - 35 Chapter 2

Table 2-10: Comparison of Alternatives (continued)

Analysis Issues Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Gray Flycatcher NI MIIH MIIH

California Sensitive Wolverine NI MIIH MIIH Terrestrial

Wildlife: Pallid Bat NI MIIH MIIH

NI = No Impact MIIH = May impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal ______listing or loss of viability to the population or species Mule Deer Black-backed Other Woodpecker

wildlife Primary habitat, Excavators All activities would be within Forest Plan standards and guidelines. (TES and Terrestrial Red-naped See narratives in Chapter 3 (pages 3-59 to 3-84) MIS MIS: Sapsucker species) Northern Goshawk American Marten Pileated Woodpecker

Aquatic, Warner Sucker NE NLAA NLAA Listed as Endangered under the (ESA): ______

Aquatic MIS Redband Trout MIIH MIIH MIIH (also a Sensitive Species): NE = No Effect from the project on the species or critical habitat. NLAA = The project may affect the species or critical habitat, but those effects are not likely to adversely affect the species or critical habitat MIIH = May impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species

Chapter 2 - 36 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2

Table 2-10: Comparison of Alternatives (continued)

Analysis Issues Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Logging Activity in currently allocated (now Protect, maintain, or burned) Old 0 acres 6 acres 6 acres Growth - Acres increase old growth. LRMP Amendment No Yes Yes to Allocate New Old Growth Watershed Function (Improve; Maintain; Degrade):

Uplands Roads Improve Improve Improve Soil Maintain Maintain Maintain

Riparian Vegetation/ Degrade Improve Improve Bank Stability

Salvage, thinning and Channel Condition Degrade Improve Improve roads can adversely affect water quality, Pool frequency Degrade Maintain Maintain

fish habitat, and Large Wood riparian condition and Frequency Maintain Improve Improve diminish proper watershed function. Temperature Degrade(st)/Improve(lt) Degrade(st)/Improve(lt) Degrade(st)/Improve(lt) Salvage logging and Fine Sediment Degrade Improve Improve connected actions can adversely impact soils (*st=short term; lt=long term)

*With all three Soil Compaction: alternatives, % of potential 0% Maximum of 12 % Maximum of 11 % immeasurable increase increases in water temperature would Is increase within occur in the short- regulatory Yes Yes Yes term, followed by guidelines? (Yes or decreases in the long- No) term as overstory vegetation within INFISH (RMOs): RHCAs recovers. Retard/prevent Would not retard or Would not retard or Would not retard or attainment of prevent attainment prevent attainment prevent attainment (RMOs)?

Adversely affect Would not adversely Would not adversely Would not adversely native fish? affect native fish affect native fish affect native fish

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2 - 37 Chapter 2

Table 2-10: Comparison of Alternatives (continued)

Analysis Issues Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

See earlier Key Issue in this table for a measure based on Fuel Model 12 The proposed action (salvage and occurrence in the expected succession of fuel conditions. See also the narrative in Chapter 3 (pages 3-22 to 3-27 thinning) have the potential to increase the risk of future wildland fire

Under all alternatives, conditions would be suitable for weed spread or The activities in the proposed action introduction for five to ten years following the fire. The potential for an could contribute to the spread of noxious increase in noxious weed populations due to proposed salvage or other activity in the action alternatives exists. Implementing prevention practices weeds and have a negative impact on and avoidance of weed infestations should keep this risk low. sensitive plant species or vegetative composition See “Mitigation and Resource Protection/Monitoring” earlier in this Chapter and narrative in Chapter 3 (pages 3-150 to 3-155)

Acres within Unroaded Areas, unroaded area specifically an area in where logging, 0 acres 95 acres (60 percent 80 acres (50 percent the Honey Creek thinning or using helicopter) using helicopter) planting would canyon (reported as occur 1,258 acres by public input), could be Miles of road 0.0 miles 0.0 miles 0.0 miles adversely impacted improved, constructed or used within unroaded area

See also narrative in Chapter 3 (pages 3-137 to 3-149)

Other Comparisons Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Salvage Acres 0 589 acres 589 acres

Salvage Volume 0 4944 MBF 4845 MBF

Green Commercial Thinning Acres 0 61 acres 0

Volume in Predominantly Green Units 0 377 MBF 0

Stocking Level Control 0 134 acres 134 acres

Reforestation (Planting) Acres 0 749 acres 749 acres

Total Jobs Created or Maintained 0 60 54

Chapter 2 - 38 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2

Figure 2-1: Alternative 2

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 2 - 39 Chapter 2

Figure 2-2: Alternative 3

Chapter 2 - 40 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA

Chapter 3

Affected Environment And Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 Introduction ...... 3-2 Forest Vegetation...... 3-3 Fire and Fuels...... 3-16 Wildlife ...... 3-32 Fisheries / Watershed (including Soils) ...... 3-91 Economics...... 3-131 Inventoried Roadless Areas and Other Unroaded Areas ...... 3-136 Noxious Weeds ...... 3-150 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants ...... 3-156 Range ...... 3-161 Cultural Resources...... 3-164 Treaty Rights...... 3-172 Recreation and Scenic Resources ...... 3-175 Air Quality ...... 3-179 Roads / Transportation...... 3-184 Environmental Justice...... 3-193 Other Disclosures...... 3-194

Chapter 3

CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Introduction This chapter discusses the existing conditions of the resources and the anticipated effects of each of the alternatives.

For each resource addressed in this chapter, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities were analyzed, along with proposed activities, to determine cumulative effects. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities are displayed in tabular form in Appendix A.

“Affected environment” is a term that refers to the existing biological, physical, and social conditions of an area that are subject to change, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively as a result of a proposed human action. Information on affected environment is found in each resource section under the heading “Existing Condition.” For several primary resource areas, geographic areas within the project area are discussed separately, both to facilitate analysis and to facilitate review for readers who have a particular interest in a certain area of the Forest. Divisions into geographic areas vary according to resource area. Several resource areas used subwatersheds to display effects specific to a specific geographic area. This approach is particularly appropriate for watershed cumulative effects.

Several resource sections make references to resource reports that are in the project record. These resource reports provide more detailed information than is presented in Chapter 3.

There is less than complete knowledge about some of the relationships and conditions of wildlife, fish, forest, jobs, and communities. The ecology, inventory, and management of large forested areas are a complex science that continues to develop. The biology of wildlife species prompts questions about population dynamics and habitat relationships. The interactions of resource supply, the economy, and communities is the subject matter of an inexact science. However, the basic data and central relationships are sufficiently well established in the respective sciences for the responsible official to make a reasoned choice between the alternatives, and to adequately assess and disclose the possible adverse environmental consequences.

Chapter 3 - 2 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Forest Vegetation

Forest Vegetation

Purpose and Need / Key Issues The following purpose, need, and key issue elements discussed in Chapter 1 are pertinent to the Forest Vegetation resource area:

As stated in Chapter 1, a purpose of this project is to: • As rapidly as feasible, restore a sustainable ponderosa pine forest in the Grassy Fire area.

As stated in Chapter 1, a need for this project is: • Forest stands with structural conditions closer to the Historic Range of Variability (HRV) within the project area. As stated in Chapter 1, a key issue is: • Some public input emphasizes that salvage does not contribute to ecological recovery.

Issue Indicators Recovery and maintenance of sustainable forests in areas that have burned depend first on reforestation occurring, either through natural means or planting, and then maintaining conditions that sustain the forest through time (i.e. do not contribute to uncharacteristic fire behavior). The following indicator will be used to evaluate the vegetation aspect of this issue: • Acres, by alternative, on which a combination of actions would occur that increase the potential for achieving sustainable old forest conditions. Such conditions are discussed as “reference conditions.” Reference conditions are described as low-density ponderosa pine, characterized by large trees with few small trees.

Analysis Area The treatment area for the forest vegetation resource is the area encompassed by the Grassy Fire perimeter, approximately 1,500 acres. This is the proper scale for describing the affected environment and the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action and the alternatives.

Analysis Methods The methodology used to describe the affected environment (existing condition – post fire) and potential environmental consequences includes: on-site field visits, review of previous forest inventory information (completed during 1988-89), and characterization of the analysis area through aerial photography and Silvicultural Activity Data for previous management activities affecting the forest vegetation resource.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 3 Forest Vegetation

Regulatory Framework Guidance for conducting this project analysis is provided by laws and regulations developed over the past century. The National Forest Management Act of 1976 is the basic law that governs vegetation management treatments on National Forest System lands. Several sections in the Act and its accompanying regulations (USDA Forest Service, 1982) specifically address terms and conditions relevant to the vegetation resource. These include sections on timber suitability and management requirements for vegetative manipulation, including tree regeneration time frames and Regional opening size limits. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is a codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the federal government. The minimum specific management requirements to be met in accomplishing goals and objectives for the National Forest System are set forth in 36 CFR 219.27, which are the implementing regulations for the National Forest Management Act of 1976. Management requirements relevant to silvicultural practices are summarized as follows:

• Section (a) Resource Protection: Management prescriptions shall (3) be consistent with resource values involved, and prevent long lasting hazards and damage from pest organisms, using principles of integrated pest management. Under this approach, all aspects of a pest-host system should be weighed to determine situation-specific prescriptions, which may use a combination of techniques including, as appropriate, natural controls, harvesting, use of resistant species, maintenance of diversity, removal of damaged trees, and judicious use of pesticides. The basic principle in the choice of strategy is that, in the long-term, it be ecologically acceptable and compatible with the forest ecosystem and the multiple use objectives of the plan; (5) provide for and maintain diversity of plant and animal communities to meet overall multiple-use objectives. • Section (b) Vegetative Manipulation: Management prescriptions shall (1) contain multiple-use goals that are consistent with Forest Plan goals and standards; (2) assure that lands treated can be adequately restocked based on prior reforestation efforts in the Grassy project area; and (3) that lands are not chosen for greatest dollar return; (4) potential effects on residual trees and adjacent stands must be considered; (5) avoid permanent impairment of site productivity; (6) provide desired effects on all resources; (7) be practical in terms of transportation and harvest requirements, and costs of preparation and administration. • Section (c) Silvicultural Practices: Management prescriptions must (1) be suitable; (2) provide allowable sale quantity; (3) provide for restocking; (4) allow cultural treatments; (5) allow for change in harvest levels; (6) provide for even- aged regeneration harvests while protecting other resources; (7) prevent increases of forest pests. • Section (g) Diversity: Treatment activities designed to maintain the diversity expected in a natural forest might be modified slightly to meet the desired future condition of the area.

Chapter 3 - 4 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Forest Vegetation

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 directed each National Forest to prepare a Forest Plan to guide management activities for lands within its jurisdiction. The Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan was published in 1989.

In 1994 and, again, in 1995, the Forest Plans of all Eastside Pacific Northwest Region National Forests were amended by the Regional Forester to provide additional interim standards for managing fish, wildlife, and old growth habitats, pending completion of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan (Regional Forester’s Eastside Forest Plans Amendment 1 Alternative 3, adopted May 20, 1994 and Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2, adopted August, 1995). The interim standards, which established additional protection requirements for these habitat components, remain in effect today (see Chapter 1 for more details).

In 1995 the Regional Forester also adopted the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH), intended to provide additional interim protection for native fish populations. INFISH focuses on riparian areas and provides governing direction for these areas that supersedes the riparian direction in the other two Regional Amendments. (See Chapter 1 for more detail.)

Current Forest Plan management direction (subject to the above amendments) relevant to the Grassy project analysis is summarized as follows:

Management Direction The direction from the Regional Forester’s Eastside Forest Plans Amendment 1 Alternative 3, as adopted, 5/94, and the Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2, 8/95, that pertain to the Grassy project are found in the Interim Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards. This direction affects all management areas within the project area and applies primarily to the planning and design of timber sales. The Regional Amendment direction is primary when any conflict with Forest Plan direction occurs, unless the Forest Plan direction is more restrictive, in which case the more restrictive standard applies. In summary, these amendments direct the forested environment to be managed:

• In a sustainable condition which mimics historical process and function. • To develop and maintain Late and Old Structure (LOS) forest stands. • To maintain specific wildlife habitats. • To maintain specific down wood levels.

Defining Historic Conditions Natural resource managers increasingly rely on the “range of natural variation,” “historic condition,” or (in the Pacific Northwest Region) the “historic range of variability” to analyze and develop projects that move lands toward the range of ecological and evolutionary conditions appropriate for an area. This information is used to understand

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 5 Forest Vegetation

the past conditions and processes and provides context and guidance for managing ecological systems.

The Regional Forester’s Amendment directs project analysis for timber sales to “characterize the proposed timber sale and its associated watershed for patterns of stand structure by biophysical environment, and compare to the Historic Range of Variability (HRV).” It states further that HRV, “should be based on conditions in the pre-settlement era; however, 1900s photography may be acceptable. HRV should be developed for large landscapes across which forest types, environmental settings, and disturbance regimes (fire and insects/disease) are relatively uniform. Each component watershed should not be expected to reflect the average conditions for the larger landscape, but the sum of conditions across watersheds within the area for which HRV is developed should reflect ranges of conditions determined in the HRV evaluation.”

Interim Ecosystem Standard This standard from the Regional Amendment directs that any analysis of a proposal to harvest timber should:

• Characterize the Historic Range of Variability (HRV) for the area. • Compare current conditions to the HRV. • Describe the dominant historical disturbance regime. • Apply direction from one of two habitat management scenarios (A or B, described in the interim wildlife standard), depending on whether the forest type is above or below HRV.

Interim Wildlife Standard The interim wildlife standard directs that one of two management scenarios be applied to govern any timber harvest proposal, depending on the HRV within the watershed. Scenario A is to be used whenever one type of LOS is below HRV. Use Scenario B whenever one type of LOS is above HRV.

Scenario A • No net loss of LOS stages. o Some timber sale activities can occur within LOS stages that are within or above HRV in a manner to maintain or enhance LOS within that biophysical environment. It is allowable to manipulate one type of LOS to move stands into the LOS stage that is deficit if this meets historical conditions. o Outside of LOS the intent is to maintain and/or enhance LOS components by adhering to the following standards. Maintain all live trees greater than or equal to 21” diameter breast height (DBH).

Chapter 3 - 6 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Forest Vegetation

Manipulate vegetative structure that does not meet LOS in a manner that moves it toward these conditions as appropriate to meet HRV. Maintain open, park-like stand conditions where this condition occurred historically. Manipulate vegetation in a manner to encourage the development and maintenance of large diameter, open canopy structure. Scenario B • Timber harvest can occur in those areas that are above HRV. (This condition is not encountered for this project analysis and will not be discussed further.)

Grassy Project Area HRV Reference Conditions: The main influence to the historical development of these forests was the interactions between the climatic environment and native insects, diseases, and natural wildfires. While moisture conditions allowed for the establishment and development of some white fir and mostly pine, periodic drought produced environmental stresses that predisposed white fir to insects (for example, fir engraver), reducing the number of white fir as forests developed. Additionally, periodic wildfire would preferentially remove white fir, favoring the dominance of ponderosa pine. The result of these interactions was that ponderosa pine was the dominant tree species in this area, usually maintained at low densities and characterized by large trees with few small trees. The overall appearance of these forests has been described as “open, park-like” conditions. White fir increased at the upper most elevations and on protected areas (north slopes or swales that collected soil moisture) and from past fire suppression activities. The Grassy IDT certified silviculturist determined that, in terms of HRV:

• The project area, as a whole, is considered below the Historic Range of Variability because it is currently deficient in stands exhibiting Late and Old Structure (LOS). • In the ponderosa pine type, prior to the fire there was an excess of multi-storied stands, and a deficiency of single-storied mature stands. • The currently classified mixed conifer/white fir type (CW) has become dominated with white fir due to fire exclusion. Compared to HRV for this forest type, there are too many multi-storied stands and too few single-storied mature stands.

These localized conditions reflect the findings of the completed watershed analysis for three areas adjacent to or near the project area (this includes the immediately adjacent Deep Creek watershed and Chewaucan and Upper Thomas Creek Watersheds to the west of Honey/Fish Creek). Similar conclusions about HRV are documented at a regional scale in “An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins - PNW –GTR-405, Volume 2”, pages 615 and 618 (USDA 1997), also known as ICBEMP. ICBEMP reports findings that for the Northern Great Basin Ecological Reporting Unit (ERU) area that “The amount of late-

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 7 Forest Vegetation seral multi-layer forest type was well above the HRV. The amount of late-seral single layer forest type occurred substantially below or at the low end of HRV. These conditions related primarily to the exclusion of non-lethal and mixed underburn fires.” Table 3.91 in PNW –GTR-405, Volume 2 (USDA 1997) reports an ERU-wide decrease in late-seral single layer forest from 56 percent in historical year 100 to 27 percent currently (the preceding discussion is partially in response to a public comment received during the 30 day comment period for this project).

The above factors indicate that the interim ecosystem/wildlife standards from Scenario A are to be applied. Thus, in all alternatives considered for the project area, no live trees greater than 21” dbh are proposed for harvest. As noted in Chapter 1, using researchers’ findings, in combination with local experience, the Grassy Interdisciplinary Team certified silviculturist determined that a fire-damaged tree with less than 30 percent live green crown would be considered dead. Reforestation and stocking level control prescriptions are designed to meet the objectives of Scenario A, with a management preference toward ponderosa pine in keeping with LRMP (as amended) direction to move vegetative structure toward LOS conditions within the HRV.

Existing Condition The fire resulted in two categories of fire severity: areas with lethal fire severity, creating large patches with less than 10 percent surviving live tree canopy cover, and areas within a mosaic of live and dead trees, including areas of no mortality (yet still within the fire perimeter). Approximately 1,025 acres of forest vegetation had fire effects classified as lethal to both the overstory and understory vegetation. An estimated 250 acres of mostly ponderosa pine forests are in the mosaic category. The remaining vegetation consists of shrub/grassland/ plant communities (approximately 225 acres). These areas are intermingled with the forested plant communities.

Forested Areas with Lethal Fire Severity (approximately 1,250 acres) The severely burned acres contain areas previously affected by forest management activities. Approximately 20 acres of even-aged plantations and approximately 150 acres of even-aged thinning were affected. The remaining approximately 1,080 acres were either unmanaged or were previously entered with low intensity treatments. These areas now contain dead trees of small to medium size with some large dead trees scattered throughout the areas.

Forested Areas within the Fire Mosaic (approximately 250 acres) In this category the forest vegetation had moderate, light, or no fire severity effects. The differing fire intensities created a forest mosaic. Individual or groups of trees often survived within these burned patches. More commonly, the burned areas were intermingled with patches where fire effects were limited to the forest understory and where minimal mortality occurred in the forest overstory. These fire effects tended to reduce overall tree densities; however, the effects were variable due to time of burn, topography, pre-fire fuel loadings, tree densities, species composition, and canopy relationships between the different sized trees within the stand.

Chapter 3 - 8 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Forest Vegetation

Past Timber and Silviculture Activities Refer to Appendix A for information on the past harvest and post sale activities for the last 20 years or so. About 45 years ago the Honey Creek Fire was harvested and planted. Part of the Grassy Fire burned portions of this old burn.

Private Land Logging About 400 to 500 acres of private land are currently being logged. The logging should be completed by December 2004 and hauling may take longer.

Tree Mortality Within the last decade, managers have used varying standards of live crown retention as an indicator of survival or mortality. In the nine years prior to 2002, the Fremont- Winema National Forests experienced several fires, including the Thomas Fire, the Lone Pine Fire, the Robinson Springs Fire, and the Toolbox Fire. For these fire areas, the guideline used for predicting which trees were very likely to die varied between the 20 percent live crown minimum or the 30 percent live crown minimum. Monitoring of these fires has shown a consistency with findings by Wagener (1961), Ryan (1982), Agee (1993), and Scott (2002).

Generally, ponderosa pine with moderate (30 to 50 percent) cambium injury from fire (with a scorch height of 2 to 8 feet) or 30 percent or more of the pre-fire crown green foliage is the minimum requirement for living after a fire, according to Scott (Scott et al., 2002). According to Ryan (1982), few trees survive the loss of more than 80 percent of their crown length after a fire. Agee (1993) has shown that the amount of time it takes a fire to kill white fir cambium is about half the time a fire needs to kill ponderosa pine cambium, due to bark thickness. White fir is basically twice as susceptible to being killed by fire as ponderosa pine.

Using the above studies, in combination with this local experience, the Grassy IDT certified silviculturist developed the design elements for salvage on this project. Briefly, these are that ponderosa pine with less than 30 percent of the green crown that existed prior to the fire, or 50 percent or more of the bole scorched; and white fir with less than 50 percent of the green crown that existed prior to the fire, or 30 percent or more of the bole scorched, would be considered dead and eligible for salvage.

Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Areas With Lethal Fire Severity Successional pathways describe the development of vegetation over time. More than one potential pathway can occur on a given site. Two potential successional pathways are possible under the no action alternative. The difference between the two successional pathways is based upon the probability of successful white fir establishment.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 9 Forest Vegetation

The first scenario would produce a white fir-dominated forest. This would result through the germination, establishment, and growth of the recently dispersed white fir seed. Favorable moisture conditions would be required during the growing season for white fir to survive and establish itself on the burned seedbed. Shrubs are also expected to become established in the post-fire environment and are predicted to initially overtop the white fir. However, white fir can survive under shade and would ultimately overtop other vegetation within twenty years of establishment.

The second scenario would produce a grass/forbs/shrub-dominated ecosystem. This successional pathway would occur if the initial natural seeding failed due to unfavorable environmental conditions, such as drought-induced mortality. Subsequent natural seeding of white fir would depend upon the limited survivor component within the burned area, or adjacent sources where white fir is a significant cone producer. The most probable outcome in this scenario is for an extended regeneration period where conifer trees slowly become established while other vegetation dominates the site.

Neither scenario would predict that ponderosa pine would form a major component of the post-fire vegetation. This is due to the limited ability for pine to seed over large areas, the large expanses of burned area where live ponderosa pine does not exist, and the long intervals between cone crops where viable seed is abundant. In the limited areas where a live seed source does exist, dense young regeneration adjacent to these live trees could become established.

Both potential scenarios would depart from reference conditions due to lack of a significant, well dispersed, ponderosa pine component. This would result in the lack of development of park-like ponderosa pine forest. Insect and disease activity would be higher as compared to the reference conditions, since white fir is generally more susceptible than pine. The combination of these events would limit the potential for old forest development.

Area Within the Fire Mosaic Different successional pathways exist where fire effects burned in a mosaic pattern. Where lethal effects occurred, potential pathways include the two scenarios described above. Where fire effects were limited to the understory vegetation, densities of the small tree component are reduced. The resulting seedbed is made available for the establishment of a new tree seedling component. Both white fir and ponderosa pine would initially become established. Future vegetation composition of the forest would depend on the amount of initial seeding by pine and white fir, the environmental conditions during seedling establishment, and the amount of overstory canopy cover remaining. Generally, as overstory canopy coverage exceeds 20 percent, white fir is favored over pine in future stand development.

An additional successional pathway is present where individual overstory tree mortality occurred. Adjacent live trees would expand their crowns and fill the spaces created by the individual tree mortality. Subsequent regeneration would be limited to white fir, since the resulting overstory would prohibit pine establishment and survival.

Chapter 3 - 10 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Forest Vegetation

These forests are expected to depart from reference conditions in the future due to increasing tree densities, additional canopy layer establishment, and shifts in species composition. Secondary impacts would include increased moisture stress, increased risk of bark beetle mortality, and lower probability of large tree development.

Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) All of the activities in Appendix A have been considered for their cumulative effects on forest vegetation. Structural changes in the two subwatershed cumulative effects analysis area can be related to timber sale activities and fire (and fire suppression). Timber sales that were either clearcuts or overstory removals had the most pronounced effect on forest structure, specifically removal of most or all old trees in these past harvest units. During the past 30 years, the 41,000-acre cumulative effects analysis area, which encompasses the Middle and Upper Honey Creek subwatersheds, has had a total of 1,560 acres of clearcut harvest (all in Upper Honey) and 1,950 acres of overstory removal (95 percent in Upper Honey). In the past 30 years those sales that have impacted more than very small acreages include (by decade):

• 1970s: John Can Timber Sale – 230 acres of clearcut • 1980s: Honey, Military, Abert, and Tin Can Timber Sales – 670 acres clearcut 1,250 acres overstory removal • 1990s: Tary, Abert, and Blue Springs Timber Sales – 460 acres clearcut 652 acres overstory removal

No clearcut or overstory removals have occurred in the cumulative effects analysis area since 1992. With the advent of the Eastside Screens in the mid-1990s, prescriptions of this nature were no longer in accordance with the Forest Plan.

The results of these harvest activities, coupled with timber management earlier in the twentieth century, and successful fire suppression activities have resulted in the current high stand densities and deficiency of stands in the area that exhibit Late and Old Structure (LOS), particularly late-seral single layer forest types. This was also discussed under the earlier HRV heading.

Snags in the Lethal Fire Severity Areas are not sustainable, because there are no green trees (replacement snags). After about 20 to 30 years, all the existing snags would be gone. To grow trees to a medium sized tree (about 14 inches diameter breast height (DBH)) would take about 60 years after trees become established, at which time the trees could be considered replacement medium snags. Without planting, establishing trees would take a very long time, because a seed source is lacking. For this period, habitat for snag dependent species would be non-existent.

Live trees of various sizes exist in the Areas Within the Fire Mosaic and, therefore, some snag replacement candidates. Snag retention is sustainable to some degree.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 11 Forest Vegetation

Future grazing activities from both livestock and wildlife have the potential to reduce the probability of successful establishment of ponderosa pine seedlings. Successful mitigation measures would include techniques that maintain distribution of cattle across the range allotment and protective techniques from wildlife damage.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 2 This alternative consists of the harvesting of dead trees and the harvesting of both dead and live trees with stocking level control and planting of mostly ponderosa pine seedlings.

Stocking level control would be accomplished primarily by hand thinning. All planted areas would have about 250 trees per acre (TPA) planted.

Probability of Successful Reforestation Successful reforestation is expected to occur through the combination of planting of ponderosa pine and natural seeding of white fir. Previous regeneration harvests were successfully reforested with planted ponderosa pine. All stands were stocked prior to the Grassy Fire. Since these plantations occur on sites that are the same as the areas proposed for reforestation, restocking the stands to meet management objectives can be expected.

Applicability of Even-Aged Management Initially, even-aged stands would be created in the planted areas. Additional management practices in the future would be required. The exact timing of these events would be determined based upon stand development and management objectives in the future. The environmental effects of these activities would be analyzed and disclosed at that time.

Lethal Fire Severity Areas The planted areas would proceed through a successional sequence that includes an initial grass/forbs/shrub stage, with increasing dominance by conifers within five years. The planting of pine at low to moderate densities would permit this species to form a dominant composition of the future forest. Combined with future management activities, the presence of pine increases the probability that old forest conditions can become established similar to reference conditions. Insect and disease should be less of a factor in this alternative as compared to no action, since pine is generally less susceptible to insect and disease as compared to white fir.

Areas Within the Fire Mosaic These areas contain vegetation that was partially burned, resulting in various densities of residual forest vegetation. The application of thinning from below (both commercially and stocking level control of the understory) would place the stands on the successional pathway that would produce old, park-like forest conditions. Harvesting of both dead and live trees is proposed in 3 units (units 12, 13, and 14), totaling 61 acres, plus 73 acres

Chapter 3 - 12 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Forest Vegetation

outside of timber sale units, to enhance development of LOS conditions. Commercial thinning would retain all live trees 21” DBH (diameter breast height) and greater, and thin small/medium size trees (7 or 9 to 20.9” DBH). Stocking level control would favor ponderosa pine trees and be implemented on an average 20 foot X 20 foot spacing.

The reduction in forest canopy, combined with the irregular clumping of trees and the limiting of tree canopy overlap, produces stands with low risk to crown fire potential. Overall stand densities are at a low risk to bark beetle attack, although individual trees within clumps may become infested over time. The overall effect of the proposed treatment is to increase the similarity of these stands to the reference condition as compared to the No Action alternative and Alternative 3.

Cumulative Effects All of the activities in Appendix A have been considered for their cumulative effects on forest vegetation. As noted in the cumulative effects discussion for Alternative 1, past timber harvest, fire and fire suppression have all contributed existing conditions. The condition attributed to past timber harvest (from clearcut and overstory removal prescriptions), namely removal of most or all old trees, would not be furthered by Alternative 2. All live trees would be retained in the salvage units and all live trees greater than 21 inches dbh would be retained in the commercial thinning units. Snags, including those greater than 20 inches dbh, would be retained to meet Forest Plan standards.

On a landscape basis, general reference conditions of ponderosa pine forests in the PNW/Great Basin were 85 percent open forest, which can be further broken down to: 10 percent in early seral open, 20 percent in mid seral open and 55 percent in late seral open (http://www.frcc.gov/docs/PNVG/West/PPIN1_Description.pdf). More than half of the landscape area was in Late/Old structure (LOS). The more closed forest condition, where much of the downed wood would tend to accumulate, occurred on about 15 percent of the landscape. The common open forest stands were dominated by shrub/grass ground cover. These open conditions provided recurring fertilization from ground cover detritus. On a landscape scale the proposed activity in the Grassy Salvage project would affect conditions by adding early seral forest. Within the Upper and Middle Honey Creek subwatersheds the proposed activity would cover about 3 percent of the landscape area or 8 percent of the forested landscape area. In this sense, the proposed activities would fall short of providing the 10 percent early serial component that was characteristic of reference conditions.

Snags in the Lethal Fire Severity Areas are not sustainable, because there are no green trees (replacement snags). After about 20 to 30 years all the existing snags would be gone. To grow trees to a medium sized tree (about 14 inches DBH) would take about 60 years after planting, at which time the trees could be considered replacement medium snags. For a period of 30 to 40 years, habitat for snag dependent species would be non- existent.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 13 Forest Vegetation

Live trees of various sizes exist in the Areas Within the Fire Mosaic and, therefore, some snag replacement candidates. Snag retention is sustainable to some degree.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 3 Lethal Fire Severity Areas These areas are with units 1-9 and 11. Retaining all trees greater than 21 inches diameter breast height (DBH) with any green needles would be nearly the same as Alternative 2, because of the very few trees involved. An estimated 2 percent of the trees greater than 21 inches DBH would be retained, about 80 trees or 0.14 TPA. As with Alternative 2, the planted areas would proceed through a successional sequence that includes an initial grass/forbs/shrub stage, with increasing dominance by conifers within five years. The planting of pine at low to moderate densities would permit this species to form a dominant composition of the future forest. Combined with future management activities, the presence of pine increases the probability that old forest conditions can become established similar to reference conditions.

Areas Within the Fire Mosaic Neither commercial thinning, nor commercial salvage in these predominantly green stands (units 12, 13, and 14) is an included action in this alternative. Small tree thinning (stocking level control) would still occur in these units and in an additional 73 acres outside of units.

The existing various live tree densities in these areas would result in pockets of overstocked, stressed trees 9 inches DBH or greater, due to inter-tree competition for the limited amount of water, soil nutrients, and sunlight. The probability of producing an old park-like ponderosa pine forest is reduced considerably because white fir would increase until a disturbance occurred, which would increase the chances of ponderosa pine occupying more of the site.

Potential for Live Tree Damage or Impact Any logging operation, whether salvage or green, has the potential for live trees to be damaged by operations. This can occur in an accidental fashion or in the development of landings, skid trails, during road pre-haul maintenance or temporary road construction. Specific to this project, Perozzi indicated that while it was unrealistic to estimate a quantity (volume or tree numbers) of live trees that would be impacted by operation that it is expected to be very minor (personal communication Ron Perozzi, South Zone Sale Administration, 2005).

Chapter 3 - 14 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Forest Vegetation

The action alternatives involve between approximately 600 and 700 acres of timber sale. The majority of the project area (85 percent) experienced high lethal severity. It is within these highly lethal areas that the timber sale actions are focused (though more so with Alternative 3 than Alternative 2). Given that, it is reasonable to conclude that in very few instances, the developments of landings, skid trails, road pre-haul maintenance or temporary road work would require that live trees be cut in order to carry out operations. The potential for unplanned live tree cutting would be less with Alternative 3 than with Alternative 2, because the three proposed units that are within the mosaic burned areas, totaling 61 acres, would not be logged with Alternative 3 (the preceding discussion is partially in response to a public comment received during the 30 day comment period for this project).

Cumulative Effects The condition attributed to past timber harvest (from clearcut and overstory removal prescriptions), namely removal of most or all old trees, would not be furthered by Alternative 3. All live trees would be retained in the salvage units. All trees in salvage units that are greater than 20.9 inches dbh, with any green needles, would be retained. Alternative 3 includes no commercial thinning. Snags, including those greater than 20 inches dbh, would be retained to exceed Forest Plan standards. Otherwise, the cumulative effects for Alternative 3 are the same as Alternative 2.

Consistency with the Forest Plan and Other Regulatory Direction Proposed activities analyzed in this Forest Vegetation section would be consistent with the Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended, and other direction listed in the Regulatory Framework for Forest Vegetation.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 15 Fire and Fuels

Fire and Fuels

Introduction An uncharacteristically high fuel load (both standing and down dead trees as well as large and small fuels,) such as that created by the Grassy Fire, can increase the difficulty of controlling any future fires that may start in the area, given current firefighting resources and techniques. Such fuel loads can set the stage for yet more severe, uncharacteristic fire that in turn could significantly damage or delay reforestation and other restoration efforts.

Fuels management is a process of managing the hazard in relation to the size and severity of a potential fire event. The objective of fuels management is to reduce the fire hazard to a level where cost effective resource protection is possible should a wildfire ignite. Of the three components affecting wildland fire behavior (fuels, weather, and topography), only fuels can be manipulated. Thus, whether or not to actively reduce fuels has a direct bearing on how soon the project area’s ponderosa pine forests would be restored and how sustainable they would be over the long term.

Purpose and Need / Key Issues The following purpose, need and key issue elements discussed in Chapter 1 are pertinent to the Fire and Fuels resource area:

As stated in Chapter 1, a purpose of this project is to: • As rapidly as feasible, restore a sustainable ponderosa pine forest in the Grassy Fire area.

Issue Indicators Recovery of sustainable forests in areas that have burned depends first on reforestation occurring, either through natural means or planting, and then maintaining conditions that sustain the forest through time (i.e. do not contribute to uncharacteristic fire behavior). The following indicator will be used to evaluate the fuels aspect of this issue:

• Does Fuel Model 12 occur during the expected succession of fuel conditions that would follow implementation of a given alternative?

Chapter 3 - 16 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Fire and Fuels

Regulatory Framework National Fire Plan The National Fire Plan provides national direction for hazardous fuel reduction, restoration, rehabilitation, monitoring, applied research, and technology transfer. In August 2000, President Clinton directed Secretaries Babbitt and Glickman to recommend how best to respond to the recent fire events, reduce the impacts of wildland fires on rural communities, and ensure sufficient firefighting resources in the future. The Forest Service responded in October 2000, with the report “Managing Impacts of Wildfires on Communities and Environment” (USDA, 2000a), known as “The National Fire Plan.” In the report, the Chief of the Forest Service directed operating principles including: firefighting readiness, prevention through education, rehabilitation, hazardous fuel reduction, restoration, collaborative stewardship, monitoring, jobs, and applied research and technology transfer. The Fremont-Winema National Forests’ Grassy Fire Salvage Project is responsive to the rehabilitation, hazardous fuel reduction, and restoration elements of the National Fire Plan, which states:

• Rehabilitation – Focus rehabilitation efforts on restoring watershed function.

• Hazardous Fuel Reduction – Assign highest priority for hazardous fuels reduction to: communities at risk, readily accessible municipal watersheds, threatened and endangered species habitat, and other important local features where conditions favor uncharacteristically intense fires.

• Restoration – Restore healthy, diverse, and resilient ecological systems to minimize uncharacteristically intense fires on a priority watershed basis. Methods include removal of excess vegetation and dead fuels through thinning, prescribed fire, and other treatments.

Fremont Forest Plan and Fire Management Plan The Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) includes Forest-wide fire management direction that is consistent with other resource goals (Chapter 4 of LRMP). For all fires, the priority is protection of Human Life and Property and Natural/Cultural Resources (USDI, Standards for Fire, 2002 p1-6). Firefighter safety is paramount while providing resource protection and fire use necessary to protect, maintain, and enhance resource values and attain land management goals and objectives (Chapter 4 of LRMP). In support of this objective, the Fire Management Team is committed to: • Recognizing employees as our most valuable asset, and ensuring that “the protection of human life is the single, overriding priority” (USDI, Standards for Fire, 2002 p1-2).

• “A fire protection and fire use program that is cost efficient and responsive to land and resource management goals and objectives” (FRF Plan p118).

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 17 Fire and Fuels

• Providing leadership in prescribed fire to accomplish land management objectives by fully integrating fire management principles and techniques into the development of interdisciplinary proposals based upon the acceptable range of results and desired conditions.

Direction provided in the Forest Plan (1989) ensures that fire programs are cost effective, compatible with the role of fire in ecosystems, and responsive to resource management objectives.

FS Manuals/Handbooks Specific guidelines for Wildland Fire Use and Prescribed Fire applications are found in Forest Service Manual 5100 (Fire Management) and a number of Forest Service Handbooks resulting from FSM 5100 direction. Forest Service Handbook 5109.19 (Fire Management Analysis and Planning) gives specific direction on planning practices related to Fire and Fuels management.

In 1995, the Federal Wildland Fire Policy and Program Review was initiated (USDI/USDA et al., 1995). Some of the principles of this review include: 1) firefighter and public safety are the first priority; 2) wildland fire is an essential ecological process and natural change agent; and 3) fire management plans must be based on the best available science. This policy contains direction to allow Wildland Fire Use and prescribed fire to restore fire’s natural role in appropriate areas where approved plans are in place.

Additional Background Information Intensity and Severity Burn intensity describes the nature of a fire in terms of its rate of energy release. These are physical descriptions of the fires, rather than ecological effects. Debano uses the term “intensity” to refer to the rate of heat produced by a wildland fire. “Fire intensity is a term that is used to describe the rate at which a fire produces thermal energy. Fire intensity is influenced by the amount of fuel available for burning, local weather conditions before and at the time of the fire, and the topography of the burning site. The limiting factor in fire intensity is the amount of energy stored in the fuel. As a consequence, the greater the fuel loading, the more intensely a fire is likely to burn” (DeBano et al., 1998, p.56-57.).

In this “Fire and Fuels” section, fire intensity is often used in reference to fire line intensity. Fire line intensity, also called Byram’s intensity, is the product of the available heat of combustion per unit area of ground surface and the rate of spread of the fire. The equation for fire line intensity is:

I = .007HWR

(I= intensity (kW/m), H= Heat yield (cal/g), W= fuel loading (Mg/ha), R=rate of spread (m/min), (DeBano et al., 1998, p.57)).

Chapter 3 - 18 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Fire and Fuels

This equation is somewhat altered from Rothermel’s 1991 equation, which is:

I = Rwh, Btu/ft.s,

(I= intensity, R=rate of spread (ft/s); w=available fuel, lb/ft2; and h=heat of combustion, Btu/lb (Rothermel, 1991, p.6)).

Thus, it is reasonable to assume that if available fuel is reduced, there is a reduction in fire line intensity. Fire line intensity has been related empirically to flame length, which is easily measured in the field (DeBano et al., 1998, p.56-57).

Severity is often used to describe the effects of a fire. Lakeview Ranger District and South Zone specialists in several disciplines worked to develop, update, and ground- verify vegetative mortality in the burned areas. This resulted in defining two categories of “fire severity” as they relate to the effects on vegetation, specifically, areas with “lethal fire severity” and areas with “a mosaic” of live and dead trees.

In the Grassy BAER report, the term “severity” refers to effects on soil characteristics. The term severity in the BAER report does not equate with “lethal fire severity” as used throughout this EA, which refers to effects on vegetation. This explains why the BAER report states that 100 percent of the soils in the fire experienced low severity, while this EA reports 1,250 acres of lethal fire severity and 250 acres in a “mosaic” category (see Forested Vegetation section in Chapter 3).

Large Logs as Moisture Reservoirs A study by Amaranthus, “Decaying Logs as Moisture Reservoirs After Drought and Wildfire” (Amaranthus et al, 1989), was reviewed in order to assess a range of scientific findings relating to the role of large down logs in relation to fire. The Amaranthus study is pertinent to Douglas-fir forests of the Siskiyou National Forest. The Grassy Fire occurred in a much drier site, at the far eastern edge of the Fremont-Winema National Forests, in a location that averages about 20 inches of annual precipitation. The amount of shading that occurs in an eastside, dry-site ponderosa pine forest is substantially less than that supplied in a westside Douglas fir forest.

Amaranthus study plots were located where the topography and shade were the most advantageous for moisture retention. Plots were within clearcuts with approximately 20- year old Douglas-fir reproduction, as opposed to an exposed fire area. Due to these factors, the science in the 1989 Amaranthus study is inapplicable to the site-specific elements in the Grassy project area (the preceding discussion is partially in response to a public comment received during the 30 day comment period for this project)

Amaranthus, et al. acknowledges that, “A balance between fuel management guidelines and protection of the wood component of forest soils is critical. Large accumulations of woody residue can create a potential for wildfires of increased intensity, which would result in a lack of organic material and thus limit subsequent growth.” This recommendation echoes the approach suggested by Brown in “Coarse Woody Debris:

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 19 Fire and Fuels

Managing Benefits and Fire Hazard in the Recovering Forest ” (Brown, 2003). Brown’s research took into account the various competing considerations in relation to large down wood (wildlife habitat, soils, and fire risk) and issues recommendation, discussed later in this section, for down wood retention.

The role of large logs during wildfire in an environment like the Grassy area, contrary to being one of fire moderation or prevention, is often to exacerbates fire behavior and contribute to a higher intensity, longer duration fire. This is echoed by information contained in the daily Fire Behavior Forecasts that were filed during the Grassy Fire Suppression (variously Martin, Stover, and Ziel, August 2004). These reveal that 3 days following the fire start, despite the fact that moisture associated with a weather system was expected in the area, “extremely dry fuel conditions will still be in effect for the large down fuel.” Five days after the fire had started, the Fire Behavior Report advised, “extremely dry fuel conditions will still be in effect for the large down fuel and will continue to burn until they are put out.”

This is consistent with information contained in Brown (Brown, 2003) relating to the role of large down wood: “Accumulations of large dead woody fuel, especially containing larger diameter decayed pieces, can hold smoldering fire on a site for extended periods. When high winds occur, the sustained burning of persistent fire can be fanned into fast moving, dangerous fires.”

Existing Condition In August 2004, the Grassy Fire burned a total of 4,202 acres of timber, brush, and meadow. Of the total fire area 1,436 acres were National Forest System lands. Approximately 240 acres burned with a low intensity, 145 acres burned with a moderate intensity, and 1,051 acres burned with a high intensity, consuming most of the existing biomass. The term burn severity is referring to the amount of surface and canopy fuel burned as compared to the amount of live fuel left throughout the burn area.

The Grassy Fire consumed a very high amount of surface fuel content. Most of the surface fuel was consumed in the moderate and high burn intensity areas. The highest fuel loading observed in the high and moderate burn intensity areas was less than 5 tons per acre. The fuel loading observed in the low fire intensity burn area was observed at approximately 9 tons per acre.

The Grassy Fire is in a Fire Regime 1 on the Lakeview Ranger District. Fire Regime refers to the rate of fire occurrence within a given area in a given period of time, and the severity of the fires that occur. The term Fire Regime 1 is applied to an area that historically has had low-severity fires every 0 to 35 years. Although the Grassy Fire is in a Fire Regime 1, which experiences low intensity fires, the Condition Class had changed over the decades from Condition Class 1 to Condition Class 3, resulting in the large stand-replacing Grassy Fire. In a Condition Class 1: a.) the Fire Regime is within or near its historical range, b.) there is a low risk of losing key ecosystem components, c.) the fire frequencies have not departed from historical fire frequencies by more than one return interval and d.) the vegetation attributes (species composition and structure) are intact

Chapter 3 - 20 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Fire and Fuels

and functioning within its historical range. The Condition Class in the Grassy area had changed from a Class 1 to a Class 3, which means the Fire Regime was significantly altered from its historical range. Vegetation attributes had been significantly altered and fire frequencies had departed by multiple return intervals as a result of fire exclusion and other management practices.

The predominant ignition source in this area has been lightning; therefore, the fire occurrence rate can be expected to stay relatively static. However, with the change in fuel composition, the number of fires growing to 100 acres or more and the severity of these fires can be expected to change. The fire has changed the fuel model from a 9 or 10 to what will represent a fuel model 2, dominated by grasses and forbs. The resulting fire behavior will be flashy and fast spreading through this fuel model.

Burn Intensity Level High The post-fire hazard for the 1,051 acres that burned with high intensity is currently low. Due to the Grassy Fire there is no surface fuel component other than the occasional patches of duff and litter. This profile lacks the fine fuel and dead component necessary for a ground fire to carry. The standing material consists of mainly scorched trees. There is the possibility for the post-fire hazard rating to increase in the long term (10 to 100 years), due to the increase in the brush component coming in after the fire and the existing snags falling down to create ground fuel.

Burn Intensity Level Moderate The post-fire hazard for the 145 acres that burned with a moderate intensity is currently moderate. The fuel loading will build at a faster rate than the high burn intensity level due to the fact that there are small trees, needles, and limbs that were not consumed in the fire. This scorched but unconsumed material will start falling to the forest floor, accumulate and add to the existing material, and develop enough surface fuel to sustain a ground fire.

Burn Intensity Level Low The post-fire hazard for the 240 acres that burned with a low intensity is currently high because there was little consumption of both vertical and horizontal fuel loading during the Grassy Fire. The existing fire damage will add to the dead fuel component, increasing the fire danger.

Analysis Method Fuel conditions for the Grassy Salvage area were obtained through the Fire Family Plus program using the Summit RAWs station, which is representative of the analysis area (see Fire and Fuels Specialist Report in the Grassy Planning Record). The weather used was at the 67th percentile from July 1 through August 31, which is representative of the weather and time of year when most of the fires have occurred in the Gassy Analysis area.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 21 Fire and Fuels

Fuel models used in the effects analysis for this section are described below. BEHAVE runs and the Fire Family Plus outputs display environmental and fuel conditions used to produce figures seen in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 under Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternative 1.

Engines and Hand Crews can work safely and effective if flame lengths less than 4 feet. Dozers can work safely and effective with flame lengths less than 8 feet.

Fuel Model 2 In a fuel model 2, the greatest challenge for all resources is dealing with a potentially fast moving/flashy fire. This fuel type is relatively easy to suppress as long as the production rates of resources are greater than the rate of spread. Because it is a flashy fuel type, grass lends itself to modified suppression techniques that have great success in stopping the forward rate of spread. Once this is achieved, this fuel model generally is fully suppressed with little effort. Without harvest, these conditions would exist for firefighters for only a few seasons. With harvest, the conditions would exist for a longer period of time with slightly greater fire intensity than normally seen in a fuel model 2. This is due to some accumulation of large woody debris still present after harvest. The additional fuel would cause the fire to be slightly more intense and burn longer than that of a typical fuel model 2. Production rates of resources may be slightly less than those typical for that fuel type and would require attention for a longer period of time to ensure full suppression.

Fuel Model 12 In a fuel model 12, production rates of dozers and hand crews are generally low due to problems in removal of large woody material when building control lines. Fortunately, the overall spread rate in this fuel type is very slow. Safe fire fighting techniques applied from the heel of the fire are very successful. Even during strong wind events, unless the fire reaches the crowns, the production rate using only a few resources would exceed the rate of spread typically generated by this fuel type. Longer burning duration and the increased energy released by such large fuels is the main concern. Commitment by resources for a longer period of time is needed to ensure full suppression.

With salvage harvest, in which boles down to 9” diameter breast height (dbh) would be removed, this stage in succession and the challenges of a Fuel Model 12 to firefighters is eliminated. Without harvest, the fuel model 12, which exists in the Grassy Analysis area, would differ slightly in fire behavior than typical. A typical fuel model 12 would have similar fuel loading by size, but differs in the arrangement of fine fuels. The condition in the Grassy area would have a grass component that is more uniform than that typically seen in a fuel model 12. This slight difference would give rise to a slightly greater rate of spread than that calculated by fire prediction programs. Fire fighting resources may be faced with a potentially difficult arrangement of fuels in which to build control lines, with spread rates slightly higher than normal.

Chapter 3 - 22 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Fire and Fuels

Fuel Model 6 In a fuel model 6, dozers have good success in building control lines. When followed up by hand crews and/or engines, containment is generally successful. Problems for firefighters in these fuels are fast rates of spread, large flame lengths, and intense energy release. A combination of resources is needed to generate an effective and safe firefighting force that can produce fire-line fast enough to exceed the rate of spread. The production rate of hand crews and engines is low, and the energy released by such fuels inhibits the use of modified suppression techniques that are successful in a fuel model 2. The fire behavior is very reactive to changes in wind strength and direction. Once contained, full suppression would take less commitment of resources and time than that seen in a fuel model 12.

Without harvest, another problem exists that is a factor firefighting resources must address. Large woody material within the brush component would cause two problems for firefighting resources. First, building fire line would be slower for all resources in areas where large woody fuels have accumulated. Second, the burnout phase would be much longer as large woody material continues to consume behind the flaming front. This would also increase the potential for spotting. According to Brown, “Torching, crowning, and spotting, which contribute to large fire growth, are greater where large woody fuels have accumulated under a forest canopy” (Brown, 2003, p.4). Follow-up would be required by resources to ensure full suppression.

Fuel Model 9 In the advanced fuel condition represented by a fuel model 9, all resources attempting to suppress a fire should have good success. Production rates are high for firefighters, while the rate of spread and flame lengths are low. Even with strong winds, a minimal suppression crew is generally successful. With some large fuels present, commitment of these resources is needed to ensure full suppression.

Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 – No Action Without salvage harvest, the following succession of fuel conditions would likely occur. The first stage within this process is a fuel component dominated by grasses and forbs. The resulting fire behavior would reflect that of a Fuel Model 2. As the dead standing timber falls to the ground, becoming an available source of fuel, the combination of grass, forbs, and large woody material would resemble that of a Fuel Model 12, although more grass would be present than typically seen in a Fuel model 12. At some point, the brush component would begin to grow up through the downed timber and dominate the landscape. A Fuel Model 6 would best represent such conditions, although you would still have the large wood component of a fuel model 12 throughout the brush creating a very receptive fuel bed for a high intensity fire. Eventually, if natural regenerated trees grow larger and dense enough they would shade out the brush and begin to dominate.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 23 Fire and Fuels

Brown (2003, p.4) notes, “Torching, crowning, and spotting, which contribute to large fire growth, are greater where large woody fuels have accumulated under a forest canopy and can contribute to surface fire heat release.” A wildfire through this fuel type of a combination fuel model 12 and 6 would be expected to produce a very high heat per unit area that would most likely kill any regeneration of trees occurring. There would be a greater chance of damage to the soil conditions due to the high heat per unit area closer to the ground (see “Heat per Unit Area” in the following table).

Brown (2003) notes that “Large woody fuels have little influence on spread and intensity of the initiating surface fire in current fire behavior models, however, they can contribute to development of large fires and high fire severity. Fire persistence, resistance-to- control, and burnout time (which affects soil heating) are significantly influenced by loading, size, and decay state of large woody fuel. However, methods for estimating and interpreting these fire characteristics are not well established. Accumulations of large dead woody fuel, especially containing larger diameter decayed pieces, can hold smoldering fire on a site for extended periods. When high winds occur, the sustained burning of persistent fire can be fanned into fast moving, dangerous fires.”

Exceptions to the typical role of large fuels in the initial spread of fire, as described by Brown, do exist. For instance, “The McDonald II Fire burned in July 2000 on the Lewis and Clark NF and, interestingly, the main carrier of the fire was not the fine herbaceous surface fuels, but, rather, the large dead and down (1,000-hour and 10,000-hour) fuels created from a previous fire.” (Opperman and Kelley, 2003).

Units 12, 13, and 14, designated for harvest in Alternative 2, show up as a Fuel model 8 due to the amount of fir encroachment into the stands and canopy spacing, which is at 25 to 38 percent after the fire and needs to be below 20 percent for a fuel model 9. The No Action alternative does not include any treatments to improve the stand health. Although these stands burned with a low intensity, the amount of pre-existing dead trees, combined with the trees killed in the fire, would move the stands from a Fuel model 8 to a Fuel model 12 when the trees come to the ground. Alternative 1 does not include the treatment of 73 acres of pre-commercial thinning, which is included in the action alternatives. By not treating the acres, a fairly healthy stand is vulnerable to a change in condition class and fuel model due to overstocking and encroachment.

The No Action alternative would also have an impact on the production rates used to contain any future fires in the analysis area.

Standardized Fuel Models were used, although fuel model 12 would react with more intensity than normal due to the fact it is a combination of a fuel model 6 and 12.

Chapter 3 - 24 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Fire and Fuels

Table 3-1: Fuel Conditions With No Harvest (Alternative 1) Fuel Model Flame length Rate of Spread Heat per Unit Area (Head) (Head) 2 7.1’ 42.1 CH/H 502 BTU/Sq.Ft. 12 8.6’ 14.5 CH/H 2318 BTU/Sq.Ft. 6 6.5’ 36.5 CH/H 497 BTU/Sq.Ft. 9 3.1’ 9.3 CH/H 390 BTU/Sq.Ft.

Table 3-2: Typical Resource Production Rates* per Fuel Model Resource Fuel Model 2 Fuel Model 12 Fuel Model 6 Fuel Model 9 Engine (Type 6) 15 CH/H 10 CH/H 10 CH/H 12 CH/H Hand Crew (T-2) 16 CH/H 4 CH/H 5 CH/H 16 CH/H Dozer (Type 2) 125 CH/H 30 CH/H 85 CH/H 85 CH/H *Production rates assume the fire is a ground fire and has not gotten into the crowns.

In the first 10 years after the fire “high fire severity is unlikely because duff and downed woody fuels that support prolonged burning would be absent.” (Brown, 2003). However Brown goes on to report that 10 to 30 years after the fire, “high burn severity would primarily occur where large woody material was lying on or near the soil surface,” and 30 to 60 years after the fire, “Higher severity burning than would typically occur during earlier periods is possible depending on extent of soil coverage by large woody pieces.” (Brown, 2003, p.9).

It is in the 25 to 30 year timeframe that the first applications of prescribed fire on the young ponderosa pine forest would need to be introduced into the area to maintain the open pine conditions left after the fire. Trying to put fire into the heavy fuel build up left after the No Action alternative would compromise any regeneration occurring and would not allow for a healthy ponderosa pine stand to develop. In that regard, the No Action alternative does not meet the purpose and need of the project to, “as rapidly as feasible, restore a sustainable ponderosa pine forest in the Grassy Fire area.” This alternative does not facilitate the eventual reintroduction of prescribed fire, which is considered a prime management tool in creating and maintaining a sustainable ponderosa pine forest.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Due to the nature of the fire, in many areas there are few remaining needles and reduced quantities of small limbs remaining that would contribute to post-salvage fuel loadings. Harvesting standing dead timber larger than 8”dbh would create the following successional fuel conditions. Fuel model 2, with grasses and forbs, would be the dominating fuel condition for the first few years. Because of salvage harvest, there would not be enough large woody fuels present on the forest floor to develop into a fuel model 12.

Fuel conditions would remain dominated by grass until the brush component develops. As the brush matures and grows thicker over the landscape, it would change the representative fuel model to a 6, but, unlike Alternative 1, there would not be a large

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 25 Fire and Fuels

wood component (of a fuel model 12) thoroughly mixed into the fuelbed. Transition from fuel model 2 to fuel model 6 would take roughly the same amount of time with or without harvest. Timber would eventually grow and be more competitive than the brush and dominate the fuel conditions to produce a mature forest state represented by a fuel model 9. Harvesting large woody material changes two main things:

1. A condition representative of a fuel model 2 would persist longer.

2. There would not be sufficient large woody material to produce a fuel model 12, which is the fuel model that is of the greatest concern for fire line intensity and problems with production rates.

By removing the 9-inch and above standing dead material in units 1 through 11, post- salvage ground fuel treatments would not be needed. A 20-ton per acre criteria was set for determining the need for the treatment of natural fuels. This tonnage is consistent with the coarse woody debris (CWD) recommendations of Brown, 2003, “Coarse Woody Debris: Managing Benefits and Fire Hazard in the Recovering Forest.” Brown’s research took into account the various competing considerations of wildlife habitat, soils, and fire risk, and states, “Consideration of these positive and negative aspects indicates that the optimum quantity of CWD is about 5 to 20 tons per acre for warm dry ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir type. The CWD optimum quantities for acceptable fire hazard are appropriate when accompanied by small dead fuel loadings of about 5 tons per acre or less” (Brown, 2003, p.8).

The ground fuels created from the stocking level controls outside the timber sale units, 73 acres, and the stocking level control thinning in units 12 and 13 would need to be treated. This would be achieved with crushing when the fuels have properly cured so that the treatment is effective. The lop and scatter method of fuels treatment would be used in unit 14, which is a helicopter unit and is too steep for crushing. Both the 73 acres outside the sale units and the 61 acres of thinning in units 12, 13, and 14 would need to be treated with prescribed fire 3 to 5 years after the thinning. Activity fuels created from the salvage would need to be treated. The method of harvest would be whole tree yarding to the landings; therefore, the slash would be piled and burned when in prescription at the landings.

Alternative 3 The effects of implementing Alternative 3 would be similar to that of Alternative 2 for fire and fuels except for Units 12, 13 and 14. The 61 acres of commercial thinning in these units have been dropped in this alternative. By dropping the commercial thinning in these units, the risk of fire severity and fuel build up would likely increase. By not opening the canopy with a commercial thin, the stand would not change from a Fuel Model 8 to a fuel model 9, leaving the stands at risk for a crown fire. Martinson and Omi (2002, p.25) note that, “Crown fire potential cannot be ignored. While surface fire intensity is a critical factor in crown fire initiation, height to crown: the vertical continuity between fuel strata, is equally important. Further, crown fire propagation is dependent on the abundance and horizontal

Chapter 3 - 26 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Fire and Fuels

continuity of canopy fuels.” By not removing any of the overstory, the fire-damaged trees and already-dead trees would continue to fall down, increasing the fuel loading and changing the Fuel Model from an 8 to a 12.

Changing the Fuel Model to a 12 would increase the difficulty of thinning to reduce the ladder fuels and treating the ground fuels in those units. As shown in the preceding tables, the Heat per Unit Area more than doubles from a fuel model 9 to a fuel model 12. The production rates for fire suppression also more than double with the fuel model change. Martinson and Omi (2002, p.i) also note, “Our results unanimously indicate that treated stands experience lower fire severity than untreated stands that burn under similar weather and topographic conditions. Correlations between fire severity indicators and measures of crown fire hazard and fire resistance were generally good, but individual sites provide unique lessons that illustrate the importance of treating fuel profiles in there entirety.”

Units 1 through 11 change the salvage harvest criteria for trees over 21 inches from 30 percent green crown to 0 percent. This criteria change would likely change the fuel loading in these units. Larger trees have a much greater effect on the fuel loading calculations as compared to the under 9 inches dbh trees. Depending on the amount of trees that die and come down, the tons per acre may increase to the 20-ton per acre criteria set as the standard for treating the natural fuels.

Cumulative Effects See Appendix A for a complete compilation of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities (including wildfire history and 2004 suppression history), regardless of ownership, in the cumulative effects analysis area.

The past occurrences or activities with the greatest effect on fuels are fire suppression since about 1900 and the Grassy Fire itself. As discussed in Chapter 1, fire suppression has contributed to uncharacteristic and unsustainably high tree densities. See the “Existing Condition” section for the effect of the Grassy Fire on fuels. There has been limited use of prescribed fire in the past (see Table A-2 in Appendix A). Its use has been limited to a few areas of past timber harvest. No landscape level prescribed fire has been introduced in the cumulative effects analysis area.

One past fire, included in the 1949 to 1984 period reported in Appendix A, is the Honey Creek Fire. From corporate memory, it is known that this fire occurred about 45 years ago. It was salvaged and planted at that time. Part of the Grassy Fire burned in portions of this old burn. Anecdotally, the fire and post-fire activity 45 years ago seemed to have a direct effect on the 2004 Grassy Fire. In the area near Unit 7, the 2004 fire behavior in the salvaged and planted areas from this 45-year old burn was substantially different than in the adjacent timber stand that is now included in Unit 7. The following photograph shows a blackened multi-storied ponderosa pine stand in the foreground. This stand experienced “lethal fire severity” in 2004. Most tree needles have been consumed by fire. No trees with any green needles remained in the area of the photo in September 2004. In the background is the approximately 45-year old plantation that resulted from

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 27 Fire and Fuels

the events following the Honey Creek Fire. The needles on the trees in this plantation were not only still present (not fire-consumed), but, in most cases, were still green in the fall of 2004.

Figure 3-1: Blackened Multi-Storied Ponderosa Pine Stand (foreground) and Plantation Trees with Green Needles (background)

The Grassy Fire itself resulted from a combination of factors including fuels conditions and weather conditions (the following discussion is partially in response to a public comment received during the 30 day comment period for this project). A summary of the Grassy Fire behavior and weather, prepared immediately following the incident, indicates that a combination of high fire danger, volatile fuels, and weather extremes provided the setting for the Grassy Fire. The Honey Creek drainage is (was) dominated by closed canopy ponderosa pine/true fir type with large diameter downed fuels (Ziel and Stover, 2004). On August 16, 2004, when the Grassy Fire began, the following fuels moistures were reported by the Summit RAWs station, which is representative of the analysis area:

Table 3-3: Fuel Conditions on August 16, 2004 1 Hr 10 Hr 100 Hr Fuels Fuels Fuels 1000 Hr Fuels 2% 2% 3% 5%

Fuels larger than 1,000 hour fuels (which includes logs generally larger than eight or nine inches in diameter) are not measured at the Summit RAWs station. However, as previously discussed and noted in the Grassy Fire Behavior Reports (variously Martin,

Chapter 3 - 28 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Fire and Fuels

Stover, and Ziel, August 2004), extremely dry fuel conditions in large down fuels were a factor in extending fire behavior.

The Grassy Fire began from a lightning strike on private land, less than 1,000 feet east of the National Forest boundary, in an area of high density ponderosa pine. Because the area had not been logged for at least 4 decades there was little logging slash present. Ironically the private landowner had submitted a harvest plan to the State Department of Forestry for doing some thinning which would have decreased horizontal fuel continuity.

Past timber sales and timber stand improvement projects (see Table A-3 in Appendix A) in the two-subwatershed analysis area have altered fuels. Harvest activities have focused on modifying the structure and composition of stands in order to create desired conditions that are resilient to future fires, insects, and disease. Timber sales have served to reduce fuel loading and disrupt continuity of large fuels. Clearcuts and overstory removals (see following page) have typically left saplings and brush components and the ladder fuel component. Ladder fuels increase the susceptibility of stands to crown fire and stand replacing fire. During the past 30 years, the 41,000-acre cumulative effects analysis area, which encompasses the Middle and Upper Honey Creek subwatersheds, has had a total of 1,560 acres of clearcut harvest (all in Upper Honey) and 1,950 acres of overstory removal (95 percent in Upper Honey). In the past 30 years those sales that have impacted more than very small acreages include (by decade):

• 1970s: John Can Timber Sale – 230 acres of clearcut • 1980s: Honey, Military, Abert and Tin Can Timber Sales – 670 acres clearcut 1,250 acres overstory removal • 1990s: Tary, Abert, and Blue Springs Timber Sales – 460 acres clearcut 652 acres overstory removal

Following harvest, fine fuels typically increase for the first 3 to 5 years, due to grass, brush, and needles. Fine fuels provide less resistance to control and are considered more favorable for fire suppression and fire fighter safety objectives than a heavy load of large fuels. Disruption of fuel continuity, both live and dead, has decreased the probability of independent crown fire and stand-replacing fire. Landing piles and machine piles are usually generated in conjunction with harvest. These piles decreased the 10, 100, and 1,000-hour fuel concentrations created by harvest within the harvest unit and concentrated them in isolated locations (piles).

Short-term effects of timber stand improvements (TSI) include increases in fine fuel loading for the first 3 to 5 years. Longer term, TSI decreases future large woody fuel loading and disrupts large fuel continuity. Since the most recent activities in the two-subwatershed analysis area are at least 10 years old, any effects on fuels profiles has diminished. In this sense, the direct and indirect effects attributed to the three

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 29 Fire and Fuels alternatives, in earlier discussion, closely equate with the expected cumulative effects for each alternative.

Livestock Grazing has had an undetermined effect on fuels. In general, livestock grazing reduces the fine fuel loading and slows fire spread. However, grazing allotments have had little, if any, effect on large fuel loading and large fuel continuity. Though there has been speculation about the interaction of livestock grazing and tree regeneration (and, therefore, fuel structures), a definite cause and effect relationship does not appear to have been established. When Skovlin and others (1976) studied different cattle grazing methods on ponderosa pine ranges, they found an increase in tree seedling density during a thirteen-year study period. However, this increase may have not been related to cattle use since the same response occurred in units grazed only by wildlife species, and there was no significant difference in seedling density between areas with differing cattle- grazing intensities (Skovlin et al., 1976). Others have concluded that cattle grazing does affect forest structures by reducing understory grasses and sedges, which allows an occurrence of dense understory trees (Belsky and Blumenthal, 1997).

Overall, the past activities, as well as the reasonably foreseeable future projects, in conjunction with the proposed Grassy projects (Action Alternatives), would tend to decrease the fuel loading throughout the two subwatersheds. The reduction of fuels would help bring the area into a condition that would be more acceptable for fire fighting operations and help to bring the forest into a more fire-resistant, healthy state over a large area. Having large inter-mixed areas of land that have been treated, as well as untreated areas, may allow for a more natural fire condition to be utilized at a future date.

Due to the uncertainty of when and where future fire suppression activity would occur, it is difficult to provide site-specific information relating to potential cumulative effects relating to fire suppression. Cumulative effects typically focus on past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including connected actions, not on unpredictable events. Connected actions are defined as closely related actions that automatically trigger other actions (40 CFR 1508.25 a 1). In that sense, an analysis of the effects of future fire suppression, which was requested in a comment received during the 30-day period, is beyond the scope of connected actions and beyond the typical scope of cumulative effects analysis. However, based on information brought out earlier in this section relating to resultant fuel models with the three alternatives and how those models relate both to suppression efforts and to fire behavior, some general comparisons between the alternatives are possible.

Impacts from fire suppression typically relate to the size and intensity of the fire, which influence the amount of and type of suppression activities that occur. Negative effects to soil and water from fire suppression typically are associated with amount of and type of control line (handline and machine line), the use of retardant drops, the use or development of road systems within and adjacent to the fire, the amount of snag felling during suppression and the amount of and type of burnout operations that are used. On the resource protection side, fire suppression is also typically coordinated to minimize impacts on specific high value resources. For example, on the Grassy Fire two of the five

Chapter 3 - 30 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Fire and Fuels

stated primary objectives in the Incident Action Plans that were prepared to direct the suppression activities were resource related. This included, “Minimize loss to sage grouse habitat” and minimize damage to “Wilderness Study Areas from suppression activities.”

The analysis of the alternatives documented earlier in this section found that Fuel Model 12 would be widespread in the future with Alternative 1, would be present in Alternative 3 (Units 12, 13 and 14 only) and would not occur with Alternative 2. Other information was presented about the difficulties of implementing suppression activities when this Fuel Model is present, including a much slower production rate for either handline or machine line. From this it would appear that the potential for future fire suppression activity to be a lengthier more difficult operation with Alternative 1 than with the action alternatives is a reasonable conclusion. In this regard, it is expected that cumulative impacts from future fire suppression would likely be greatest with Alternative 1 and least with Alternative 2. However these conclusions need to be taken in a context that recognizes the uncertainty of the future location and timing of wildfire.

Consistency with Forest Plan and Other Laws The Grassy Fire Salvage Project is responsive to the rehabilitation, hazardous fuel reduction, and restoration elements of the National Fire Plan. The Grassy Fire Salvage Project (Action Alternatives) is responsive to the objectives outlined in the Fremont Forest Fire Management Plan by integrating firefighter safety, fuels treatment (and facilitating eventual use of prescribed fire) into an interdisciplinary project designed to move the burned area towards desired conditions.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 31 Wildlife

Wildlife

Purpose and Need / Key Issues The following purpose, need, and key issue elements discussed in Chapter 1 are pertinent to the Wildlife resource area:

As stated in Chapter 1, a purpose of this project is to:

• Promote riparian and upland habitats in the Grassy Fire area that meet the desired conditions established by the Fremont N.F. (LRMP).

As stated in Chapter 1, a need for this project is: • Wildlife habitat within the project area, including snags and down wood, and live forest. As stated in Chapter 1, Key Issue #1 is: • Commercial salvage can adversely impact snag and down wood habitat through the removal of snags.

Issue Indicator: Many wildlife species rely on moderate to high levels of snags and down logs for nesting, roosting, denning, and feeding. The abundance and usefulness of the snag habitat component, particularly for snag and down wood dependent species, could potentially be negatively impacted by salvage operations. The following indicator will be used to evaluate this issue:

• Snag numbers retained, by alternative, by size class, within proposed harvest units and within snag retention areas or snag habitat areas (with only small tree thinning) within the Grassy Salvage Project. This is supplemented with a narrative discussion of effects specific to snag and downed wood dependant species, as well as effects on management indicator species that rely on snags and downed wood.

Regulatory Framework As stated in the 36 Code of Federal Regulations 219.19, wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native species by identifying management indicator species whose population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities. To meet this CFR, the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Fremont National Forest (LRMP) identifies species whose population changes may indicate impacts on other species found within a specific habitat type. The Endangered Species Act also requires Forests to manage for the recovery of threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Forests are required to consult with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) if a proposed activity may

Chapter 3 - 32 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife affect the population or habitat of a federally listed or sensitive species. The Forest Service manual also directs the Regional Forester to identify sensitive species for each National Forest where species viability may be a concern.

One of the primary strategies used in the Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) to achieve the objective of providing sufficient habitat for species viability is to focus on habitats that are likely to be limited in the future (in short supply either in total acreage or in distribution) and to identify particular management indicator species that could be used to represent all species dependent on those habitats. This process is fully documented in Appendix G of the FEIS for the Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA, 1989).

The Forest Plan includes management allocations (such as MAs 3 and 14 for old growth- dependent species) as well as Forest-wide standards and guidelines that direct the management of habitat with the objective of providing sufficient habitat quantity, quality, and diversity to maintain self-sustaining populations of existing vertebrate native fish and wildlife species. In the intervening years following the preparation of the Forest Plan FEIS, updated information on habitat requirements has been the primary factor in the development of major amendments to the Forest Plan, such as Regional Forester’s Amendments #1 and #2 and INFISH. These amendments have resulted in adjustments to standards and guidelines.

Environmental Consequences

Snag and Downed Wood Dependant Species: Additional information related to primary cavity excavating species is included in the Management Indicator Species section in this document.

Habitat Studies have identified 96 wildlife species associated with snags and 86 species associated with down wood (Rose et al., 2001). Most snag-using wildlife species are associated with snags greater than 14.2 inches diameter breast height (dbh) with about a third of these using snags greater than 29.1 inches dbh. Primary excavators, such as woodpeckers and nuthatches, are forest dwelling birds that are specialized for foraging on and nesting in decaying wood. They require trees with rotted heartwood for excavating nest holes and for a foraging substrate. This foraging substrate consists of insects such as bark-boring and wood-boring beetles on the surface of trees. Their impact is sometimes great enough to prevent insect outbreaks (Jackman, 1974). The most important role primary excavators play in the forest community is the provision of nest holes for small mammals or for cavity nesting birds that do not excavate their own holes. Approximately 31 percent of the total bird fauna use snags for nesting and denning, foraging, roosting, communicating, and as hunting and resting perches (Raphael and White, 1984).

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 33 Wildlife

Dead wood is also a fundamental feature of healthy forests. Logs contribute to the hydrology of a site and provide microhabitats that protect wood-dwelling organisms with moist, thermally stable, predator-protected niches in which to live (Torgersen, unpub.). Logs can be considered habitat in which animals (such as pine marten) forage, or habitat which animals (such as deer fawns or black bear) use for hiding cover and protection. Down wood provides physically complex structures where animals find stable temperatures and moisture for denning, nesting, feeding, and food storage (Torgersen, unpub.).

Habitat needs for both fire-hardened snags and non-fire-hardened snags should be considered when managing for cavity nesting species. Initially, in burned areas, cavity- nesters mainly select snags that were made suitable for nesting by decay mechanisms that occurred before the fire. Conks and broken tops best identify these types of snags. Subsequently, fire-killed trees that were previously sound soften with decay introduced by the multitude of insects that colonize dead and dying trees following a burn. These trees eventually provide additional replacement nest sites out into the future. Woodpeckers select large diameter and thick-barked trees for foraging, which usually exhibit few signs of decay or broken tops. Foraging activities decrease on trees that are severely burned. It is important to retain both fire-hardened and non-fire- hardened snags to provide existing and replacement nesting and foraging habitat.

DecAID is considered by many to be the “best science” currently available, and it synthesizes and summarizes available information on snags and down wood quite well. At this time, opinions differ regarding how to apply or use the information in DecAID. Many believe that the information must be used and applied at the 80 percent tolerance level; however, this is not the case, and DecAID recommends not applying one tolerance level to a landscape. The most current information and direction from the Regional Forester’s Office regarding DecAID is that it must be considered. The information from DecAID, as identified in Appendix C, was considered in determining the appropriate number of snags to retain and the amount of down wood to retain.

Existing Conditions Within the Grassy Salvage analysis area, snag levels are currently above Forest standards and guidelines of four snags per acre due to the Grassy Fire. In addition, due to the nature of the stands, the height of the snag component in the Grassy area meets LRMP standards for snag height. Existing snag levels by size class are displayed in the following table. In plantations, snag habitat is generally lacking, while in unmanaged areas snag habitat created by the fire consists of hundreds of acres of snags of varying sizes.

Chapter 3 - 34 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife

Table 3-4: Existing Snags by Size Class within Proposed Units and Snag Retention Areas

Snag Size Classes

Snags >10-14.9” 15-19.9” >20” Total Snags1 23,396 12,161 5,448 1 There are additional snags within the boundary of the Grassy project area outside of proposed units and snag retention areas, but these have not been counted. These areas are typically rocky, have low volume, or are within riparian habitat conservation areas.

Reconnaissance indicates that down wood densities vary across the Grassy Fire area. Most of the area appears to be below the standard and guidelines of 80 lineal feet/acre in ponderosa pine; however, there are some down logs both from trees and snags felled during suppression efforts and from trees that have fallen. Down wood levels are changing daily and will continue to change as snags fall.

Initial Scoping Responses on Snag Retention Levels Beschta Report - Comments received during initial project scoping requested snag retention levels that would essentially be consistent with the recommendations in the 1995 Beschta Report (Beschta, et al., 1995). These retention levels are:

• “Leave at least 50 percent of standing dead trees in each diameter class.” • “Leave all trees greater than 20 inches dbh or older than 150 years.”

These recommendations appear to be a broad-brush approach to snag retention guidelines throughout the west where salvage may occur, and are not based on physical or biological requirements anywhere, nor are they tied to specific vegetation types. Since no rationale or references are given for the above recommendations, it is not clear what science or model they are based upon, or if it is professional opinion. Additionally, size classes were not defined in the document, nor were they referenced so they could be reviewed elsewhere. Therefore, even if one wanted to meet the recommendations identified in the Beschta report for snag retention, it would be difficult because size classes would be interpreted, and may not meet the intent of the report. This is not to say that the Beschta report is not a scientifically credible document; however, it is lacking several important steps that would help it achieve a higher status than professional opinion, which is lacking critical references.

In light of these considerations, this proposed salvage project considered the information on snags and down wood available in DecAID, and considered direction issued on July 12, 1995 by the Fremont National Forest Supervisor to be consistent with Regional Forester direction issued on August 30, 1993, and Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2. These levels were designed to maintain 100 percent potential population levels of primary cavity nesting species on the Fremont National Forest.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 35 Wildlife

Draft Klamath Tribes Forest Management Plan Snag Retention Levels Comments received during initial project scoping requested snag retention levels consistent with the Klamath Tribes Forest Management Plan. These retention levels for ponderosa pine/bitterbrush stands are:

• 25 square feet basal area for trees less than 21 inches dbh per acre • 12 trees greater than 21 inches dbh per acre • 1 to 2 snags greater than 21 inches dbh per acre

Under the Klamath Tribe Plan, these trees would be retained if they were burned or green. Based on some assumptions of trees needed to achieve the 25 square feet basal area, this could result in a snag density of 30 + snags per acre. The rationale for retention at this level is that this is what would have been here historically and what would have occurred with a stand replacing fire. A concern with this rationale is that, historically, fires may have had pockets of high intensity, such as snag patches or down wood concentrations, but fires would not have burned with enough intensity to kill a large number of trees on a large scale, such as occurred with the Grassy Fire. Harrod et al. (1998), as cited in DecAID, estimated historical snag densities of 6 to 14 per acre for snags greater than 6 inches dbh. Agee (2002), as cited in DecAID, estimated that there were 2 snags per acre, but he gave an average snag size of 30 inches dbh. Korol et al. (2002 and unpublished data), as cited in DecAID, estimated that there were 0.4 to 0.7 snags per acre greater than 20 inches dbh historically.

DecAID information With the data available in DecAID for the Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir Forest, Small/Medium Trees Vegetation Condition (Mellen et al., 2003), the average number of snags per acre for treatment areas was considered from the inventory data in DecAID:

• 30 Percent Tolerance Level – 1.3 or fewer snags per acre • 50 Percent Tolerance Level – 2.6 or fewer snags per acre It is recommended to retain more snags than DecAID would indicate should be retained based on inventory plots, and less down wood. Something that DecAID indicates, when looking at the underlying data, is that snags and down wood are found in a mosaic across a landscape, and that there are areas of high concentrations and areas of low concentrations. What DecAID does not show is the spatial and temporal variations and distributions.

These recommendations are a result of the effects analysis that follows. There are limited studies and information regarding post burn snag requirements for primary cavity nesters. See Appendix C for the full discussion of DecAID information, and how the information in DecAID was considered for this proposed project. The proposed Grassy Salvage project shall meet the following standards for snags and down wood:

Chapter 3 - 36 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife

1. The Fremont National Forest Plan Standard for snags, consisting of 3 snags greater than 15 inches DBH (20 inches preferred) and greater than 20 feet tall, and 1 snag 10 inches DBH (12 inches preferred) and greater than 20 feet tall shall be applied to the Grassy project for the acres proposed for treatment. This standard was contained in a letter of direction from the Forest Supervisor to the Forest Leadership Team in July 1995. This would exceed the inventory information available in DecAID for the small/medium ponderosa pine stands. However, it must be remembered that areas not proposed for treatment have variable snag densities, and provide a wide range of densities that would match with the 30 percent tolerance level to the 80 percent tolerance level.

2. The Fremont National Forest Plan Standard for down wood of 80 linear feet with a small end diameter of 9 inches shall be applied to the Grassy project. Due to local moisture regimes, fire regimes, and historical vegetation densities, this area would have been on the lower range found in the inventory numbers in DecAID, while DecAID analyzed information throughout Oregon and Washington. Again, this is only for down wood within proposed units, and elsewhere in the Fire area all down wood would be retained. Within units it would have to be shown that an area exceed these standards on at least 40 acres before any current down wood could be removed.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would provide the greatest opportunity for maintaining all of the potential nesting and foraging habitat for those species that respond well to fire. This alternative would retain all of the snags shown above in Table 3-4 under Existing Conditions. Most notably, habitat would be maintained for primary excavators and cavity nesting species. These include pileated woodpeckers, red-naped sapsuckers, black-backed woodpeckers, white-headed woodpeckers, pygmy nuthatches, Lewis’ woodpeckers, and Williamson’s sapsuckers.

Alternative 2 The Grassy Fire has modified bird species richness. However, based on the mosaic pattern in which the fire burned, it has likely increased species richness from pre-fire conditions by creating vegetation diversity. Due to the differing responses of individual species to tree size class and density, leaving variable clump sizes, variable diameter sizes, and un-salvaged areas within the snag retention areas and RHCAs under this alternative would help assure that suitable habitat is maintained for a variety of species. Areas with lower snag densities would favor use by Lewis’ woodpeckers, while areas of higher snag densities would favor use by black-backed woodpeckers.

Table 3-5, below, displays the snags to be retained with each unit for Alternative 2, while Table 3-4 shows the total snags proposed for retention within proposed units and snag retention areas. Within proposed harvest units, trees with less than 30 percent green needles could be removed. The snag retention areas are predominately RHCAs and

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 37 Wildlife rocky areas associated with them. They occur mostly in one large patch associated with Honey Creek, First Swale Creek, and Second Swale Creek.

Table 3-5: Alternative 2 Snags Retained within Salvage Units

Unit Acres Snags by Size Class >10-14.9” 15-19.9” >20” 1 364 532 490 267 2 2 0 1 0 3 9 12 13 19 4 37 42 50 9 5 8 15 8 2 6 67 59 8 0 7 25 18 9 6 8 41 94 66 46 9 33 63 37 32 11 3 1 0 0 12 23 5 7 22 13 23 21 42 29 14 15 17 20 17 Total 650 879 751 449

In using DecAID, the 50 percent tolerance level would be applied to approximately 429 acres, and the 30 percent tolerance level would be applied to approximately 221 acres. Applying the inventory information above:

• 2.6 snags/ac. x 429 ac. = 1,115 snags

• 1.3 snags/ac. x 221 ac. = 287 snags

Therefore, following the observed snag densities from the inventory data in DecAID, total snag retention would be 1,402 snags for Alternative 2

Table 3-6: Alternative 2 Snag Retention within Snag Retention Areas and Units Snags by Size Class Total Snags Retained 1 >10-14.9” 15-19.9” >20”

Proposed units 879 751 449

Snag retention areas 1,017 717 717

Total: 744 acres 1,896 1,468 1,166 1 Snag inventories were designed to provide information about those areas that would be directly affected by salvage. There are additional snags outside of these areas that would not be removed, but have not been inventoried.

Chapter 3 - 38 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife

By following Forest Plan standards instead of the observed densities from the inventory data within DecAID, Alternative 2 would provide 3,128 additional snags. In Alternative 2, snag levels will meet LRMP Standard and Guidelines, as amended by the Regional Forester’s Amendment #2. DecAID indicates that most ponderosa pine snags fall within 15 years of creation. Therefore, it is expected that snags would be limited after this occurs until the stands mature. However, in the long term, quantities of down wood should exceed LRMP Standard and Guidelines, as amended by the Regional Forester’s Amendment #2.

The snag fall rates used in this analysis are based on an examination of several references. DecAID indicates that most ponderosa pine snags fall within 15 years of creation. Therefore, it is expected that snags would be limited after this occurs until the stands mature. Everett’s snag fall report (Everett, 1999) generated from studies on the east slope of the Cascades in Washington State, properly cautions that snag longevity is area-specific. Everett cites various studies and sources (Bull, 1980, Keen, 1929, and Dahms, 1949), which, in general, indicate that snag fall rates are a function of snag size, tree species, cause of mortality, season of mortality, and the micro-environment. Snags created by fire decayed rapidly and fell more quickly than those on unburned forests, and that larger snags had greater longevity than smaller snags. Bull found that the average annual rate of fall for ponderosa pine snags 10 to 20 inches dbh was 23 percent and for snags greater than 20” dbh the rate of fall was 3 percent. Keen reports that, seven years following fire, 58 percent of ponderosa pine 10 to 18 inches dbh had fallen. Dahms reported that 75 percent of ponderosa pine snags 8 to 20 inches dbh fell within a 10-year post-fire period compared to 35 percent fall for 20 to 30 inch dbh snags (the preceding discussion is partially in response to a public comment received during the 30-day comment period for this project). For the most part, existing down wood within proposed harvest units would be retained. Existing down logs and snags felled for hazard reasons would only be removed if it can be shown that down wood levels are being met on at least a 40-acre area. This is unlikely to occur given the existing conditions. Field reconnaissance during mid-November found some trees had already blown over, and some treetops had already blown out. While this is currently below Forest Plan standards, DecAID identifies that most ponderosa pine snags fall within 15 years, and white fir snags have a faster fall rate. The only fuels treatment proposed is to burn piles at landings. Whole tree yarding and yarding with top attached would prevent fuel accumulations within units, and help assure lower future fire intensities within plantations. Areas outside of units would not be treated and are expected to contribute more down wood.

Alternative 3 The table below summarizes snag retention within proposed units and snag retention/snag habitat areas. The following table shows the total snags proposed for retention within proposed units and snag retention areas. The snag retention areas are predominately RHCAs and rocky areas associated with them. Snags occur mostly in one large patch associated with Honey Creek, First Swale Creek, and Second Swale Creek. For Alternative 3, the determination of which trees would be harvested for salvage, if they are

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 39 Wildlife

greater than 21 inches dbh, is modified from Alternative 2. In response to Key Issue #1, in Alternative 3, for trees greater than 21 inches dbh, only those trees with no green needles discernable from the ground would be harvested. It is estimated that this would retain approximately 80 additional snags in the greater than 20 inches dbh category in units 1 through 11. A key difference between Alternative 2 and 3 is that Units 12, 13, and 14 (from Alternative 2) would be unharvested in Alternative 3, becoming snag habitat areas (with only small tree thinning). Areas with lower snag densities would favor use by Lewis’ woodpeckers, while areas of higher snag densities would favor use by black-backed woodpeckers. Habitat maintenance for species that utilize burned areas would be greater with Alternative 3 than with Alternative 2 due to the greater numbers of snags retained under Alternative 3.

Table 3-7: Alternative 3 Snags Retained within Salvage Units

Unit Acres Snags by Size Class >10-14.9” 15-19.9” >20” 1 364 532 490 267 2 2 0 1 0 3 9 12 13 19 4 37 42 50 9 5 8 15 8 2 6 67 59 8 0 7 25 18 9 6 8 41 94 66 46 9 33 63 37 32 11 3 1 0 0 Added in 1-11 0 0 0 80 Total 589 836 682 461

Table 3-8: Alternative 3 Snag Retention within Snag Retention/Snag Habitat Areas and Units Snags by Size Class Total Snags Retained 1 >10-14.9” 15-19.9” >20”

Proposed Units 836 682 461 Snag retention/snag habitat areas 1,562 1,872 956

Total: 744 acres 2,398 2,554 1,417 1 Snag inventories were designed to provide information about those areas that would be directly affected by salvage. There are additional snags outside of these areas that would not be removed, but have not been inventoried. From Alternative 2, proposed units 12, 13, and 14 are counted as snag habitat areas with small tree thinning for Alternative 3.

Chapter 3 - 40 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife

In using DecAID, the 50 percent tolerance level would be applied to approximately 406 acres, and the 30 percent tolerance level would be applied to approximately 177 acres. Applying the inventory information above:

2.6 snags/ac. x 406 ac. = 1,056 snags

1.3 snags/ac. x 183 ac. = 238 snags

Therefore, following the observed snag densities from the inventory data in DecAID, total snag retention within proposed salvage units would be 1,294 snags for Alternative 3.

By following Forest Plan standards instead of the observed densities from the inventory data within DecAID, Alternative 3 would provide 5,075 additional snags. DecAID indicates that most ponderosa pine snags fall within 15 years of creation. Therefore, it is expected that snags would be limited after this occurs until the stands mature.

For the most part, existing down wood within proposed harvest units would be retained. Down logs and snags felled for hazard reasons would only be removed if it can be shown that down wood levels are being met on at least a 40-acre area. This is unlikely to occur given the existing conditions. Field reconnaissance during mid-November found some trees had already blown over, and some treetops had already blown out. While this is currently below Forest Plan standards, DecAID identifies that most ponderosa pine snags fall within 15 years. The only fuels treatment proposed is to burn piles at landings. Whole tree yarding and yarding with top attached would prevent fuel accumulations within units and help assure lower future fire intensities within plantations. Areas outside of units would not be treated and are expected to contribute more down wood.

In Alternative 3, snag levels will exceed LRMP Standard and Guidelines, as amended by the Regional Forester’s Amendment #2. This finding is true whether snags are measured only in terms of salvage units and their proximate snag retention/ snag habitat areas; or when considered across the entire project area. These snag retention designs will provide quantities of down wood that should, in the future, exceed LRMP Standard and Guidelines, as amended by the Regional Forester’s Amendment #2.

Comparison of Alternatives 2 and 3 The comparison displayed in the following table is provided to show a summary of information related to potential snag retention for the two action alternatives due to the amount of information provided in the preceding tables. Note that the snag classes are different in this table to show the comparison to meeting Forest Plan snag retention levels.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 41 Wildlife

Table 3-9: Comparison of Snag Retention Levels for Alternatives 2 and 3 Snags Snags Alternative >10-14.9” >15” Alternative 2. Total snags 1,896 2,634 retained / % of Forest Plan minimum 250% 120% Alternative 3. Total snags 2,398 3,971 retained / % of Forest Plan minimum 320% 180%

The snag retention information presented in the above table would retain more snags than information from DecAID would indicate should be retained (see discussions above).

The retention of snags is distributed between proposed units and snag retention/snag habitat areas. All trees in all diameter classes would be retained within the snag retention/snag habitat areas. In addition to the snag numbers identified above for retention, there would also be a large number of snags that are less than 10” dbh throughout the fire area. It must be remembered that the above numbers are only for units and snag areas. There are currently additional snags within the proposed project boundary that are outside of these areas and trees will continue to die for several more years. Also, to help keep the Grassy Fire area in perspective, Alternative 2 would propose salvage harvest on 44 percent of the National Forest System lands within the fire boundary, and Alternative 3 would propose salvage harvest on 40 percent of the National Forest System lands within the fire boundary. However, not all land that has no planned treatment was forested prior to the fire. Plantations covered some of the area, and the deer winter range areas are predominately juniper shrub lands.

Cumulative Effects All of the activities in Appendix A of the Environmental Assessment have been considered for their cumulative effects on snag and down wood dependant species. The activities discussed here have the potential to produce a cumulative effect.

Timber Harvest (Including Associated Planting and Timber Stand Improvement Projects) Past timber management activities have likely decreased the potential habitat available for snag and down wood dependant species within the analysis area. Past timber harvests that were either clearcuts or overstory removals would typically have removed the older and larger trees that would have created snags and down wood had they been allowed to die on their own. During the past 30 years, the 41,000-acre cumulative effects analysis area, which encompasses the Middle and Upper Honey Creek subwatersheds, has had a total of 1,560 acres of clearcut harvest (all in Upper Honey) and 1,950 acres of overstory

Chapter 3 - 42 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife

removal (95 percent in Upper Honey). In the past 30 years those sales that have impacted more than very small acreages include (by decade):

The diminished habitat conditions for snag and down wood dependant species attributed to past timber harvest (from clearcut and overstory removal prescriptions) would not be further diminished by Alternative 2. Past harvest occurred prior to the current Forest Plan levels for snag and old tree retention. With Alternative 2 all live trees would be retained in the salvage units and all live trees greater than 21 inches dbh would be retained in the commercial thinning units. Snags, including those greater than 20 inches dbh, would be retained to meet Forest Plan standards.

The diminished habitat conditions for snag and down wood dependant species attributed to past timber harvest (from clearcut and overstory removal prescriptions) would not be further diminished by Alternative 3. All live trees would be retained in the salvage units. All trees in salvage units that are greater than 20.9 inches dbh, with any green needles, would be retained. Alternative 3 includes no commercial thinning. Snags, including those greater than 20 inches dbh, would be retained to exceed Forest Plan standards. Otherwise, the cumulative effects for Alternative 3 are the same as Alternative 2.

Private timber harvest (salvage and green) reduced existing and recruitment snag densities, and existing conditions based on past management likely reduced snag numbers on these lands. Approximately 450 acres of adjacent private lands within the fire perimeter (total 2,360 private acres) were salvage logged in 2004. Additional salvage logging is not expected. Snag retention levels proposed on National Forest lands, which meet or exceed Forest Plan standards, would continue to provide these habitat components.

Timber stand improvement projects and planting have benefited snag and down wood species by reducing the time required to grow trees, and to grow larger trees. Large diameter trees would be recruited into those thinned stands over time, therefore providing for future snags and down wood.

Snag Creation Snag creation was implemented in the early 1990s. Snag creation projects improved habitat for snag and down wood dependant species. Because these project were implemented, it suggests that snags were deficient in the area at that point in time.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 43 Wildlife

Personal Use Firewood Gathering Woodcutters are not authorized to cut standing dead ponderosa pine but this would still likely occur. However, the majority of woodcutting is done within about 50 feet of roads (the uphill side – unless it is flat). Since these are trees that would likely be removed in the future, as a hazard, and considering that it is likely to be in small areas, the number of snags removed would be small. While this would be a negative effect on snag dependant species, it would not be a major affect. As trees fall, woodcutters would cut downed logs from along roadsides, and, while this would reduce down wood, because of its close proximity to roads it would likely be a minor amount and should not effect down wood dependant species.

Fire Suppression Activities The two subsheds have a high occurrence of lightning, and it is likely that at least some of the retained snags could be struck by lightning in the future. Typically, these fires are limited to less than 0.10 acre, but usually result in the trees having to be felled, which would likely only slightly decrease snags available for snag dependant species, and slightly increase large down wood.

Wildfires Within the two subsheds, 1,451 acres burned from 1949 to 1984. From 1950 to 2002, there were nine fires that totaled approximately 3.2 acres. The earlier wildfires may have had some salvage harvest, which would have reduced habitat for snag and down wood species. While the fires from 1950 to 2002 were small and, likely, were not salvage harvested, they may have created habitat for snag and down wood species by killing the trees that were struck by lightning.

Cumulatively, while these projects have modified habitat for snag and down wood dependent species, it is unlikely that these projects greatly affected snag and down wood dependent species positively or negatively within the proposed project area.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species/Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Introduction The Endangered Species Act requires National Forests to manage for the recovery of threatened and endangered species (as identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and the ecosystems upon which they depend. In addition, the Regional Forester has identified sensitive species for each National Forest, where species viability may be a concern. The Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) identified Management Indicator Species (MIS) whose population changes may indicate impacts on other species found within a specific habitat type. The following table identifies wildlife species status, and documents whether the species or habitat is present for them within the Grassy Fire Salvage proposed project area. If a species has no habitat

Chapter 3 - 44 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife

and does not occur within the proposed project area, it will not be discussed beyond Table 3-10 in this document.

Table 3-10: Wildlife Species, Status, Presence, Habitat Occurrence, and Comments

Species Habitat Species Status Present Present Comments Bald Eagle Haliaeetus Threatened/ leucocephalus MIS Species No No No Habitat

Canada Lynx No Habitat Lynx canadensis Threatened No No Oregon No Habitat Spotted Frog Candidate/ FS Above known elevational Rana pretiosa Sensitive No No range Yellow-billed Cuckoo No Habitat Coccyzus americanus Candidate No No Columbia No Habitat Spotted Frog Candidate/ FS Above known elevational Rana luteiventris Sensitive No No range Pacific Fisher Martes pennanti Candidate/ FS No Habitat pacifica Sensitive No No Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus FS Sensitive No No No Habitat Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis FS Sensitive No No No Habitat Bufflehead Bucephala albeola FS Sensitive No No No Habitat Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus FS Sensitive/ anatum MIS Species No No No Habitat Greater sage Grouse Centrocerus urophasianus phaios FS Sensitive No No No Habitat

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 45 Wildlife

Table 3-10: Wildlife Species, Status, Presence, Habitat Occurrence, and Comments (continued)

Species Habitat Species Status Present Present Comments

Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis FS Sensitive No No No Habitat Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda FS Sensitive No No No Habitat Gray Flycatcher Empidonax wrightii FS Sensitive Unknown Yes No surveys, habitat present Tricolored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor FS Sensitive No No No Habitat California Wolverine No surveys, summer Gulo gulo FS Sensitive Unknown Yes habitat present Pygmy Rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis FS Sensitive No No No Habitat Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens FS Sensitive No No No Habitat Northwestern Pond Turtle Clemmys marmorata marmorata FS Sensitive No No No Habitat

Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus FS Sensitive Unknown Yes No surveys, habitat present Mule Deer Odocoileus Occur throughout project hemionus MIS Species Yes Yes area

Chapter 3 - 46 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife

Table 3-10: Wildlife Species, Status, Presence, Habitat Occurrence, and Comments (continued)

Species Habitat Species Status Present Present Comments Three-toed No surveys, habitat (Black Backed) present Woodpecker Incidental sightings fall Picoides tridactylus MIS Species Yes Yes 2004

Primary No surveys, habitat Excavators MIS Species Yes Yes present Red-naped Sapsucker No surveys, habitat Sphyrapicus nuchalis MIS Species Unknown Yes present Northern Goshawk No surveys, habitat Accipiter gentilis MIS Species Unknown Yes present American Marten No surveys, habitat Martes americana MIS Species Unknown Yes present Pileated Woodpecker No surveys, habitat Dryocopus pileatus MIS Species Unknown Yes present Forest Interest Wild Turkeys Species No No No Habitat No special habitat Rocky Forest Interest features, within range but Mountain Elk Species No Yes no specifically used area Prairie Falcon Forest Interest Incidental sighting in Falco mexicanus Species Yes Yes area Great Gray Owl Forest Interest Strix nebulosa Species No No No Habitat Neotropical Migratory Forest Interest Birds Species Various habitats Pine vegetation type Partners in Mixed conifer vegetation Flight Focal Species type U.S. Fish and Birds of Wildlife Conservation Service Concern Various habitats

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 47 Wildlife

Biological Evaluation for Forest Service Sensitive Species

Prepared by Mike Ramsey Eastside South Zone Wildlife Biologist

/s/ Mike Ramsey 11/29/04

Note: All Forest Service Sensitive Species for the Fremont National Forest on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List dated July 2004 were considered. Although the pallid bat is not shown as being present on the Forest, it has been documented on the Forest, and will be addressed in this document.

Gray Flycatcher

Habitat Gray flycatchers breed in semi-arid woodlands and brushy areas that include pinion pine and/or juniper woodlands, open woodlands of juniper and mountain mahogany, tall sagebrush/greasewood plains, open ponderosa pine forests, and open ponderosa pine forests with pinion and/juniper understory. They winter in arid, edge, or open riparian woodlands. The primary food for gray flycatchers is insects, including butterflies, moths, bees, grasshoppers, and beetles (http://www.mirror-pole.com/apif_web/pinjunip/pj1.htm).

Existing Conditions There are no specific standards and guidelines related to the gray flycatcher or its habitat. There is a requirement to provide sufficient habitat quality, quantity, and diversity to maintain self-sustaining populations across the Forest.

There have been no documented sightings of gray flycatcher within the Grassy Salvage Project area. Habitat does exist within and adjacent to the planning area on the lower elevation ponderosa pine and shrub sites that burned light to moderate.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 The following table summarizes, by alternative, the effects of the proposed project on the gray flycatcher.

Chapter 3 - 48 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife

Table 3-11: Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 on Gray Flycatchers

Project Elements Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Commercial Salvage Helicopter/Ground Project element Negative effects/ Negative effects/ Based would not occur Positive effects Positive effects Commercial Thinning Helicopter/Ground Project element Negative effects/ Project element Based would not occur Positive effects would not occur Effects addressed as Fuels Treatments Effects addressed as a a part of Whole Tree part of Commercial Commercial Salvage Yarding/ Yarding Project element Salvage and and Commercial Tops Attached would not occur Commercial Thinning Thinning Stocking Level Project element Control would not occur Positive effects Positive effects Project element Reforestation would not occur Positive effects Positive effects Transportation System Use and Project element Improvements would not occur No effect No effect Wildlife Enhancement Project element Project would not occur No effect No effect Project element would not occur note: previously authorized fire suppression rehabilitation and Watershed road Restoration decommissioning Projects would occur No effect No effect Old Growth Project element Management would not occur No effect No effect

Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would not disturb gray flycatchers or cause a reduction in beetle numbers because no activities would occur.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 49 Wildlife

Alternatives 2 and 3 Commercial salvage and commercial thinning may negatively affect gray flycatchers by removing trees that would provide beetles, which would cause them to adjust foraging areas. However, with the snag levels proposed for retention, and the opening of the green stands, there would still be sufficient prey items. Commercial thinning would positively affect this species by opening up currently dense stands and providing more suitable habitat for gray flycatchers. Stocking level control would also create more open stands that would be favored by gray flycatchers. Reforestation would result in faster occupancy of trees within the proposed project, thereby creating additional open pine stands that would be favored by this species.

Cumulative Effects All of the activities in Appendix A of the Environmental Assessment have been considered for their cumulative effects on gray flycatchers. The activities discussed here have the potential to produce a cumulative effect.

Timber Harvest (Including Associated Planting and Timber Stand Improvement Projects) Past timber management activities have likely improved the potential habitat available for gray flycatchers within the analysis area. Specifically, these projects would have created more open timber stands that would provide additional habitat for this species (see listing of primary sales in previous cumulative effects discussions for snag and down wood dependant species).

Reforestation and stocking level control would benefit gray flycatchers by promoting open ponderosa pine stands.

Livestock Grazing Grazing (public and private) will continue to occur, and would tend to maintain openings, which would benefit foraging habitat, but would retard the development of nesting habitat.

Fire Suppression Activities Fire suppression, as has already occurred and is expected to continue to occur, contributes to allowing stands to become overstocked. This tends to decrease the openness of stands preferred for nesting by this species.

Wildfires Wildfires, primarily the larger ones, have helped to maintain openings and open pine stands. These have likely benefited gray flycatchers by improving their habitat. However, areas that burned with a high intensity may not provide breeding habitat for some time, but would likely be used for foraging.

Chapter 3 - 50 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife

Cumulatively, while these projects have modified habitat for gray flycatchers it is unlikely that these projects greatly affected them positively or negatively within the proposed project area.

Determination It is the determination of the Eastside South Zone Wildlife Biologist that the Grassy Salvage project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the gray flycatcher. This is based on the potential disturbance to individuals and the increase in feeding habitat. The reforestation and stocking level control would both have beneficial effects on the development of gray flycatcher habitat.

California Wolverine

Habitat The wolverine is non-migrating, non-hibernating, and has a large home range. Home ranges for males in Alaska have been estimated at 257 square miles and 36 square miles for females. In Montana, home ranges for males and females were calculated at 163 and 150 square miles, respectively. There is little information about wolverines in Oregon, but because this is the southern end of their range it would be expected that average home ranges are larger than those in Alaska or Montana. Wolverines are territorial. Males will challenge other males within their home range, but will accept females. However, wolverine home ranges are too large to be aggressively defended so they might overlap on the edges (CWHR Internet 2002).

Existing conditions There are no specific standards and guidelines related to the wolverines or their habitat. There is a requirement to provide sufficient habitat quality, quantity, and diversity to maintain self-sustaining populations across the Forest.

The Oregon Natural Heritage Database shows three documented sightings of wolverines or tracks on the Fremont National Forest: 1962 - a wolverine was sighted on the edge of a meadow by Ingram guard station near Elder Creek on the Paisley district; 1975 - a fairly reliable observer reported a wolverine at Camas Creek on the Lakeview district; 1978 - a fairly reliable observer reported wolverine tracks near Fremont Point on the Silver Lake district. On February 15, 1992, track surveys for pine marten and wolverine were conducted in an area bordering the Gearhart Mountain Wilderness on the Paisley District (see wolverine file on the Paisley district). No wolverine tracks were located; however, this is inconclusive as to whether wolverines were present or using the area.

The Grassy Fire Salvage area would provide summer habitat for wolverines. There have been no surveys or other sighting information in the area. If wolverines were using the

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 51 Wildlife area, it is likely that the Grassy project area would be part of a territory for up to one female and one male. This information is based on home range size.

Direct and Indirect Effects Wolverines generally prefer remote or wilderness areas. Assuming that the proposed Grassy Fire Salvage analysis area is within a wolverine home range, it would likely be the northern and eastern edge of a home range, based on vegetation conditions. There are no large contiguous portions of the Forest that are un-roaded in this area. While being analyzed here, it is unlikely that the proposed project area is being utilized by wolverines or truly provides them with functional habitat. The table below summarizes the effects of the proposed project by alternative on wolverines.

Table 3-12: Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 on Wolverines

Project Elements Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Commercial Salvage Helicopter/Ground Project element Based would not occur Negative effects Negative effects Commercial Thinning Helicopter/Ground Project element Project element Based would not occur Negative effects would not occur Effects addressed Effects addressed as a part of as a part of Fuels Treatments Commercial Commercial Whole Tree Salvage and Salvage and Yarding/ Yarding Project element Commercial Commercial Tops Attached would not occur Thinning Thinning Stocking Level Project element Negative effects/ Negative effects/ Control would not occur Positive effects Positive effects Project element Negative effects/ Negative effects/ Reforestation would not occur Positive effects Positive effects Transportation System Use and Project element Improvements would not occur Negative effects Negative effects Wildlife Enhancement Project element Project would not occur Negative effects Negative effects Watershed Restoration Project element Projects would not occur Negative effects Negative effects Old Growth Project element Management would not occur Positive effects Positive effects

Chapter 3 - 52 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife

Alternative 1 Under the No Action alternative, there would be no increase in human disturbance in the area. Current ongoing management practices would continue, and public access and use of the area would continue as it has in the past. This would not cause an increase in human activity in the area, and therefore would not affect any potential wolverines or their habitat.

Alternatives 2 and 3 The negative effects associated with Alternatives 2 and 3 are related to increased human use in the area during project implementation, which could cause short-term negative effects on wolverines by causing them to adjust use or movement patterns. This increase in human activity could affect wolverines, if they are present, and their habitat by altering its suitability during the time of increased human activity. Stocking level control and reforestation would be a beneficial effect by increasing forested lands faster and helping to assure retention of trees. Based on the size of the project area and the large home ranges that wolverines utilize, it is estimated that up to one male and one female could be affected.

Cumulative Effects All of the activities in Appendix A of the Environmental Assessment have been considered for their cumulative effects on Wolverine. The activities discussed here have the potential to produce a cumulative effect.

Timber Harvest (Including Associated Planting and Timber Stand Improvement Projects) Past timber management activities have likely decreased the potential habitat available for wolverines within the analysis area. Specifically, these projects that were overstory removals and clearcuts created openings that wolverines would tend to avoid. These projects would have also decreased prey availability (see listing of primary sales in previous cumulative effects discussions for snag and down wood dependant species).

Reforestation and stocking level control have the potential to be beneficial to wolverines by increasing the amount of land that is forested. However, they may have negative effects by increasing the amount of human disturbance in the area of implementation.

Snag Creation Creating snags would likely be beneficial to wolverine habitat because eventually the snags would fall. This would improve wolverine habitat, both resting and foraging; however, it was likely not done on a large scale, so the positive effects would have been localized.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 53 Wildlife

Trail Construction Construction of the recreational trail and associated use has increased human use in the project area. Although human use has increased because of the trail, the amount of use the trail receives is unknown at this time. Increasing human use would negatively affect habitat for wolverines.

Road Building and Maintenance Both road building and maintenance activities have increased human use in the project area. Since wolverines tend to avoid people, this has negatively affected wolverine habitat.

Road Decommissioning and Closing Decommissioning and closing roads in the project area would benefit wolverines by decreasing human disturbance in the proposed project area.

Fire Suppression Activities Suppression of fires in the area has kept the amount of openings created by stand replacing events to a minimum. This has benefited wolverines that tend to avoid openings.

Wildfires Small fires may have been beneficial to wolverines because they would have created scattered snags and pockets of diversity. Large fires, on the other hand, would negatively affect wolverine habitat by creating large openings that they tend to avoid. However, there have only been two large fires in the two subsheds since 1949, so this effect would have been minimal.

Cumulatively, while these projects have modified habitat for wolverines it is unlikely that these projects greatly affected wolverines positively or negatively within the proposed project area.

Determination It is the determination of the Eastside South Zone Wildlife Biologist that the Grassy Salvage project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the wolverine. This is based on the potential disturbance to individuals. No habitat would be removed, modified, or altered, there would be beneficial effects from stocking level control and tree planting, and it is estimated that up to two individuals could be affected.

Chapter 3 - 54 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife

Pallid Bat

Habitat Throughout California the pallid bat is usually found in low to middle elevation habitats below 6000 ft. (Philpott, 1997); however, the species has been found up to 10,000 ft. in the Sierra Nevada (Sherwin 1998). Populations have declined in California within desert areas, in areas of urban expansion, and where oak woodlands have been lost (Brown 1996).

A variety of habitats are used, including grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and coniferous forests (Philpott, 1997). Pallid bats are most common in open, dry habitats that contain rocky areas for roosting. They are a yearlong resident in most of their range and hibernate in winter near their summer roost (Zeiner et al., 1990). Occasional forays may be made in winter for food and water (Philpott, 1997).

Day roosts may vary but are commonly found in rock crevices, tree hollows, mines, caves, and a variety of human-made structures. Tree roosting has been documented in large conifer snags, inside basal hollows of redwoods and giant sequoias, and bole cavities in oaks (Sherwin, 1998). Cavities in broken branches of black oak are very important and there is a strong association with black oak for roosting (Pierson, 1996a and Pierson, 1996b). Roosting sites are usually selected near the entrance to the roost in twilight rather than total darkness. The site must protect bats from high temperatures, as this species is intolerant of roosts in excess of 104 degrees Fahrenheit. Pallid bats are also very sensitive to roost site disturbance (Zeiner, et al., 1990, Philpott, 1997).

Night roosts are usually more open sites and may include open buildings, porches, mines, caves, and under bridges (Philpott, 1997, Sherwin, 1998, Pierson, 1996a, and Pierson, 1996b).

Pallid bats are a gregarious species, often roosting in colonies of 20 to several hundred individuals. Pregnant females gather in summer maternity colonies of up to several hundred females, but generally fewer than 100 (Brown, 1996). Parturition occurs between May and July. Young are weaned in mid to late August with maternity bands disbanding between August and October (Sherwin, 1998).

The pallid bat is very maneuverable on the ground and commonly feeds on large ground- dwelling arthropods. Common prey items are Jerusalem crickets, longhorn beetles, and scorpions. The pallid bat will also forage at low heights of 0.5 to 2.5 meters above the ground on large moths and grasshoppers (Zeiner et al., 1990, Philpott, 1997).

Existing Conditions There are no specific standards and guidelines related to the pallid bats or their habitat. There is a requirement to provide sufficient habitat quality, quantity, and diversity to maintain self-sustaining populations across the Forest.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 55 Wildlife

There have been no surveys in this area for this species; however, surveys in the South Warners on Lakeview District have documented their presence. Suitable roosting and foraging habitat does exist within the analysis area.

Direct and Indirect Effects The following table summarizes the effects of the proposed project by alternative on the pallid bat.

Table 3-13: Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 on Pallid Bats

Project Elements Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Commercial Salvage Helicopter/Ground Project element Based would not occur Negative effects Negative effects Commercial Thinning Helicopter/Ground Project element Project element Based would not occur Negative effects would not occur Effects addressed Effects addressed as a part of as a part of Fuels Treatments Commercial Commercial Whole Tree Salvage and Salvage and Yarding/ Yarding Project element Commercial Commercial Tops Attached would not occur Thinning Thinning Stocking Level Project element Control would not occur Positive effects Positive effects Project element Reforestation would not occur Positive effects Positive effects Transportation System Use and Project element Improvements would not occur No effect No Effect Wildlife Enhancement Project element Project would not occur No Effect No Effect Watershed Restoration Project element Projects would not occur Negative effect Negative effect Old Growth Project element Management would not occur Positive effect Positive effect

Chapter 3 - 56 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife

Alternative 1 This alternative would provide for total snag retention, which would provide pallid bats with a large selection of potential roost trees. Also, roosting habitat in rock outcrops would not be disturbed. This alternative would not affect foraging habitat or ability.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Commercial salvage and commercial thinning would decrease snag densities from existing conditions. However, the proposed project area would still retain a large number of large snags, and the rock outcrops would continue to be present, so adequate roosting habitat should be maintained. With these activities there is a potential to disturb individuals either in roosting colonies or maternity colonies. The watershed restoration project would negatively affect pallid bats by removing up to an additional 35 snags that would be felled into First Swale Creek. This would not be a major effect due to the snag levels proposed for retention.

Since there are no definitive numbers of pallid bats in the area, or information regarding roosts or colonies, it is difficult to quantify potential affects. However, based on available habitat, type of habitat, scale, and scope of the proposed project, it is estimated that up to 100 individuals may be affected by the proposed project. Most of this would likely be through noise disturbance, which could cause bats to leave roosts or maternity colonies; however, it is possible that some individuals may be harmed if they are in trees that are removed.

Cumulative Effects All of the activities in Appendix A of the Environmental Assessment have been considered for their cumulative effects on pallid bats. The activities discussed here have the potential to produce a cumulative effect.

Timber Harvest (Including Associated Planting and Timber Stand Improvement Projects) Past timber management activities have likely decreased the potential habitat available for pallid bats within the analysis area. Specifically, these projects were overstory removals and clearcuts that removed most or all large trees and snags from the stands (see listing of primary sales in previous cumulative effects discussions for snag and down wood dependant species). This decreased the amount of large conifers that could be used for roosting.

No clearcut or overstory removals have occurred in cumulative effects analysis area since 1992. With the advent of the Eastside Screens in the mid-1990s, prescriptions of this nature were no longer in accordance with the Forest Plan. Decreased habitat conditions, including the lack of large conifers for roosting, that are attributed to past timber harvest practices would not occur or be further diminished with Alternative 2. All live trees would be retained in the salvage units and all live trees greater than 21 inches dbh would be retained in the commercial thinning units. Snags, including those greater than 20 inches dbh, would be retained to meet Forest Plan standards.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 57 Wildlife

Decreased habitat conditions, including the lack of large conifers for roosting, that are attributed to past timber harvest practices would not occur or be further diminished with Alternative 3. All live trees would be retained in the salvage units. All trees in salvage units that are greater than 20.9 inches dbh, with any green needles, would be retained. Alternative 3 includes no commercial thinning. Snags, including those greater than 20 inches dbh, would be retained to exceed Forest Plan standards. Otherwise, the cumulative effects for Alternative 3 are the same as Alternative 2.

Past reforestation activities and stocking level control have been beneficial to pallid bats by decreasing the amount of time it would take before these stands provided habitat in the future.

Snag Creation This activity may have benefited pallid bats by providing them with additional habitat. However, these projects are not usually implemented unless there is a noticeable absence of snags in the area, which may indicate that this habitat component was in short supply.

Wildfires Within the two subsheds, there were 1,451 acres burned from 1949-1984. Since 1950 to 2002, there were nine fires that totaled approximately 3.2 acres. The earlier wildfires may have had some salvage harvest, which would have reduced habitat for pallid bats. The fires from 1950 to 2002 were small, and likely were not salvage harvested, but may have created habitat for pallid bats by killing the trees that were struck by lightning.

Cumulatively, while these projects have modified habitat for pallid bats, it is unlikely that these projects greatly affected pallid bats positively or negatively within the proposed project area.

Determination It is the determination of the Eastside South Zone Wildlife Biologist that the Grassy Fire Salvage project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the pallid bat. This is based on the potential disturbance to individuals, removal of habitat, no effects to rock outcrops, and the beneficial effects of stocking level control and tree planting. An unknown number of individuals could be affected.

Chapter 3 - 58 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Introduction The following table displays Management Indicator Species. Table 3-14: Fremont-Winema National Forest Management Indicator Species Fremont National Forest Management Indicator Species Representative of:

Mule Deer Hunted Species

Black-backed Woodpecker Overmature/Mature Lodgepole Pine Snag and Down Wood (plus other Primary Excavators diverse habitats)

Red-naped Sapsucker Aspen and Deciduous Ecosystems Overmature/Mature Ponderosa Pine; Northern Goshawk Mixed Conifer High Elevation Forests; Lodgepole Pine American Marten and Mixed Conifer Forests

Pileated Woodpecker Overmature/Mature Mixed Conifer

Mule Deer

Habitat A mix of hiding, thermal, fawning cover, and foraging habitat characterizes optimal mule deer habitat. The optimum mix of cover should be 40 to 50 percent of the available habitat with 20 percent in hiding cover, 10 percent in thermal cover, 5 percent in fawning cover, and the remaining 5 to 15 percent in either hiding, thermal or fawning cover. LRMP standard and guidelines require a minimum of 30 percent cover. A number of factors, including road density, distance between sources of water, forage utilization by cattle and the amount and arrangement of cover and forage patches, will effect use by mule deer. Optimal conditions for these factors are those values as defined in Bienz, et al (1985), Thomas (1979), and others, where no effect on habitat use is anticipated.

These include: • Road density – 1.4 mi/sq. mi. • Distance between water sources - 2.8 mi. • Forage utilization by cattle – 10 to 24 percent • Cover – 40 to 50 percent

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 59 Wildlife

• Arrangement of cover and forage – optimal use within 600 feet of a cover or forage patch

The following mule deer habitat factors remain important within the area of the Grassy Fire:

1) Cover Mule deer can find lower ambient temperatures under thermal cover in hot weather and warmer temperatures in cold weather. Wind velocity is greatly reduced, and snow depth and condition are more favorable to animal movement in cover stands. All these factors combined can reduce energy loss by mule deer (Peek, et al. 1982). Summer thermal cover minimizes metabolic and time costs associated with heat dissipation. Lost foraging time or the energetic costs of increasing metabolism can translate into decreased summer weight gains (Demarchi and Bunnell, 1993). Thermal cover can also be provided by shrubs, juniper woodlands, or physical objects such as boulders and ledges (Peek et al., 1982). Mule deer are as likely to bed in the shade of a single conifer, rock outcrop, or cut-bank in the midday, as in high canopy closures (Gay, 1998).

Hiding cover habitat is used for escape and protection from predators and humans (Peek et al., 1982). Although under current management direction, optimal habitat is defined as that which is within 600 feet (183m) of cover (cover being defined as a stand that is at least 60 percent cover), Gay did not find concentrated deer use within 600 feet of hiding cover (1998). The LRMP provides direction for management by using the current definition of cover (a stand in which greater than 60 percent of the area can hide 90 percent of a deer at 200 feet). This omits less dense vegetation types, which deer also recognize as cover (Gay 1998).

2) Grass and Forbs Grasses and forbs compose the bulk of spring diets. Fire may affect the forage resource by changing both forage quality and quantity. Forage characteristics that may be affected by fire include protein, phosphorus, and fiber content and subsequent changes in digestibility (Bunting, 1998). Cook found substantial increases in crude protein of herbs after burning (1994). Small burned areas may also be more heavily utilized by herbivores than large areas because of the concentration of palatable re-growing forage (Bunting, 1998).

Mule Deer in Central Oregon are a migratory group of animals that roam a vast mountainous summer range and crowd into relatively small winter ranges (Dealy, 1971). Mule deer are not believed to have been abundant prior to 1850 in this region, and remained at low numbers through the early 1900s (Peek et al., 1999). Mule deer began to increase around 1915, probably because of increased shrublands (Salwasser, 1979, Peek et al., 1999). Shrublands have since continued to mature across the western ranges (Urness, 1990, Peek et al., 1999) and this is the case throughout much of the planning area. Public interest and use have initiated management of mule deer populations that are higher than historical numbers.

Chapter 3 - 60 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife

Existing Conditions A mix of hiding, thermal, fawning cover, and foraging habitat characterize optimal mule deer habitat. The optimum mix of cover should be 40 to 50 percent of the available habitat with 20 percent in hiding cover, 10 percent in thermal cover, 5 percent in fawning cover, and the remaining 5 to 15 percent in either hiding, thermal or fawning cover. LRMP standard and guidelines require a minimum of 30 percent cover. The proposed project area meets this standard and guideline, although hiding cover is limited in areas that burned with moderate or high vegetation burn intensity within the Grassy Fire. There are 1,194 acres of deer summer range and 269 acres of deer winter range within the Grassy Salvage analysis area.

Road densities within the Upper Honey and Middle Honey subwatersheds were calculated for only the National Forest System lands, due to a lack of accurate information on other ownerships. The actual current open road density is difficult to quantify due to roads being opened as a part of fire suppression activities, or roads that have yet to be officially closed or obliterated per the North Warner Access Travel Management Plan. Therefore, it was assumed that all roads are open, which is not completely accurate, but gives the worst-case scenario. The following information is based on total Forest Service roads within the two subsheds. The existing road densities are 5.1 mi/mi2 in the Upper Honey subwatershed, and 4.1 mi/mi2 in the Middle Honey subwatershed. This road density would not meet Forest Plan standards for mule deer summer range. Based on map observations and on-the-ground observations, it appears that the proposed project area currently has a road density of less that 1.0 mi/mi2 within deer winter range, which meets Forest Plan standards.

The Grassy Salvage area is part of the Warner Wildlife Management Unit. The deer population in the Warner Unit is estimated at 2,600 animals, which is 47 percent of the management objective of 5,500 animals. In general, the mule deer population appears to be stable, and has been in a maintenance level (not increasing) since 1998 (Foster, pers. comm.).

The Grassy Fire was within mule deer summer and winter range. The fire burned in a mosaic pattern, which modified the pre-existing cover and forage habitat conditions. Currently, plantations, riparian areas, and dense stands that burned with light intensity are continuing to provide hiding, thermal, and fawning cover where they provided them pre- fire. Areas that burned with a moderate or high intensity likely do not provide hiding cover, if they did pre-fire. The area within the project boundary does meet the 30 percent cover standard and guideline (this is not just hiding cover). This is based on observations within the burn, acres of reforestation planned compared to the size of the project area, and remaining conditions within the fire perimeter. The Grassy Fire would have long- term beneficial effects by improving forage on summer range and decreasing junipers on winter range where they were killed by the fire (Foster, personal communication).

The Forest Service and the Klamath Tribes are unable to utilize the Mule Deer Model at this time due to upgrades in computer systems, which have made the model obsolete.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 61 Wildlife

The latest opinions on deer herd management are that forage production and regeneration are much more important than hiding cover.

Direct and Indirect Effects The following table summarizes the effects of the proposed project by alternative on the Mule Deer.

Table 3-15: Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 on Mule Deer

Project Elements Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Commercial Salvage Helicopter/Ground Project element Positive effect/ Positive effect/ Based would not occur Negative effect Negative effect Commercial Thinning Helicopter/Ground Project element Positive effect/ Project element Based would not occur Negative effect would not occur Effects addressed Effects addressed as a part of as a part of Fuels Treatments Commercial Commercial Whole Tree Salvage and Salvage and Yarding/ Yarding Project element Commercial Commercial Tops Attached would not occur Thinning Thinning Stocking Level Project element Positive effect Positive effect Control would not occur Reforestation Project element Positive effect Positive effect would not occur Transportation Project element Negative effect Negative effect System Use and would not occur Improvements Wildlife Project element Positive effect Positive effect Enhancement would not occur Project Watershed Project element Positive effect Positive effect Restoration would not occur Projects Old Growth Project element No effect No effect Management would not occur

Alternative 1 Not implementing salvage harvest would mean the burned area would recover at a natural rate. Fawning cover due to the high density of future down logs within and adjacent to green stands would be improved. There would be no short-term change in cover as a

Chapter 3 - 62 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife result of Alternative 1. Forage production in the form of grasses, forbs, and shrubs would be expected to increase from present levels. Open road density would remain at the densities listed above, and not meet Forest Plan standards. Because of this, population numbers are expected to remain stable, distribution and use as a result of the fire in the local area may change.

Alternatives 2 and 3 The action alternatives may result in a delayed or slower rate of response for some forage species. Forage production in the form of grasses, forbs, and shrubs is expected to increase rapidly following salvage. However, under Alternative 2, approximately 56 percent of the area would not be harvested, and, under Alternative 3, approximately 60 percent of the area would not be harvested, and these areas had varying intensity of fire that should allow for unimpeded forage production. The Grassy IDT Wildlife Biologist has personally observed increased deer use in untreated areas over harvest areas two years after a wildfire. Commercial salvage and commercial thinning may negatively impact mule deer by increasing human use in the proposed project area during implementation. Unharvested areas may have an increased forage production response rate, but also provide some shade and cover; however, this cover, while used as hiding cover, would not meet Forest Plan standards. Increased down wood levels in the future, as snags fall down, would provide improved fawn protection, which would improve fawning habitat.

Stocking level control would decrease stand densities and could result in increased forage production. Stocking level control would remove smaller trees from stands where it is implemented, but, due to the mosaic nature in which these stands burned, it is not expected to negatively affect cover for deer. Reforestation would allow faster site occupancy of trees, which would allow the area to provide additional hiding cover sooner than if no planting occurred. Short-term reduction in cover from wildfire (which has already occurred) followed by establishment of cover from conifer planting is a common pattern occurring on the Fremont-Winema National Forests. Cover has not yet been reestablished on the more recent fires on the Lakeview RD or on the Toolbox and Winter Fires on nearby Ranger Districts. The 1992 Lone Pine Fire (Winema NF) was a 30,000- acre stand-replacing fire. Due to reforestation, hiding cover was already becoming available in 2003 in much of the Lone Pine Fire area, according to the “Skunk” EA (Chapter 3, p. 43). The Lone Pine area is in a slightly wetter environment than Grassy therefore recovery of cover from reforestation in Grassy may take somewhat longer.

With no short-term change in cover as a result of Alternatives 2 or 3, cover would continue to meet LRMP standards and guidelines. Road density would not change for Forest Service roads within the Grassy Fire Salvage analysis area on summer or winter range. The wildlife enhancement project would thin conifers less than 21 inches dbh from two 1/4 –acre aspen stands, which would allow retention of these aspen stands longer into the future and be a beneficial affect on deer fawning habitat. The watershed improvement projects in First Swale creek would benefit mule deer by stopping a headcut and adding large logs to the stream, which would improve fawning habitat. The combination of decreased hiding cover and increased forage production would likely

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 63 Wildlife keep population numbers stable; however, distribution and use as a result of the fire in the local area may change.

The publication, "Environmental Effects of Postfire Logging: Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography" - PNW-GTR486 - (McIver, 2000), reviewed and discussed the existing body of scientific literature (as of year 2000) on logging following wildfire. Twenty-one post-fire logging studies were reviewed and interpreted. In that review, drawing on studies which ranged from stand specific to landscape, it is concluded that, “….the optimal habitat for any given species would occur as a ‘shifting mosaic’ over time for whole landscapes, with disturbance constantly resetting portions of various sizes. This concept of metapopulation dynamics has led some wildlife biologists to suggest that a prudent post-fire management strategy would be to use a variety of different treatments (including no treatment at all) and to disperse treatments at various scales.” (McIver, 2000). The action alternatives, by using various combinations of salvage, green stand thinning, and planting, as well as substantial portions of the burned area with no actions at all, should contribute to a variety of habitats for mule deer.

Cumulative Effects All of the activities in Appendix A of the Environmental Assessment have been considered for their cumulative effects on mule deer. The activities discussed here have the potential to produce a cumulative effect.

Timber Harvest (Including Associated Planting and Timber Stand Improvement Projects) Past timber management activities have likely increased the potential habitat available for deer within the analysis area. Specifically, the clearcut and overstory removal types of harvest would have created openings or reduced canopy closures and allowed competing shrubs a chance to grow (see listing of primary sales in previous cumulative effects discussions for snag and down wood dependant species). Reforestation activities would have resulted in those reforested areas not providing foraging habitat at some point in the future, but such activity would have allowed those areas to then provide hiding cover. In this sense, reforestation both negatively and positively affected deer habitat. Stocking level control (small tree thinning) projects would have reduced the ability of those stands to provide hiding cover, but may also have opened the canopy enough to allow increased forage production. In this sense, small tree thinning both negatively and positively affected deer habitat.

Willow Planting Improvements in riparian habitat would have been beneficial to deer, both in the form of improved fawning habitat and increased forage.

Livestock Grazing Grazing (public and private) would continue to occur, and would continue to allow competition with deer for forage resources.

Chapter 3 - 64 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife

Road Building and Maintenance Increases in road density negatively affected deer by allowing increased human use, thereby increasing the amount of disturbance.

Road Decommissioning and Closing Implementing the North Warner Access and Travel Management plan would allow open road densities in the proposed project area to meet Forest Plan standards. The Upper Honey subshed open road density would be 2.5 mi/mi2, and the Middle Honey would have an open road density of 2.1 mi/mi2. This would be beneficial to deer because it would decrease road densities and decrease human disturbance.

Dispersed Recreation and Hunting Dispersed recreation and hunting will continue to occur, and would directly affect mule deer. Also, increased use of the area during hunting season would contribute to altering movement patterns and habitat use.

Fire Suppression Activities Fire suppression has allowed stand densities to increase to levels that provide hiding cover in areas of young trees, but it has also contributed to increased stand densities that do not favor shrubs and decreases forage. Past fire suppression has resulted in some fires being stand-replacing where forage would become abundant, but hiding cover may be limited.

Wildfires Wildfires have not greatly affected habitat for deer in these two subsheds. Between 1949 and 1984, there was one large fire. This fire likely created areas of increased forage production for up to approximately 10 years after the fire, but would have also limited hiding cover to areas that burned with low vegetation burn intensity. The smaller fires in the subsheds were at a small enough scale that they did not affect deer or their habitat.

Cumulatively, while these projects have modified habitat for deer it is unlikely that these projects greatly affected them positively or negatively within the proposed project area.

Black-backed Woodpeckers (Also see earlier section on Snag and Downed Wood Dependent Species)

Habitat Numerous authors have associated black-backed woodpeckers with disturbances that provide for a large number of dead and dying trees such as fire or insect outbreaks (Bock and Bock, 1974; Marshall, 1992; Raphael and White, 1984). Black-backed woodpeckers are associated with mature and over-mature forested stands that have a high incidence of disease, decay, and mortality (Goggans et al., 1988). They are an irruptive species, meaning they respond to local, temporary, abundance of food as a result of wind, fire, or

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 65 Wildlife

insect-killed timber that support bark beetles in above normal numbers (Marshall, 1992). Black-backed woodpeckers are often dependent upon stand-replacement wildfires occurring on the landscape, despite the fact that their use of a recently burned forest may be short-term (1 to 3 years) (Sallabanks and Mclver, 1998). Black-backed woodpeckers forage on trees that generally have been dead for less than three years by "scaling" or prying off layers of bark to get at the insects. Little use of downed material has been observed.

Existing condition This area of the Fremont National Forest is considered to be outside of the range of three- toed woodpeckers. Since black-backed woodpeckers have similar habitat requirements, this analysis has substituted this species for three-toed woodpecker. There are no specific standards and guidelines related to the black-backed woodpecker or its habitat. There is a requirement to provide sufficient habitat quality, quantity, and diversity to maintain self- sustaining populations across the Forest. The Grassy Fire area currently provides optimal foraging and nesting habitat for black-backed woodpeckers. Surveys have not been conducted for black-backed woodpeckers within the planning area; however, they have been observed foraging within the fire area and there is evidence of black-backed woodpecker foraging on trees within the fire area.

Direct and Indirect Effects The following table summarizes the effects of the proposed project, by alternative, on the black-backed woodpecker.

Table 3-16: Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 on Black-backed Woodpecker

Project Elements Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Commercial Salvage Helicopter/Ground Project element would Based not occur Negative effect Negative effect Commercial Thinning Helicopter/Ground Project element would Project element Based not occur Negative effect would not occur Effects addressed Effects addressed as a part of as a part of Fuels Treatments Commercial Commercial Whole Tree Salvage and Salvage and Yarding/ Yarding Project element would Commercial Commercial Tops Attached not occur Thinning Thinning

Chapter 3 - 66 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife

Table 3-16: Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 on Black-backed Woodpecker (continued)

Project Elements Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Stocking Level Project element would Control not occur Negative effect Negative effect Project element would Reforestation not occur Positive effect Positive effect Transportation System Use and Project element would Improvements not occur No effect No effect Wildlife Enhancement Project element would Project not occur Negative effect Negative effect Watershed Restoration Project element would Projects not occur Negative effect Negative effect Old Growth Project element would Management not occur Positive effect Positive effect

Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would maintain optimal conditions for black-backed woodpeckers. With increased nesting opportunities and foraging habitat as bark beetles populations increase, an irruption in the black-blacked woodpecker population within the burned areas is expected. Of four studies conducted on the effects of post-fire salvage on bird species, only the black-backed woodpecker showed a consistent response to logging, with substantially more nests found on un-logged sites (Mclver, 2000). Woodpecker numbers would show a corresponding decrease back to pre-fire numbers as the insect population declines (within 1 to 3 years). Black-backed woodpecker populations and viability are expected to show a greater short-term increase with this alternative than with the action alternatives. Future snag recruitment would be forgone for many years until naturally regenerated trees develop into functioning mature stands in which natural snag recruitment occurs.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Despite salvage activity with Alternatives 2 and 3, snag densities would be retained to provide for 100 percent potential population levels of primary cavity nesters, which include black-backed woodpeckers. This would contribute to providing sufficient habitat for black-backed woodpeckers.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 67 Wildlife

Table 3-17: Comparison of Snag Retention Levels for Alternatives 2 and 3 Snags Snags Alternative >10-14.9” >15” Alternative 2. Total snags 1,896 2,634 retained / % of Forest Plan minimum 250% 120% Alternative 3. Total snags 2,398 3,971 retained / % of Forest Plan minimum 320% 180%

Research indicates that tree (primarily snag) densities are highest at black-backed woodpecker nest sites (Saab and Dudley, 1997). For the most part, snag retention has focused on leaving clumps of trees both within harvest units and in “snag retention areas” or “snag habitat areas” near harvest units. Snag areas in proximity to harvest units total approximately 94 acres in Alternative 2 and 155 acres in Alternative 3. For both alternatives, a total of 744 acres would be in harvest units or snag areas near units. Total snag numbers retained, both within units and in proximity to harvest units are: Alternative 2, approximately 4,530 snags greater than 10 inches dbh, and Alternative 3, approximately 6,369 snags greater than 10 inches dbh. These produce overall average snag densities of 6 snags per acre (Alternative 2) and 8.5 snags per acre (Alternative 3). Additionally, there are snags (uninventoried) within the 692 acres that are outside of the above areas, but inside the project boundary, that would also remain.

While commercial salvage and commercial thinning would reduce habitat for black- backed woodpeckers, the Grassy Fire area would continue to provide a significant number of snags under Alternatives 2 and 3 above what would have been present had the fire not occurred.

Both Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide nesting and foraging habitat for black-backed woodpeckers. Commercial salvage and commercial thinning may cause direct harm to individuals if they are nesting in a tree that is felled, or if activities cause nest abandonment. There would be indirect effects to black-backed woodpeckers by decreasing prey. However, as stated above, a significant number of snags would be retained under both action alternatives that would provide foraging habitat. In the action alternatives, foraging habitat potential would be greatest with Alternative 3, as the greatest numbers of snags would be retained. Less foraging habitat potential foraging habitat is provided with Alternatives 2.

Leaving standing clumps of snags in various size classes should provide foraging habitat throughout the analysis area. Stocking level control would negatively affect black- backed woodpeckers by decreasing the number of trees that would die in the future in those stands, thereby reducing the future prey base. Reforestation would be a beneficial effect for these woodpeckers because it would result in faster site occupancy, and should provide stands faster that would experience mortality of individual trees. The proposed wildlife enhancement project would negatively affect black-backed woodpeckers by

Chapter 3 - 68 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife reducing conifers in two small aspen patches. These conifers could die at some point in the future, which would provide habitat for these woodpeckers. The watershed restoration project would fell up to 35 snags to improve the amount of large wood in the stream system. These trees could provide foraging and nesting habitat for these woodpeckers. Designation of a replacement old growth area would be a beneficial effect on black-backed woodpeckers because it would create an additional area managed for old growth conditions, which these woodpeckers utilize.

Assessments about the potential effects of the Grassy Salvage project on species viability are based on site-specific information, local experience, and professional judgment, along with a consideration of pertinent science and the data from DecAID (DecAID is not intended to be a stand-alone method of predicting effects on species viability). While Alternatives 2 and 3 contain project elements that would negatively and positively affect black-backed woodpeckers, they would continue to provide for species viability. This is based on the fact that these alternatives would provide snag densities at or above Forest Plan standards and guidelines for 100 percent potential population levels of primary cavity nesters, that sufficient foraging and nesting habitat would be provided and that snag densities retained under both alternatives would exceed that which a green stand would provide. Additionally, these alternatives would provide snag densities greater than DecAID would indicate could be provided in a stand of this type.

Cumulative Effects All of the activities in Appendix A of the Environmental Assessment have been considered for their cumulative effects on black-backed woodpeckers. The activities discussed here have the potential to produce a cumulative effect.

Timber Harvest (Including Associated Planting and Timber Stand Improvement Projects) Past timber management activities have likely decreased the potential habitat available for black-backed woodpeckers within the analysis area. Specifically, past timber sales that were overstory removal or clearcuts have reduced the incidence of dead and dying trees within these stands (see discussion of specific sales in earlier cumulative effects section under Snag and Downed Wood Dependent Species). As noted in that earlier section, past harvest occurred prior to the current Forest Plan levels for snag and old tree retention. Since the action alternatives meet or exceed current standards for snag and old tree retention, they are not expected to have negative cumulative effects on black-backed woodpecker habitat.

Stocking level control would negatively affect future habitat for black-backed woodpeckers because it would release young stands and reduce the number of trees that would die in these stands over time. Additionally, timber harvest on private land has also decreased habitat for these woodpeckers, including the current salvage harvest. Reforestation activities have had a positive affect on habitat for black-backed woodpeckers because it has assured faster site occupancy of conifers and would provide these woodpeckers with future habitat faster.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 69 Wildlife

Snag Creation The snag creation projects, which were implemented in the early 1990s, improved habitat for black-backed woodpeckers by creating additional habitat for them. However, these projects are usually only implemented when it has been determined that snag habitat is deficient, which was likely caused by past harvest activities.

Fire Suppression Activities Fire suppression has decreased the creation of habitat for black-backed woodpeckers by typically keeping fires small and reducing the amount of snags created by fires. Since fire suppression would continue in the future, it will continue to limit snag creation by this mechanism, and, therefore, negatively affect habitat for black-backed woodpeckers.

Wildfires Wildfires have the potential to provide large quantities of snags on a large scale, and, therefore, are a major mechanism in the creation of habitat for black-backed woodpeckers. However, from 1949 to 2002, there has only been one large fire in the area. While black-backed woodpeckers need snags for foraging and nesting, wildfire is a sporadic event, and it is unlikely the proposed project area would have another wildfire in the near future.

Cumulatively, while these projects have modified habitat for black-backed woodpeckers, it is unlikely that these projects greatly affected them positively or negatively within the proposed project area. While many of the past projects have reduced habitat for them, they are either still present or have moved back into the proposed project area since the Grassy Fire, and are likely to persist within the proposed project area over time.

Primary Excavators

Habitat/Information See effects discussion under Snag and Downed Wood Dependant Species above for information related to effects on primary excavators. Additionally, the following species are primary excavators, and are addressed in this document: black-backed woodpeckers, red-naped sapsuckers, and pileated woodpeckers.

Red-naped Sapsuckers

Habitat Red-naped sapsuckers are closely associated with aspen and deciduous riparian or forest stands. Other species that benefit from large aspen trees and snags are the house wren, mountain bluebird, Williamson’s sapsucker, tree swallow, and northern flicker. Sapsucker species require older trees with heart rot for nesting as well as adjacent

Chapter 3 - 70 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife conifers or mountain mahogany for sap well feeding. Habitat recommendations include:

• Greater than 10 percent cover of aspen saplings in the understory to provide adequate representation of younger seral stages for replacement. • Greater than 14 trees and greater than 4 snags per 1.5 acres that are greater than 39 feet in height and 10 inches dbh. • A mean canopy closure of 40 to 80 percent (Altman and Holmes, 2000).

Red-naped sapsuckers are primary excavators, providing cavities for many other bird species (Neel, 1999). Breeding Bird Survey trend analysis has reported a 13 percent decline for red-naped sapsuckers in the Basin and Range Province between 1966 and 1996 (Neel, 1999). Generally, aspen stands are declining throughout the western U.S. and may be currently at only 5 percent of pre-settlement occurrence (Wall et al., 1999).

Existing condition There are no specific standards and guidelines related to the red-naped sapsucker or its habitat. There is a requirement to provide sufficient habitat quality, quantity, and diversity to maintain self-sustaining populations across the Forest. Some aspen stands are known to occur within the project area. Sapsucker surveys have not been conducted within the Grassy Fire area.

Direct and Indirect Effects The following table summarizes the effects of the proposed project by alternative on the red-naped sapsucker.

Table 3-18: Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 on Red-naped Sapsucker

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 71 Wildlife

Table 3-18: Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 on Red-naped Sapsucker (continued)

Project Elements Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Stocking Level Project element Control would not occur Negative effects Negative effects Project element Reforestation would not occur Positive effects Positive effects Transportation System Use and Project element Improvements would not occur No Effect No effect Wildlife Enhancement Project element Project would not occur Positive effects Positive effects Watershed Restoration Project element Positive effects/ Positive effects/ Projects would not occur Negative effects Negative effects Old Growth Project element Management would not occur Positive effects Positive effects

Alternative 1 It is expected that aspen would respond positively to the effects of the fire with an increase in regeneration. Due to the small amount of aspen potentially affected, population numbers for red-naped sapsuckers and other riparian deciduous vegetation- dependent species are not expected to change from current under this alternative.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Commercial salvage and commercial thinning would negatively affect red-naped sapsuckers by removing trees that could have heart-rot present, which would provide nest trees. However, there would still be a significant number of snags retained under both alternatives, which could provide nesting habitat. Stocking level control could negatively affect red-naped sapsuckers by reducing tree densities, which would decrease the likelihood of trees in these stands dying in the future.

Reforestation would positively affect red-naped sapsuckers by assuring faster site occupancy and by growing future nest trees. The wildlife enhancement project would benefit this species by improving aspen stand conditions in the areas treated, which would improve foraging habitat. The watershed restoration projects proposed would improve riparian habitat conditions overall, and should benefit this species. These projects would negatively affect this species by removing snags that might have heart-rot and provide nesting habitat. However, there would still be a large number of snags retained. Designation of a replacement old growth stand would beneficially affect red- naped sapsuckers by providing a stand to be managed for old growth characteristics, including large older trees. Older trees have a greater likelihood of having heart-rot, which could be used for nesting.

Chapter 3 - 72 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife

With the implementation of Alternatives 2 or 3, it is expected that there would be no change in red-naped sapsuckers or other riparian dependent species populations.

Cumulative Effects All of the activities in Appendix A of the Environmental Assessment have been considered for their cumulative effects on red-naped sapsuckers. The activities discussed here have the potential to produce a cumulative effect.

Timber Harvest (Including Associated Planting and Timber Stand Improvement Projects) Past timber management activities have likely decreased the potential habitat available for red-naped sapsuckers within the analysis area. Specifically, past timber sales have been overstory removal or clearcuts that have reduced the incidence of dead and dying trees within these stands (see listing of primary sales in previous cumulative effects discussions for snag and down wood dependant species). Stocking level control would negatively affect future habitat for red-naped sapsuckers because it would release young stands and reduce the number of trees that would die in these stands over time. Additionally, timber harvest on private land has also decreased habitat for this species, including the current salvage harvest. Reforestation activities have had a positive affect on habitat for red-naped sapsuckers because it has assured faster site occupancy and greater canopy closure of conifers and would provide them with future habitat faster.

Snag Creation The snag creation projects, which were implemented in the early 1990s, improved habitat for red-naped sapsuckers by creating additional habitat for them. However, these projects are usually only implemented when it has been determined that snag habitat is deficient, which was likely caused by past harvest activities.

Livestock Grazing Grazing (public and private) will continue to occur, and would affect red-naped sapsuckers and their habitat due to grazing pressure on aspens, which would slow recruitment of trees suitable for foraging.

Fire Suppression Activities Fire suppression has decreased the creation of habitat for red-naped sapsuckers by typically keeping fires small and reducing the amount of snags created by fires. Since fire suppression would continue in the future, it will continue to limit snag creation by this mechanism, and therefore negatively affect habitat for red-naped sapsuckers.

Wildfires Wildfires have the potential to provide large quantities of snags on a large scale, and therefore are a major mechanism in the creation of habitat for red-naped sapsuckers. However, from 1949 to 2002, there has only been one large fire in the area. While red- naped sapsuckers need snags for foraging and nesting, wildfire is a sporadic event, and it is unlikely the proposed project area would have another wildfire in the near future.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 73 Wildlife

Cumulatively, while these projects have modified habitat for red-naped sapsuckers, it is unlikely that these projects greatly affected them positively or negatively within the proposed project area.

Northern Goshawks

Habitat The northern goshawk is the largest North American accipiter and was chosen as a Management Indicator Species (MIS) species due to its association with mature and late and old structure stage (LOS) ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forest structural stages for nesting. The goshawk's home range encompasses about 6,000 acres and is composed of a nest core area, post-fledging area (PFA), and a foraging area. Various forest structural stages are associated with the components of the home range. Nest areas often occur on north aspects, along stream zones or other areas where a dense forest canopy and LOS forest conditions are present. PFAs usually resemble the nest area, but also include a variety of forest types and conditions where hiding cover (for the young) and prey availability is present (Reynolds et. al., 1991). Foraging areas may be as closely tied to prey availability as to habitat structure and composition. These areas often contain a mixture of various forest structural stages with snags, downed logs, large trees, and small openings with an herbaceous and/or shrubby understory present.

Existing Conditions Fremont National Forest LRMP standards and guidelines for goshawks are to protect a 30-acre nest core and to delineate a 400-acre post fledging area with an emphasis of maintaining existing LOS stands and enhancing younger stands towards LOS condition.

No recent goshawk surveys have been conducted in the area. There was one incidental sighting of a goshawk in the Grassy Fire area in June of 1980 in Honey Creek during a falcon nesting habitat inventory. Areas within the Grassy Fire have had habitat conditions modified for this species. Based on the vegetation burn intensity mapping, it is unlikely that areas of high and moderate vegetation burn intensity would continue to support goshawks. With the exception of areas on federal or private lands that had a light intensity burn, any goshawk nesting habitat that existed before the Grassy fire is likely no longer suitable for nesting due to decreased canopy closure and stand structure.

Looking at available maps of habitat and burn intensity, it is estimated that 80 percent of the high and/or moderate potential goshawk nesting habitat, which existed before the Grassy Fire, was burned at a low intensity (vegetation burn intensity). Based on ground observations, even though it was a low intensity fire, the Grassy IDT Wildlife Biologist estimates that 90 percent of the past potential goshawk habitat would not provide suitable nesting habitat after the fire. However, foraging potential has increased and will continue to increase as bird species richness increases, which should contribute to greater diversity of prey species.

Chapter 3 - 74 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife

Direct and Indirect Effects The following table summarizes the effects of the proposed project by alternative on the northern goshawk.

Table 3-19: Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 on Northern Goshawks

Project Elements Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Commercial Salvage Helicopter/Ground Project element Based would not occur Negative effect Negative effect Commercial Thinning Helicopter/Ground Project element Project element Based would not occur Negative effect would not occur Effects addressed Effects addressed as a part of as a part of Fuels Treatments Commercial Commercial Whole Tree Salvage and Salvage and Yarding/ Yarding Project element Commercial Commercial Tops Attached would not occur Thinning Thinning Stocking Level Project element Positive effect/ Positive effect/ Control would not occur Negative effect Negative effect Project element Positive effect/ Positive effect/ Reforestation would not occur Negative effect Negative effect Transportation System Use and Project element Improvements would not occur No effect No effect Wildlife Enhancement Project element Project would not occur Positive effect Positive effect Watershed Restoration Project element Projects would not occur Positive effect Positive effect Old Growth Project element Management would not occur Positive effect Positive effect

Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would be expected to have little effect on goshawk populations and habitat. Any PFAs that may be adjacent to the fire may experience increased foraging opportunities within the fire due to increased snag and down wood numbers, which is likely to increase small bird and mammal populations. It is not anticipated that existing goshawk populations would be affected by this alternative.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 75 Wildlife

Alternatives 2 and 3 Commercial salvage and commercial thinning activities may negatively affect goshawks if they are nesting within stands adjacent to the Grassy Fire area by disturbing them. These activities would not remove habitat for this species. However, activities would likely not start until mid-June, due to access, which should be after the critical period during the breeding season. Stocking level control and reforestation would positively affect goshawk habitat by decreasing the time that it would take for these areas to provide nesting habitat in the future. Increases in human activity may cause them to adjust foraging areas, but this would be a short-term negative effect.

The proposed wildlife enhancement project may benefit goshawks by improving the condition of the aspen stands. The watershed improvement projects may also benefit goshawks by improving riparian habitat conditions. Both of these projects would improve habitat for prey species. Replacing the burned old growth stands with another area would benefit goshawks by providing an additional area to be managed for old growth conditions.

Increased foraging may be less optimal with these alternatives than with Alternative 1 due to the removal of prey habitat. With no change in potential nesting habitat within the project area, it is not anticipated that existing goshawk populations would be effected by any of these alternatives.

Cumulative Effects All of the activities in Appendix A of the Environmental Assessment have been considered for their cumulative effects on goshawks. The activities discussed here have the potential to produce a cumulative effect.

Timber Harvest (Including Associated Planting and Timber Stand Improvement Projects) Past timber management activities have likely decreased the potential habitat available for goshawks within the analysis area. Specifically, these projects were either clearcuts or overstory removal, and would have decreased goshawk nesting habitat (see listing of primary sales in previous cumulative effects discussions for snag and down wood dependant species). However, it is also likely that they increased early seral vegetation and increased bird species diversity, which could have improved foraging habitat. Reforestation would have assured faster site occupancy of conifers and contributed to these areas, providing nesting habitat faster in the future. Stocking level control projects would have opened up younger stands and improved foraging habitat by creating stands that goshawks could fly through.

Willow Planting Willow planting would have improved riparian habitat conditions. This could have benefited goshawks by improving habitat for prey species.

Chapter 3 - 76 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife

Fire Suppression Activities Fire suppression activities typically have and would keep fire size to a minimum. This has and would protect goshawk habitat from a stand replacing event, such as occurred with the Grassy fire.

Wildfires While there have only been a couple of large fires in the two subsheds, goshawk nesting habitat was modified as a result of them. Although wildfires provide for spatial and temporal diversity of vegetation, they would still have negatively affected goshawks. The small fires that have occurred in these two subsheds have not affected goshawks or their habitat.

Cumulatively, while these projects have changed goshawk habitat and distribution, it is unlikely that these projects greatly affected them positively or negatively within the proposed project area.

American Marten

Habitat The American marten was chosen as a MIS species due to its close association with late successional mixed conifer and lodgepole pine forests. Dense, multistoried, multi- species climax coniferous forests characterize preferred habitat with a high number of large snags and down wood. These areas also include close proximity to dense riparian corridors used as travelways and an interspersion of small openings with good ground cover used for foraging. They also require forested travel corridors for maintaining links among individuals and populations (Witmer, 1998). Martens particularly prefer forests with complex physical structure near the ground (Ruggiero et. al., 1994). Large openings are avoided because they increase susceptibility to predators and lack the preferred forest structure.

Existing conditions There are no known marten sightings within or adjacent to the proposed project area. There are no specific standards and guidelines related to the marten or its habitat. There is a requirement to provide sufficient habitat quality, quantity, and diversity to maintain self-sustaining populations across the Forest. General reconnaissance following the Grassy Fire resulted in no marten sightings. No formal surveys were conducted for this project. Marginally suitable habitat does exist within the Grassy Fire on National Forest System lands. However, it is difficult to find areas with large trees, large snags, and structure close to the ground. There is suitable habitat south of the Grassy Fire area.

Direct and Indirect Effects The following table summarizes the effects of the proposed project by alternative on martens.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 77 Wildlife

Table 3-20: Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 on Marten

Project Elements Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Commercial Salvage Helicopter/Ground Project element Based would not occur Negative effect Negative effect Commercial Thinning Helicopter/Ground Project element Project element Based would not occur Negative effect would not occur Effects addressed Effects addressed as a part of as a part of Fuels Treatments Commercial Commercial Whole Tree Salvage and Salvage and Yarding/ Yarding Project element Commercial Commercial Tops Attached would not occur Thinning Thinning Stocking Level Project element Control would not occur Positive effect Positive effect Project element Reforestation would not occur Positive effect Positive effect Transportation System Use and Project element Improvements would not occur Negative effect Negative effect Wildlife Enhancement Project element Project would not occur Positive effect Positive effect Watershed Restoration Project element Projects would not occur Positive effect Positive effect Old Growth Project element Management would not occur Positive effect Positive effect

Alternative 1 Within the interior of the fire where the severity was high or moderate, pine marten use is not expected due to the entire loss of LOS character and the creation of large openings. Pine marten use may continue on the edge of the fire where the fire burned lightly. Foraging opportunities may become optimal on the edge of the fire in 10 to 20 years when down wood becomes abundant. Large numbers of jackstraw down wood would provide for the complex physical structure near the ground needed for denning sites and access to prey beneath heavy snow pack. Although habitat quality may increase, other factors including the lack of connectivity for travel corridors within the burned area may preclude use of this habitat by martens. It is unlikely that marten populations would change with the implementation of Alternative 1.

Chapter 3 - 78 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife

Alternatives 2 and 3 Commercial salvage and commercial thinning activities proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce future down wood levels. It is anticipated that within the interior of the fire where the severity was high or moderate, marten use is not expected, due to the entire loss of LOS character and because marten tend to avoid very large openings. Marten use may continue where the fire burned light to moderate and adjacent to lightly burned areas, which would provide the combination of needed habitat components.

The increase in human use in the area during operations associated with these two alternatives could negatively affect martens and cause them to use other areas. Whole tree yarding and yarding with top attached, which are both components of these two alternatives, would reduce the amount of future down wood in areas where salvage does occur. However, there is some down wood currently present and additional down wood would be present as snags fall. Not harvesting within riparian corridors would maintain these snags for future down wood in areas that are important for martens.

The more limiting factor would be canopy cover. Stocking level control would be a beneficial effect because it would decrease the length of time that it would take for these stands to provide habitat. At the same time, reforestation would be a beneficial effect because it would result in faster site occupancy of conifers and should decrease the length of time that it would take for these stands to provide habitat. Use of the transportation system would be a negative effect due to the amount and level of noise above normal conditions in the area. This may cause martens to adjust use areas away from roads. The wildlife enhancement project of thinning conifers from two small aspen patches would be beneficial to martens because it would help to maintain the aspens in these areas. The watershed restoration project would improve down wood conditions. Designating a replacement old growth stand would be a beneficial to martens by allowing another area to be managed for old growth characteristics, which martens prefer. It is unlikely that local marten populations would change under these alternatives.

Cumulative Effects All of the activities in Appendix A of the Environmental Assessment have been considered for their cumulative effects on martens. The activities discussed here have the potential to produce a cumulative effect.

Timber Harvest (Including Associated Planting and Timber Stand Improvement Projects) Past timber management activities have likely decreased the potential habitat available for martens within the analysis area. Specifically, timber sales have been either clearcuts or overstory removals that would have decreased habitat available for martens (see listing of primary sales in previous cumulative effects discussions for snag and down wood dependant species). Reforestation would have assured faster site occupancy of conifers and contributed to these areas providing habitat faster in the future. Stocking level control projects would have opened up younger stands and allowed them to produce larger trees sooner, thereby improving future habitat.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 79 Wildlife

Willow Planting Improving riparian vegetation would have positively affected marten habitat by improving vegetation within areas that they use as travel corridors.

Snag Creation Snag creation would have benefited marten habitat by contributing to stand diversity, and future down wood. However, these types of projects are usually implemented after it is determined that snags are deficient in an area. This likely occurred due to implementation of timber management activities.

Road Building and Maintenance Road building has increased human use in the area. This would negatively affect martens by increasing the potential for disturbance and may have caused them to adjust their use of habitat.

Road Decommissioning and Closing Implementation of the North Warner Access Management Plan would decrease road density, which would be a beneficial effect on martens and their habitat by decreasing disturbance.

Fire Suppression Activities Fire suppression would have kept the fires relatively small. This would have benefited martens by maintaining habitat for them and their prey species.

Wildfires Wildfires have modified some marten habitat and made it unsuitable. However, these same fires have created snags and future down wood that are important habitat components for martens.

Cumulatively, while these projects have modified marten habitat, it is unlikely that these projects greatly affected them positively or negatively within the proposed project area.

Pileated Woodpeckers

Habitat The pileated woodpecker is the largest woodpeckers in North America and was chosen as a MIS species because of its close association with old growth conifer forests. Of the woodpeckers, the pileated is the most likely to be affected by timber management practices due to its large size and resultant need for large dead trees for nesting, large hollow trees for roosting, and dead woody material for foraging (Bull et. al., 1986). The pileated woodpecker is also responsible for creating nest holes for numerous larger secondary cavity nesters. Approximately 90 percent of the diet of these birds consists of carpenter ants, which are associated with large standing and downed wood.

Chapter 3 - 80 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife

Existing Conditions There are no specific standards and guidelines related to the pileated woodpecker or its habitat. There is a requirement to provide sufficient habitat quality, quantity, and diversity to maintain self-sustaining populations across the Forest. There are no known pileated woodpecker nests within or adjacent to the Grassy Fire area. General reconnaissance following the Grassy Fire resulted in no pileated woodpecker sightings or location of foraging areas within the project area. Some areas of pileated woodpecker habitat that existed before the fire are still suitable due to areas with light burn intensity; however, foraging habitat was more greatly impacted, and has been reduced as a result of the fire reducing pre-existing down wood and snags, and creating a larger number of hardened snags and hardened future down wood. No formal pileated woodpecker surveys have been conducted in the area of Grassy Fire.

Direct and Indirect Effects The following table summarizes the effects of the proposed project by alternative on the pileated woodpecker.

Table 3-21: Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 on Pileated Woodpeckers

Project Elements Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Commercial Salvage Helicopter/Ground Project element Based would not occur Negative effect Negative effect Commercial Thinning Helicopter/Ground Project element Project element Based would not occur Negative effect would not occur Effects addressed Effects addressed as a part of as a part of Fuels Treatments Commercial Commercial Whole Tree Salvage and Salvage and Yarding/ Yarding Project element Commercial Commercial Tops Attached would not occur Thinning Thinning Stocking Level Project element Positive effect/ Positive effect/ Control would not occur Negative effect Negative effect Project element Reforestation would not occur Positive effect Positive effect Transportation System Use and Project element Improvements would not occur No effect No effect

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 81 Wildlife

Table 3-21: Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 on Pileated Woodpeckers (continued)

Project Elements Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Wildlife Enhancement Project element Project would not occur No effect No effect Watershed Restoration Project element would Projects not occur No effect No effect Old Growth Project element would Management not occur Positive effect Positive effect

Alternative 1 This alternative would have no effect on pileated woodpeckers or their habitat. In the long term, as snags and down wood begin to decay and desirable insects, including carpenter ants, are available, adjacent populations of pileated woodpeckers may forage within the planning area. Within the stands that burned light to moderate, potential habitat may improve with increased snag and down wood levels but use is expected to continue at current levels.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Commercial salvage and commercial thinning would decrease the amount of snags within proposed units, which would decrease the amount of nesting and foraging habitat. However, the snag retention levels proposed and areas not being treated would continue to provide these habitat components. Whole tree yarding and yarding with tops attached would decrease the amount of down wood in areas of proposed activities, which would also decrease foraging habitat. These activities may have short-term negative effects on pileated woodpeckers through increased human activity and noise disturbance, which could cause them to adjust use areas temporarily. Stocking level control would have positive and negative effects. The positive effects would be that it would decrease the length of time for these stands to mature and provide habitat for pileated woodpeckers. The negative effect would be that it would likely decrease the number of trees that die in those stands in the future because the stands would not be overstocked. Designating a replacement old growth area would be a beneficial effect because it would manage a stand for habitat characteristics preferred by pileated woodpeckers.

Cumulative Effects All of the activities in Appendix A of the Environmental Assessment have been considered for their cumulative effects on pileated woodpeckers. The activities discussed here have the potential to produce a cumulative effect.

Chapter 3 - 82 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife

Timber Harvest (Including Associated Planting and Timber Stand Improvement Projects) Past timber management activities have likely decreased the potential habitat available for pileated woodpeckers within the analysis area. Specifically, past timber sales have been overstory removal or clearcuts that have reduced the incidence of dead and dying trees within these stands (see listing of primary sales in previous cumulative effects discussions for snag and down wood dependant species). As noted in that earlier section, past harvest occurred prior to the current Forest Plan levels for snag and old tree retention. Since the action alternatives meet or exceed current standards for snag and old tree retention, they are not expected to have negative cumulative effects on pileated woodpecker habitat.

Stocking level control would negatively affect future habitat for pileated woodpeckers because it would release young stands and reduce the number of trees that would die in these stands over time. Reforestation activities have had a positive affect on habitat for pileated woodpeckers because it has assured faster site occupancy of conifers and would provide these woodpeckers with future habitat faster.

Snag Creation The snag creation projects, which were implemented in the early 1990s, improved habitat for pileated woodpeckers by creating additional habitat for them. However, these projects are usually only implemented when it has been determined that snag habitat is deficient, which was likely caused by past harvest activities.

Fire Suppression Activities Fire suppression has decreased the creation of habitat for pileated woodpeckers by typically keeping fires small and reducing the amount of snags created by fires. Since fire suppression would continue in the future, it will continue to limit snag creation by this mechanism, and therefore negatively affect habitat for pileated woodpeckers.

Wildfires Wildfires have the potential to provide large quantities of snags on a large scale, and, therefore, are a major mechanism in the creation of habitat for pileated woodpeckers. However, from 1949 to 2002, there has only been one large fire in the area. While pileated woodpeckers need snags for foraging and nesting, wildfire is a sporadic event, and it is unlikely the proposed project area would have another wildfire in the near future.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 83 Wildlife

Cumulatively, while these projects have modified habitat for pileated woodpeckers, it is unlikely that these projects greatly affected pileated woodpeckers positively or negatively within the proposed project area. While many of the past projects have reduced habitat for them it is likely that they are either still present adjacent to the proposed project area, and are likely to persist within the two subsheds over time.

Other Wildlife Species of Interest

Rocky Mountain Elk

Habitat Elk forage in a variety of habitats that vary with the season and location. Generally, elk eat grasses and parts of woody plants in winter; grass in spring and fall; and grass and forbs (low-growing, soft-stemmed plants) in summer. Meadows and forest openings typically provide foraging habitat for elk. Elk also need cover to hide from predators and to moderate weather conditions, although hiding covers seems the more important of the two.

Existing condition This Grassy Fire area is within the Warner Wildlife Management Unit, which has an elk management objective of 500 elk. The current population is estimated to be 200 elk, or 40 percent of management objectives, and is thought to be stable to slightly increasing (Foster, pers. comm.). While there may be elk in the area, the population is small and ranges widely.

LRMP standard and guidelines address habitat for this species only pertaining to special habitats such as licks, calving areas, and wallows. The Grassy Fire improved foraging habitat for elk, but cover habitat was reduced. Based on the lack of elk and elk use in the area, and that no special habitat features have been identified, this species will not be further addressed in this document.

Prairie Falcon

Habitat Nesting habitat is an eyrie located on a cliff that is safe from mammalian predators. Ledges are commonly 30 feet above the ground, but may be higher depending upon available habitat. Ledges can be a pothole, and they typically overlook treeless areas used for hunting. Prey varies widely, but is typically avian (http://www2.ucsc.edu/scpbrg/Student/prairie.htm).

Chapter 3 - 84 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife

Existing condition There are specific standards and guidelines related to the prairie falcons and nest sites. These standards and guidelines also require that projects have no significant effects on prairie falcon nesting habitat. Significant effects include abandonment of nest and or young, destruction of nest site, or harassment during nesting (LRMP, 1989). Currently, there is no known eyrie within the Grassy Fire area; however, there were multiple incidental sightings of a prairie falcon in the vicinity of First Swale Creek below the 012 road. There are areas of concentrated white wash, and it is possible that an eyrie exists, but this will not be able to be confirmed until during the nesting season.

Direct and Indirect Effects The following table summarizes the effects of the proposed project by alternative on prairie falcons.

Table 3-22: Summary of Direct and Indirect effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 on Prairie Falcons

Project Elements Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Commercial Salvage Helicopter/Ground Project element Based would not occur Negative effect Negative effect Commercial Thinning Helicopter/Ground Project element Project element Based would not occur Negative effect would not occur Effects addressed Effects addressed as a part of as a part of Fuels Treatments Commercial Commercial Whole Tree Salvage and Salvage and Yarding/ Yarding Project element Commercial Commercial Tops Attached would not occur Thinning Thinning Stocking Level Project element Control would not occur No effect No effect Project element Reforestation would not occur No effect No effect Transportation System Use and Project element Improvements would not occur Negative effect Negative effect Wildlife Enhancement Project element Project would not occur Positive effect Positive effect

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 85 Wildlife

Table 3-22: Summary of Direct and Indirect effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 on Prairie Falcons (continued)

Project Elements Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Watershed Restoration Project element Projects would not occur Positive effect Positive effect Old Growth Project element Management would not occur No effect No effect

Alternative 1 Since no activities would occur under this alternative, there would be no effects to this species or its habitat.

Alternatives 2 and 3 No activities (including, but not limited to, logging, hauling, road reconstruction/rehabilitation or other major activity would occur during the breeding season (April 1 – August 1), unless a Wildlife Biologist determines that no prairie falcons are attempting to nest by June 1. If it is determined that prairie falcons are not nesting, then the Limited Operating Period (LOP) can be released with a letter to the file. If prairie falcons are found to be nesting, all activities would be restricted until August 1 as follows:

• No ground activities within a ¼ mile of the eyrie • No helicopter activities within ½ mile of the eyrie • No road use within ¼ mile of the eyrie by agency or contractor personnel • No personnel either agency or contractors within ¼ mile of the eyrie • No reforestation within ¼ mile of the eyrie

While there is no known active eyrie, if an active eyrie is located in this area, the following restrictions would be applied until after August 1:

A wildlife biologist would coordinate with the sale administrator to assure correct implementation of wildlife standards. Additionally, all trees within 400 feet of the eyrie would be retained whether live or dead.

Chapter 3 - 86 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife

Commercial salvage and commercial thinning may still have negative effects on prairie falcons through noise disturbance and human use in the area outside of the breeding season. The above LOP and other restrictions were designed to prevent harassment during the breeding season or nesting failure of prairie falcons during the breeding season, and thereby allow this project to be in compliance with the Forest Plan, which it does. However, implementation of Alternative 2 or 3 may still cause these falcons to adjust foraging and use areas away from the project area.

Use of the transportation system could negatively affect prairie falcons outside of the breeding season, depending upon level of use. It may cause noise disturbance that would cause falcons to adjust use areas away from the noise. The wildlife enhancement project and the watershed improvement project would be beneficial to prairie falcons by improving aspen and riparian habitat, which would maintain or improve habitat for prey species.

Cumulative Effects All of the activities in Appendix A of the Environmental Assessment have been considered for their cumulative effects on prairie falcons. The activities discussed here have the potential to produce a cumulative effect.

Timber Harvest (Including Associated Planting and Timber Stand Improvement Projects) Past timber management activities have likely not affected prairie falcon habitat because they nest on ledges and likely occurred outside of the breeding season. Since past timber sales were either overstory removal or clearcuts, it may have contributed to maintaining a diversity of prey species, which may have benefited prairie falcons. Additionally, reforestation and stocking level control may have also contributed to maintaining a variety of bird species that would have been available as prey.

Willow Planting Willow planting would have benefited prairie falcons by improving habitat conditions for prey species, which are typically avian.

Snag Creation Snag creation would have benefited prairie falcons by increasing the number of snags in the area. These snags could then be used as perches while hunting or resting.

Road Building and Maintenance Road building and maintenance activities may have negatively affected prairie falcons in the past in this area. It is still unknown if there is an active eyrie in the area of First Swale Creek below the 012 road. If there was an eyrie present, road construction most likely would have occurred outside of the breeding season, but noise disturbance could have caused birds to forage elsewhere. This likely would not have been a negative effect given the amount of habitat available for foraging.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 87 Wildlife

Road Decommissioning and Closing Implementation of the North Warner Access and Travel Management Plan would beneficially affect prairie falcons by reducing the amount of human use in the area.

Neotropical Migratory Birds and Songbirds Habitat/Information Neotropical migratory birds are those that breed in the United States and winter south of the border in Central and South America. They include a large group of species, including many hawks, shorebirds, warblers, and other song birds, with diverse habitat needs spanning nearly all successional stages of most plant community types (Niles, 1992). Nationwide declines in population trends for neotropical migrants have developed into an international concern.

Some neotropical migratory birds have a positive effect from fires, while others have a negative effect. It is possible that the decline of some neotropical migratory bird species, such as the olive-sided flycatcher, is linked to a century of fire suppression in western forests (Sallabanks and Mclver, 1998). Overall, wildfire was found to have a somewhat negative effect, reducing bird species richness wherever burn intensity was the highest (Sallabanks and Mclver, 1998).

Ponderosa pine-associated species include: white-headed woodpecker, pygmy nuthatch, chipping sparrow, and Lewis’ woodpecker. Within the Grassy Fire area, it is expected that species richness would decrease in areas of high burn intensity, but increase overall due to increased vegetation and habitat diversity. Species that are foliage or crown feeders and overstory nesting species may disappear within the high intensity burn areas. Some of these local species may include the golden-crowned kinglets, mountain chickadees, hermit thrush, ruby-crowned kinglet, yellow-rumped warbler, and western tanager. An increase in flycatchers, seedeaters, and cavity nesters is expected. Local species that may benefit from the fire include the olive-sided flycatcher, western-wood peewee, Hammond’s flycatcher, dusky flycatcher, cordilleran flycatcher, dark-eyed junco, Cassin’s finch, evening grosbeak, American robin, and several primary and secondary cavity nesters.

As a result of the fire, species composition would change over time as plant succession and snag and down wood numbers change. Salvage logging between May and August may directly affect neotropical migratory bird nesting. Although little is known about the effects of salvage logging in stand replacement fires on neotropical migratory birds, it is expected that salvage of snags under Alternatives 2 and 3 could have a negative effect on potential population numbers of cavity nesting neotropical migratory birds due to the reduced number of snags. Potential population numbers for grass and shrub nesting neotropical migratory birds is expected to remain stable or increase due to increased ground vegetation.

Chipping sparrows are found in areas with a relatively open understory with a heterogeneous understory of herbaceous openings and patches of shrubs and/or seedling

Chapter 3 - 88 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Wildlife

trees, especially pines (Altman, 2000). Salvage activity would not have an effect on chipping sparrow habitat, as it would occur in areas that do not currently provide habitat. Neither the no-action nor the action alternatives would have any direct effect on chipping sparrow habitat. Longer-term benefits to chipping sparrow habitat would be expected with Alternatives 2 and 3, as the proposed precommercial thinning contributes to the development of an open understory.

Partners In Flight Focal Species

The Partners in Flight Focal Species that have habitat present within the two subsheds are listed in the following table. For the most part, the proposed project area would currently favor those species that utilize burned forest, open pine stands, and aspen stands. In the long-term, reforestation and stocking level control projects would facilitate creation of open pine stands with large trees that would also benefit some of these species.

The justification for ponderosa pine as a priority habitat is the extensive loss and degradation of forest characteristic of this type across a broader landscape, and the fact that several highly associated bird species have declining populations and are species of concern. Declines of ponderosa pine forest are among the most widespread and strongest declines among habitat types in an analysis of source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates in the Interior Columbia Basin (Wisdom et al., in press). Within the Northern Cascades, Southern Cascades, and Upper Klamath ecological reporting units (ERUs) of the Interior Columbia Basin Assessment, old forest, single overstory ponderosa pine habitat has declined by 97, 55, and 18 percent, respectively (Wisdom et al., in press). The Northern Great Basin ERU has had a decrease in late-seral single layer forest from 56 percent in historical year 100 to 27 percent currently. The result of degradation of ponderosa pine forest from fire suppression and extensive timber harvest has been the change of large areas of late-seral ponderosa pine forest to mid-seral stands of Douglas-fir and grand/white fir.

Because of the extensive loss of ponderosa pine forest, habitat restoration is the most important strategy for conservation of landbirds associated with this habitat type. The desired condition in ponderosa pine forest is a large tree, single-layered canopy with an open, park-like understory dominated by herbaceous cover with scattered shrub cover and pine regeneration. Ponderosa pine forest within the planning unit occurs extensively at low elevations in all the sub-provinces except the Columbia Foothills where it is a minor component.

Bird species associated with ponderosa pine forest have suffered the greatest population declines and range retractions in the planning unit. In addition to the overall loss of this forest type, two features, snags and old-forest conditions, have been diminished appreciably and resulted in declines of bird species highly associated with these conditions or features.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 89 Wildlife

Landbird conservation in ponderosa pine forest emphasizes maintaining healthy ecosystems through representative focal species for four habitat conditions. These include large patches of old forest with large snags, large trees, and open understory with regenerating pines, and patches of burned old forest (See following table).

Table 3-23: Species Identified for the Subprovince Central Oregon/Klamath Basin in the “Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the East-slope of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington” (Altman, 2000) that May be Found within the Grassy Project Area Where Addressed (earlier) in Chapter 3 Species Representative of: Wildlife Section White-headed Woodpecker Ponderosa Pine – large patches of Snag and Downed Wood Melanerpes erythrocephalus old forest with large snags Dependent Species Pygmy Nuthatch Snag and Downed Wood Sitta pygmaea Ponderosa Pine – large trees Dependent Species Chipping Sparrow Ponderosa Pine – open understory Neotropical Migratory Spizella passerine with regenerating pines Birds Lewis’ Woodpecker Ponderosa Pine – patches of burned Snag and Downed Wood Melanerpes lewis old Forest Dependent Species Red-naped Sapsucker MIS – Red-naped Sphyrapicus nuchalis Aspen Sapsucker

Chapter 3 - 90 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Fisheries / Watershed

Fisheries and Watershed (including Soils)

Introduction The Grassy Salvage Project boundary is located within the Upper Honey Creek Subwatershed and Middle Honey Creek Subwatershed, both sixth-field HUC (hydrologic unit codes, 171200070501 and 171200070503). Both subwatersheds are part of the larger fifth-field HUC of the Honey/Fish Creek Watershed. The Grassy Fire burned a total of 4,202 acres, of which 1,436 acres are National Forest System lands, 136 acres are Bureau of Land Management lands, and 2,630 acres are private land. Only a small portion of the Middle Honey Creek Subwatershed is within National Forest System lands. Data is only available for 24 percent of this subwatershed; therefore, no conclusions can be made on the overall condition of the subwatershed. However, the remainder of both subwatersheds was analyzed using the Forest Geographic Information System (GIS) database, aerial photographs, and orthoquads. The analysis showed that less than 25 percent of either subwatershed (including both National Forest System and private lands) is presently in openings from past timber harvest and the Grassy Fire.

The project area is located northeast of the town of Lakeview, Oregon. The Honey/Fish watershed (fifth-field HUC 1712000705) is located within the Basin and Range physiographic province characterized by fault-block mountains enclosing basins with internal drainages. It is in the semiarid rain shadow of the region east of the Cascade Mountains, characterized by cool temperatures, light precipitation, and moderate winds. Temperatures vary widely, both seasonally and by elevation. Summer highs exceed 90o F in the lower elevations and winter lows fall below 0o F at any elevation. Freezing temperatures can occur at any time of year, especially at the high elevations. The majority of the precipitation falls as snow, with higher elevations receiving greater depths of snow.

Most of the soils are derived from basalt or tuff. Forested vegetation consists primarily of ponderosa pine within the project area. One perennial stream, Honey Creek, flows through the project area.

The subwatersheds contain both forested and non-forested acres. Forested vegetation consists of ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, mixed conifer, and juniper woodlands. Non- forested vegetation consists of meadow systems, upland shrub areas and grasses. The following table identifies the total acres within each subwatershed and the total forested acres. These values were obtained using the Forest Geographic Information System (GIS) database.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 91 Fisheries / Watershed

Table 3-24: Total Subwatershed Acres and Forested Area Acres Total Area Within N.F. Subwatershed (Acres) Forested Area (Acres) Upper Honey Creek 18,075 7,034 Middle Honey Creek 727 360 Project Area 1,436 1,158

Year 2004 Fire Suppression Activity The Burn Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) team completed analysis of the hydrological and other resource effects of the Grassy Fire immediately following suppression (Fremont-Winema National Forests, 2004). During fire suppression activities in mid August 2004, a total of 29.2 miles of line was established, the majority of which was machine-constructed (18.9 miles). The remaining fire line was hand- constructed (9 miles) or existing roads were used as fire line (1.3 miles). The machine- constructed fire line had two perennial stream crossings and three intermittent stream crossings. At the time of the BAER report, 7 miles of the fire line had been rehabilitated by water barring. The Lakeview Ranger District rehabilitated the remaining 22.2 miles of fire line.

Erosion control seeding was not recommended or implemented because the BAER team determined that it was unnecessary. The BAER team made no treatment recommendations for this fire. Both fire suppression activities and subsequent rehabilitation become a part of the baseline from which the effects of the proposed activities are considered in the following sections.

General Effects of the Fire Immediately following suppression, the Burn Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) team completed analysis of the hydrological effects of the Grassy Fire. The BAER team concluded that 100 percent of the soils within the fire perimeter experienced a low severity burn. The fire produced a black surface burn, which had minimal effect on water absorption, and no post-fire soil-water repellency. The soil hazard rating for the vast majority of the burned area is low to moderate, with only 66 acres rated as high.

Storm events up to 25 years were modeled using the Watershed Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP, 2001) model. There were only slight increases in water yield predicted under any storm event. Sediment delivery predictions were 0.09 tons per acre, which is considered low. Due to adequate riparian buffers, little of this sediment was predicted to reach Honey Creek, and, therefore, no measurable change is expected in percent fine substrate within spawning areas. Dead and down wood has increased in the project area due to the falling of fire-killed trees. Down logs on the soil surface assist in slowing the velocity of overland flow, thereby reducing the potential of the water flowing over the land surface to cause surface erosion.

Chapter 3 - 92 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Fisheries / Watershed

Purpose and Need The following purpose and need elements discussed in Chapter 1 are pertinent to the Fisheries and Watershed resource area:

As stated in Chapter 1, a purpose of this project is to:

• Promote riparian and upland habitats in the Grassy Fire area that meet the desired conditions established by the Fremont N.F. (LRMP).

As stated in Chapter 1, a need for this project is: • High-quality fish and riparian habitat within the project area.

Regulatory Framework Several management directives/recommendations would apply to this project. The Honey/Fish Watershed, approximately five miles downstream of the project area, contains Proposed Critical Habitat and occupied habitat for Warner sucker, a species listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Management directives from the Recovery Plan for the Threatened and Rare Native Fishes of the Warner Basin and Alkali Sub-basin (USFWS 1998) would be followed. In addition, direction from the Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (USDA 1989), as amended by the Interim Strategies for Managing Fish- Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, Western Montana and Portions of Nevada (INFISH) (USDA 1995) and the LRMP Biological Opinion (USDI 2000b) would also be followed.

The LRMP INFISH amendments add further interim management direction in the form of Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs), Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs), and standards and guidelines for Key Watersheds. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP 1997) provides further direction on desired habitat conditions.

Regulatory and legal requirements that direct watershed management include the Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 303, 319, and 404. Federal law requires that streams, rivers, lakes, and estuaries that appear on the 303(d) list be managed to meet water quality standards. A comprehensive approach for protecting water quality includes developing TMDLs (total maximum daily loads) for both point and nonpoint sources. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is committed to having federally-approved TMDLs on all waterbodies listed on the 1998 303(d) list by the end of the year 2007. Section 319 of the Clean Water Act directs states to develop programs to control nonpoint source pollution and includes federal funding of assessment, planning and implementation phases. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act establishes a program that regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material into water of the United States, including wetlands. Activities regulated under this program include fills for

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 93 Fisheries / Watershed

development, water resource projects, infrastructure development, and conversion of wetlands to uplands for farming and forestry.

In addition, Executive Order No. 11990 directs management of Wetland areas. EO 11990 requires that each agency will minimize destruction and degradation of wetlands, and preserve and enhance the beneficial values of wetlands. Adherence to INFISH (1995) direction provides the mechanism by which the Forest Service complies with Executive Order 11990.

Soils Background Soils within the project area are derived from basalt, tuff, and andesite. The land in the project area varies widely in slope. The majority of the project area is located on terrain with slopes ranging from 16 to 40 percent. There are areas within the project area that exceed 40 percent slope. These areas are generally near the ridge tops or within the steep canyon associated with Honey Creek.

The Fremont National Forest Soil Resource Inventory categorizes soils by Land Types (Wenzel, 1979), which correspond to soil series in the refined mapping for the Soil Survey of Lake County, Southern Part (Kienzle, 1999). Wenzel classifies this area as primarily Land Types 1, 34B, 37A, 37B and 988. Three common soil series in the project area have features that moderate traffic effects. These are the Woodchopper, Rogger, and Winterim series as defined by Kienzle (1999). Woodchopper series occur on the relatively gentle slopes above the canyon and have high shrink-swell clays and gravelly to cobbly subsoil that resist compaction. These soils extend frost heave, which enhances recovery after compaction associated with logging traffic and generally preclude the need to use subsoiling treatments. Winterim series are a very gravelly loam and they also contain high shrink-swell clays. Rogger series occur on rolling north slopes and contain very gravelly fine sand that resists compaction. These cobbly subsoils preclude generally the need to use subsoiling treatments to recover soil tilth after harvest, other than a possible need for scarification to 8 inches on a spot basis on landings or major skid trails.

In a more general sense, the soils in the Grassy Project area are in the Mollisol soil order that is associated with grassland steppe vegetation (the following discussion is partially in response to a public comment received during the 30 day comment period for this project). Information from the Atlas of Oregon helps identify down wood nutrient habitats as leached soil habitats (Loy et al, 2000). In healthy Mollisol soils, soil microbiology communities have a component of fungus mychorrizae. But mychorrizae play a small role in semi-arid nutrient cycles. In the bacterial, litter-driven, grass dominated systems with mollisol soils (as opposed to fungal-dominated systems) down wood plays a small role as a host location for nutrients.

Overall, mychorrizae, while a component of healthy soils, is of smaller influence for recovery, and a smaller component of the soil flora than in moister systems. In Mollisol

Chapter 3 - 94 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Fisheries / Watershed

systems, mychorrizae activity does increase with the presence of large dead wood up to a certain point, but beyond that point no significant additional activity occurs. This relationship differs from the Ultisol soil orders that occur in western Oregon under Douglas fir and Hemlock. In these western Oregon systems there is ample rain to leach soil organic carbon and nutrients out of the soils. In these leached Ultisol habitats mychorrizae play a dominant role in soil decay process.

A dysfunction that West and Young (2000) describe as “lignification” identifies that down and standing wood volumes can overwhelm the soil microbial community due too closed forest conditions. Some down wood can be decayed and incorporated into storage in Mollisol soils. However, much of the down wood becomes fuel that poses the risk of adverse soil heating in a wildfire scenario. To limit soil heating nutrient losses, guidelines on down wood can be tailored to various habitats and expressed in tons/acre (Brown, 2003). Brown concludes that consideration of both positive and negative aspects “indicates that the optimum quantity of CWD is about 5 to 20 tons per acre for warm dry ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir type.”

Grass-steppe clumps in Mollisol soils also have a moderating effect on erosion. Grass- steppe clumps tend to capture and enrich soil that moves around a field with storm events. David Tongway brought this relationship into soil assessment with the trigger transfer model for deposition and erosion estimate that is now imported into Water Erosion Technology Project (WEPP 2001). Pannkuk and Robichaud (2003), who are developing research upgrades to WEPP, show in flume studies that ponderosa pine needles form small dams similar to grass clumps. Yet soil decay processes, which stabilize soil under grass clumps, have not been tested for pine-needled areas.

In general, soil compaction is a concern on the Fremont-Winema National Forests. Detrimental soil compaction can limit vegetation growth, thereby reducing soil productivity. Additionally, soil compaction can reduce infiltration rates, increasing the potential for overland flow and subsequent erosion. Substantial surface soil loss by erosion is a major concern to the Fremont-Winema National Forests. For this reason, soil compaction and erosion are the primary issues of the following current conditions and effects analysis sections.

While soil is considered a non-renewable resource, soil is a dynamic part of the biosphere. Soil nutrient capital is renewed each year with the detritus from the ground cover of grasses, forbs, and shrubs. The soil incorporation of detritus produces measurable differences in forest fertility and pine growth in 10 to 20 years. The historically occurring 10 to 30 year fire cycles in open forest conditions facilitates long- term renewal of ground cover detritus and soil nutrient capital, especially nitrogen that produces the brown forest soils such as Winterim.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 95 Fisheries / Watershed

Soils Existing Conditions During the past 30 years the 41,000-acre cumulative effects analysis area, which encompasses the Middle and Upper Honey Creek subwatersheds, has had a total of 1,560 acres of clearcut harvest (all in Upper Honey) and 1,950 acres of overstory removal (95 percent in Upper Honey). In the past 30 years those sales that have impacted more than very small acreages include (by decade):

There has been no harvest on National Forest System lands within the two subwatersheds within the past 10 years.

The project area was measured for compaction using 12 transects (approximately 400 meters long) distributed across previously logged and un-logged areas. Several representative samples of each capability area in the project were sampled. An average of 20 samples was collected for each transect to determine compaction and soil structure. As anticipated, a low amount of adverse compaction was found. This finding is consistent with soils containing shrink-swell clays, which resist compaction and enhance recovery. There were four transects located in previously harvested areas (Tin Can, Blue Springs, and Honey Timber Sales (1984-1992). Compaction to the point of limiting the growth of vegetation (detrimental compaction) was not found in any of the transects, including the transects located in previously harvested stands. This illustrates the potential for shrink swell clays in the project area to enhance the recovery of previously harvested units.

The Fremont National Forest Soil Productivity Guide (Fremont National Forest, 2000) states the maximum allowable detrimental soil condition in an activity area is 20 percent. The soil compaction survey described above determined that no stands of the 12 surveyed within the project area had detrimentally compacted soils.

Chapter 3 - 96 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Fisheries / Watershed

Table 3-25: Compaction Sampling Transects Land % Detrimental Type Soil Capability Compaction (Wenzel, (Fremont LRMP Past (existing Stand # 1979) 1989) Harvest conditions) 1 88C 7 N 0% 1 988 7 N 0% 1 37B 6 N 0% 1 37B 6 Y 0% 34A, 3 34B 4, 6 Y 0% 4 37A 4 Y 0% 6 37A 4 N 0% 6 34B 6 N 0% 7 30A 2 N 0% 7 34A 4 N 0% 9 988 7 N 0% 14 1 11 Y 0%

The Fremont Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP, 1989) describes the erosion potential of the soils within the project area. The majority of the soils within the project area are described by soil capability areas 4 and 6. Soil capability area 4 has a low potential for surface (sheet) erosion as well as a low potential for gully erosion. Soil capability area 6 has a moderate potential for surface and gully erosion.

The primary nutrient loss is nitrogen from volatilization during wildfire. Volatilization is associated with high fuel loads and crown fires (Brown, 2003) such as the uncharacteristic behavior during the 2004 Grassy Fire. Forests that match the general reference condition of ponderosa pine forests in the PNW/Great Basin (85 percent open forest) would be unlikely to have down wood characteristics that contributed to substantial volatilization, except on 15 percent of the landscape where closed forest occurred.

Subwatershed Sensitivity Analysis Methods The degree to which a watershed or subwatershed responds to a management activity or a natural disaster is considered when determining the inherent watershed sensitivity. Existing conditions and the inherent sensitivity allow one to more clearly understand how a subwatershed may react to any proposed activity on the subwatershed. The sensitivity of each subwatershed was determined by analyzing each subwatershed for hydrologic soil group, mass movement hazard, drainage density, and watershed relief ratio.

Hydrologic Capability of Soils The soils that make up each subwatershed were broken into hydrologic soil groups that indicate the general infiltration and water movement ability of the soil and bedrock

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 97 Fisheries / Watershed

materials. Generally, hydrologic soil groups C and D are likely to generate stream flow. Hydrologic soil group A is made up of soils having high infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted. These soils consist chiefly of deep, well to excessively drained sands and/or gravels. These soils have a high rate of water transmission and would result in low runoff potential.

Hydrologic soil group B is characterized by soils with moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted. These soils consist primarily of moderately deep to deep, moderately- well to well drained soils, with moderately-fine to moderately-coarse textures. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.

The soils in hydrologic group C have a slow rate of water transmission and are characterized by slow infiltration rates when wetted. Group C consists of (1) soils with a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or (2) soils that with moderately fine to fine texture and a slow infiltration rate.

Hydrologic soil group D is characterized by soils with a very slow rate of water transmission and very slow infiltration rates when wetted. Group D consists of (1) clay soils with high swelling potential, (2) soils with high permanent water table, (3) soils with clay pan or clay layer at or near the surface, and (4) shallow soils over nearly impervious materials. The percent of the subwatershed area that consists of soil group C and D were reported, as they are streamflow generation areas.

The different soil groups are given an index factor that weights their relative contribution to surface runoff and sediment delivery within the subwatershed. The number of acres for hydrologic soil group C and D is multiplied by index factors of 0.4 and 0.8, respectively, in order to generate an index total. The index total was then converted to a percent of the subwatershed area and rated for overall sensitivity. Subwatersheds were rated high, moderate, and low for greater than 40 percent, greater than 15 percent, less than or equal to 40 percent, and less than or equal to 15 percent, respectively.

The calculated index percent of the Upper Honey Creek and Middle Honey Creek subwatersheds is 14 percent and 23 percent, respectively. Therefore, the hydrologic group index rating for Upper Honey Creek is low, and the rating for Middle Honey Creek is moderate. However, this rating for Middle Honey Creek is based on only 727 acres of data, and the subwatershed is 21,526 acres in size.

Mass Movement Hazard Soil mapping units are characterized in the Fremont LRMP (1989) into soil capability areas. These soil capability areas are further described as having a low, moderate, or high potential for mass movement. The following table shows the percentage of each subwatershed with a low, moderate, or high potential for mass movement.

Chapter 3 - 98 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Fisheries / Watershed

Table 3-26: Summary of Mass Movement Hazard in the Analysis Area

Subwatershed Low Moderate High Overall Rating Upper Honey Creek 84% 16% Low Middle Honey Creek 100% Low

Drainage Density The drainage density for each subwatershed was determined by taking the miles of stream divided by the subwatershed area. Drainage density affects the rapidity by which water can flow to the outlet. A larger drainage density value will yield a quicker flow response and a higher peak (Brooks et al., 1991). The low class of drainage density is considered between 3 to 4 mi/mi2 (Strahler, 1964). The drainage densities for Upper Honey Creek and Middle Honey Creek subwatersheds are 1.36 and 1.54, respectively. Therefore, both subsheds are rated as having a low sensitivity for drainage density.

Watershed Relief Ratio The subwatershed relief ratio was generated by subtracting the lowest elevation of the primary stream channel from the subwatershed crest elevation and dividing by the length of the subwatershed. The index used for watershed relief was separated into high (greater than or equal to 0.075 ft/ft), moderate (greater than or equal to 0.05 ft/ft and less than 0.075 ft/ft) and low (less than 0.05 ft/ft). The watershed relief ratio for Upper Honey Creek subwatershed is 0.06 ft/ft and is, therefore, rated as moderate. The watershed relief ratio for Middle Honey Creek subwatershed cannot be determined due to insufficient data.

Stream Flow Regime The amount and timing of runoff is a function of the amount, timing, and intensity of precipitation as well as the amount, type, and spatial distribution of vegetation in the subwatershed. Ground cover vegetation can increase infiltration rates of soils, thereby reducing runoff. In addition, canopy cover both intercepts snow and provides shade for snow retention. Both of these factors affect the amount and timing of spring runoff. The majority of precipitation in the basin falls as snow during mild intensity storms. Rain on snow events periodically occur in December and January and could result in the highest stream flow events. Normal spring runoff occurs from March through June.

Canopy cover both intercepts snow and provides shade for snow retention. Both factors affect the amount and timing of runoff. The subwatersheds had canopy removed in the past from logging and other disturbances such as fire. The openings created in a watershed from fire are related to the severity of that fire. Similarly, openings in canopy cover created by logging are related to the harvest treatment utilized. It has been generally noted that 20 to 30 percent of a watershed must be harvested before a significant change in flow can be detected (Troendle and Leaf, 1980). The Grassy Salvage analysis uses the assumption that measurable changes in flow cannot be detected when openings are less than 25 percent of the watershed.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 99 Fisheries / Watershed

Stream Flow Regime – Effects of past activities and events Timber harvest on the public lands within the two subwatersheds has decreased the canopy cover in the harvested stands. Timber harvest on the National Forest System lands within the two subwatersheds has not occurred since 1991 and the majority of the recent previous harvest occurred in the mid-1980s. Hydrologic recovery occurs within harvested stands as canopy closure increases and provides similar evapo-transpiration and infiltration rates as it did prior to harvest. Therefore, previous timber harvest on National Forest System lands within the two subwatersheds have had an insignificant effect on streamflow regime. Only 5.4 percent of the Upper Honey Subwatershed and 13.9 percent of the Middle Honey Subwatershed was burned in the Grassy Fire. The reduction in transpiration as a result of the Grassy Fire is not large enough to produce measurable stream flow regime changes.

Only 3 percent of the subwatershed is managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Timber harvest has likely occurred historically on the private land within the Middle Honey Subwatershed. In response to the 2004 Grassy Fire, approximately 450 acres of private lands in the Middle Honey Creek subwatershed were salvage logged under State Forest Practices Act. While the timing of other prior private timber harvest is unknown, photographs and orthoquads were used to determine the amount of area presently in openings on both National Forest System and private lands. The area burned in the Grassy Fire and the remainder of Upper Honey Creek and Middle Honey Creek subwatersheds was analyzed using the Forest Geographic Information System (GIS) database, aerial photographs, and orthoquads. The analysis showed that less than 25 percent of either subwatershed (including both National Forest System and private lands) is presently in openings from past timber harvest and the Grassy Fire.

Water Quality Beneficial Uses of Water Beneficial uses of water on-site are for fisheries, terrestrial wildlife, agricultural irrigation, and road watering. Region 6 Sensitive Species, redband trout, occur within the project area. Downstream uses are similar to on-site uses, but also include habitat for Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed Warner sucker (Catostomus warnerensis).

The primary perennial streams within the burned area are Honey Creek and portions of First Swale and Second Swale Creeks. Within the two subwatersheds, the primary perennial streams are Honey Creek and Little Honey Creek. Ephemeral and intermittent drainages in the Upper Honey Creek and Middle Honey Creek subwatersheds flow into Honey Creek.

303(d) Listed Waters The Forest Service provided water quality monitoring data to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) for many perennial streams on the Fremont National Forest. Streams that did not meet State of Oregon water quality standards (17.8 o C) were submitted by ODEQ to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for inclusion in the

Chapter 3 - 100 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Fisheries / Watershed

EPA 303(d) list. Data from 1993, 1994, and 1995 exceeded the state temperature standard and Honey Creek was included on the 303(d) list in 1998 for temperature from river mile 0 to 17.6. Data collected on Honey Creek in 2003 shows a 7-day maximum daily average of 23.6 o C. A further discussion of stream temperature is included later in this section.

Sediment Immediately following the Grassy Fire in 2004, the Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) team visited the fire to assess the risk of erosion and resource damage. Using the WEPP (Water Erosion Prediction Project) soil erosion model, the BAER team determined the erosion potential from the land surface (amount of soil with potential to move) to be low at 0.09 tons per acre. For a visual reference, 0.09 tons per acre of sediment is the equivalent of a layer of sediment that is less than a sheet of paper in thickness. Sediment delivery predictions from the WEPP model were 0.04 tons per acre, which is also considered low. For reference, rill and/or sheet erosion is not visible until erosion rates reach about 1.0 tons per acre. Erosion values less than 0.1 tons per acre are considered within normal background erosion rates. Therefore, any effects to Warner sucker and/or their habitat resulting from fire related sediment deposition are considered to be at a negligible level.

The WEPP modeling described above does not include potential sediment inputs from the fire line constructed during suppression efforts or from the existing road system. No mechanical fireline was constructed within RHCAs with the Grassy Fire. All fireline within RHCAs was handline and has been rehabilitated. The majority of roads and mechanical fireline in the entire fire area was rehabilitated in Fall of 2004. The remainder will be completed in 2005.

During the suppression effort, 29.2 miles of fire line was constructed, the majority of which was machine built. The fire line has been water barred to reduce potential inputs of sediment to streams. However, the potential still exists for the fire line to input sediment to streams, particularly at areas where the fire line has crossed the stream channel. There are five locations where hand fire line crossed streams within the project area.

Sediment input from Roads Roads have numerous impacts to the hydrologic function of a watershed. Roads can increase the drainage density of a watershed, acting as a preferential pathway for surface water runoff over the land surface. This decreases the volume of overland flow that infiltrates into the ground water or soil water storage. Runoff traveling down roadbeds can be highly erosive as it travels over a non-vegetated surface. The increased drainage density within a watershed due to roads increases the rate at which runoff leaves a basin, resulting in higher peak flows in times of snow melt or rainfall and reduced stream flows in the later summer months.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 101 Fisheries / Watershed

Roads may directly alter streams by increasing erosion and sedimentation, which in turn may result in altered stream channel morphology. In addition, roads may alter the natural drainage characteristics of channels and subsequently change the runoff characteristics of watersheds (Furniss et al., 1991). Roads can serve as a link between sediment source areas and streams, and often account for most of the sediment problems in a watershed. Water, sediment, and chemical runoff generated from the road prism can enter the natural stream channel network when the road is hydrologically connected to the stream channel. Some of the ways in which roads are hydrologically connected to the stream channel are at road-stream crossings, where discharge is sufficiently high to create a gully in the inboard ditch, and where the fillslope of the road encroaches on the stream.

A study of eroded material travel distances below fill slopes shows that more than 95 percent of relief culverts can be prevented from contributing sediment to streams if the travel distance is 300 feet or more (Burroughs and King, 1989). INFISH (1995) recommends buffer strips of 300 feet between riparian areas and roads. Within the project area, there are 6 miles of road within 300 feet of stream channels and 1.5 miles of road within 300 to 600 feet away from the stream channel. Therefore, there are a possible 7.5 miles of roads that are likely to contribute sediment to the stream channel.

The following table includes road densities for both Upper Honey Creek and Middle Honey Creek subwatersheds, as well as road densities for the project area. The data displayed in the table below for road densities was obtained from the GIS database. The data in the GIS database for roads in this area has not been updated recently; however, it is the most current data for roads in the analysis area. Road density numbers displayed below differ from the numbers reported earlier in the mule deer analysis. The mule deer analysis considered total miles of Forest Service roads on National Forest System lands within each subwatershed. The hydrologic analysis expanded its consideration to include all area within each subwatershed, regardless of ownership, on which data was available.

Roads that are closed (blocked) were included in the road density calculations, as they continue to function hydrologically as roads until they are obliterated.

Table 3-27: Road Densities and Road Impact Index

Subwatershed Existing Road Density (mi/mi2) Road Impact Index Upper Honey Creek 4.85 0.7 Middle Honey Creek 1.91 0.03 Project area 2.29 0.04

Road densities are used as a measure of the overall hydrologic function of a watershed. According to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) (1997), watersheds with 1.7 (mi/mi2) or less of road were functioning appropriately. Watersheds with 1.7 - 4.7 (mi/mi2) of road were functioning appropriately, but at risk, and watersheds with greater than 4.7 (mi/mi2) of road were functioning inappropriately.

Chapter 3 - 102 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Fisheries / Watershed

Road Impact Index (RII) is a relative measure of the connectivity between roads and streams that exists within a watershed (Rosgen, 1996). Watersheds with a RII of less than 1 were functioning appropriately. Watersheds with a RII of 1 - 2.5 were functioning appropriately, but at risk. Watersheds with a RII greater than 2.5 were functioning inappropriately.

Stream Channel, Riparian Vegetation, and Fish Habitat Conditions Overview Honey Creek is the primary drainage and only fish-bearing stream in the project area. Within the project area, Honey Creek provides habitat for redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp.), a Forest Service regionally listed Sensitive Species, and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), a non-native, introduced game fish.

Warner sucker, which occur in Honey Creek downstream of the project area, were listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act in September 1985. All occupied Warner sucker habitat in Honey Creek is also Designated Critical Habitat. The nearest occupied, Designated Critical Warner sucker habitat to the project area is approximately five miles downstream in Honey Creek.

The existing condition of all stream channels within the project area was reviewed by the project fisheries biologist using existing stream survey data coupled with field reconnaissance, and was considered in the cumulative effects analysis.

Honey Creek Existing Condition Approximately 1.2 miles of Honey Creek is within the fire perimeter. Fire in the Honey Creek Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) was of a low intensity throughout. Along Honey Creek, there was generally a buffer between the fire and the stream. Field reconnaissance led to the estimation of less than five percent of the streambanks being in a burned condition. No instream large wood was consumed. Few (approximately 25) of the overstory trees adjacent to the channel burned and are likely die in the near future. Few (less than 10) trees were felled during fire suppression efforts and reached the stream channel and/or its floodplain. These trees would all be left onsite.

In the following discussion, Reach 1 of Honey Creek is immediately upstream, within, or immediately downstream of the area affected by the fire. Data used to describe current stream channel conditions were collected in fall 2004 (see the following table) and combined with a qualitative assessment of existing stream channel conditions, conducted in fall 2004. Stream functionality determinations are based on whether habitat objectives are being met. Habitat is compared to INFISH Standards and Guidelines (USDA, 1995) and the 50th and 75th percentiles for natural or near natural streams in the northern Great Basin as modified by the Fremont National Forest (ICBEMP, 1997). Other habitat elements, such as water quality (primarily temperature) and fine sediment, were established by examination of the scientific literature and/or obtained through monitoring

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 103 Fisheries / Watershed

of natural or near natural streams on the Forest. A complete description of habitat objectives and rationale is found in USDA Forest Service (1999).

Table 3-28: In-channel Habitat Conditions in Reach 1 of Honey Creek, Summer 2004.

Honey Creek *Rip. Veg. Over- % story/ Pools Rosgen Fine Length Unstable Under- Pools >2.6ft. Channel Sediment LWD/ Max. Temp. Reach (mi.) Bank story /mile /mile Type (<6.4mm) mile (degrees C) CP/H A, HW, See 23.6 1 3. 5 5 GF 51 0.5 B3 discussion 5 ( year 2003) CP – ponderosa pine; HA – alder; HW – willow; GF – grass/forbs.

Rosgen Channel Type Honey Creek, in and adjacent to the Grassy Salvage Analysis Area, is functioning appropriately in terms of its potential stream type as the shape and size of the stream channel is in balance with its geomorphic setting. Rosgen B channel types dominate the reach. Rosgen B channels are moderate gradient channels, having the ability to easily transport fine sediment because of increased stream power (moderate to high water velocity) (Rosgen, 1994). This reach is composed of predominantly cobble-sized material, with gravel and small boulder also well represented. Streambanks in the reach are generally stable and well armored.

Riparian Vegetation and Associated Bank Stability Riparian vegetation in reach 1 is dominated by alder, willow, grasses, and sedges, with sparse ponderosa pine in the overstory. Riparian vegetation on Honey Creek consists of a diverse composition and age structure and appears healthy. The species present (sedges, alder, willow, etc.) are capable of withstanding high streamflow events and indicate maintenance of soil moisture characteristics. Recent field reconnaissance found less than five percent of the streambanks in a burned and/or unstable condition. Stream survey data collected in 2004 estimated less than six percent unstable banks. Based on the species composition, age structure, and health of riparian vegetation and bank stability condition, riparian vegetation and associated bank stability are functioning appropriately on Honey Creek.

Large Woody Debris Large woody debris in streams is an important roughness element influencing channel morphology, sediment distribution, and water routing (Swanson and Lienkaemper, 1978, Bisson, et al., 1987). Wood is an important agent in the formation of pools, which are extremely important to redband trout populations in the affected watersheds.

Chapter 3 - 104 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Fisheries / Watershed

The INFISH (USDA 1995) standard for wood greater than 12 inches in diameter at the small end and at least 35 feet long is 20 pieces per mile. Wood this size is lacking in Honey Creek, with 5 pieces per mile present in reach 1 when surveyed in 2004.

ICBEMP (1997) found that natural or near natural frequency of large wood (less than 20” dbh and 35’ long) in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer sites in Northern Great Basin streams, for a stream the size and slope of Honey Creek, is to have 10 pieces per mile at the 50th percentile and 44 pieces per mile at the 75th percentile. Typically, values less than the 50th percentile are rated as functioning inappropriately, values between the 50th and 75 percentile are rated as functioning at risk, and values above the 75th percentile are rated as functioning appropriately.

The INFISH and ICBEMP large wood standards were developed for forested systems. Reach 1 of Honey Creek is at the downstream end of the National Forest boundary, in a setting that largely represents the transition from a desert landscape downstream to a forested system upstream. Reach 1 flows through a variety of landscapes, varying from juniper woodlands to low stocked pine forests. Most of Reach 1 is in a rugged canyon, with rocky side slopes. The rocky side slopes are poor areas for growing trees, resulting in many non-forested and low stocked forested areas. Because Honey Creek is largely in a non-forested, or low stocked woodland setting, it is not expected to meet the INFISH or ICBEMP standards described above. Because of the steep, rocky canyon that most of the reach flows through, no past timber harvest has occurred through the vast majority of the reach.

As previously discussed, no instream large wood was consumed during the Grassy Fire. Approximately 25 of the overstory trees adjacent to the channel burned and are likely die in the near future, some of which will be recruited to the stream channel. Although Reach 1 is not meeting INFISH or ICBEMP large wood standards, it is not expected to, given the natural limitation of its landscape setting as described above. Overstory vegetation adjacent to Honey Creek is healthy and instream large wood levels are appropriate for site conditions. Overall, this reach is rated as functioning appropriately, with regard to large woody debris.

Pools The 2004 stream survey data shows that pools per mile (51) exceed the 75th percentile (23 pools per mile) for streams in the northern Great Basin (ICBEMP 1997), but does not meet the INFISH (USDA 1995) pool frequency standard (96 pools per mile). The INFISH pool frequency standard has proven to often be an unattainable standard while ICBEMP standards represent the best available data based on what has been observed in natural or near natural stream conditions in the northern Great Basin. Therefore, the ICBEMP standards will be the standards against which this parameter will be analyzed.

ICBEMP (1997) found that natural or near natural frequency of large pools (2.6 feet deep), for a stream the size and slope of Honey Creek, is to have one large pool per 2 miles at the 50th percentile and two pools per mile at the 75th percentile. (There is no INFISH standard for pool quality and/or large pools). Large pools in Honey Creek meet

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 105 Fisheries / Watershed

the ICBEMP 50th percentile standard with one pool greater than 2.6 feet deep per two miles. The lack of large pools is most likely related to the lack of large sized, pool- forming wood instream (see large wood discussion above).

Honey Creek is functioning appropriately for pool frequency and pool quality based on exceeding the ICBEMP 75th percentile pool frequency standards, and meeting the ICBEMP 50th percentile large pool standard, while naturally lacking large pool forming wood.

Percent Fines in Spawning Gravels/Embeddedness The amount of fines in spawning gravels was measured near the upstream end and downstream end of Reach 1 in fall 2004. Spawning habitat contained less than 20 percent fine sediment (<6.4mm) in both locations (18 percent at upstream end and 14 percent at downstream end.

Honey Creek is functioning appropriately for fine sediment, as it does not contain excess levels of fine sediment.

Water Temperature Data from 1993, 1994, and 1995 exceeded the state temperature standard (17.8 degrees C) and Honey Creek was included on the 303(d) list in 1998 for temperature from river mile 0 to 17.6. Data collected on Honey Creek in 2003 shows a 7-day maximum daily average of 23.6 oC.

In general, factors that can affect stream temperature include low late summer stream flow, over-widened stream channels, reductions in shade due to the loss of shade producing vegetation immediately adjacent to the channel, and channel down cutting and subsequent lowering of local water tables. None of these appear to be significantly affecting Honey Creek on National Forest System lands. Instead, the reasons for the temperature regime in Honey Creek are similar to many creeks in the area.

The warm dry climate, particularly on the eastern forest/desert fringe locations such as the Grassy area combine with predominantly open forest types to produce naturally warm stream temperatures. Small streams such as Honey Creek are particularly susceptible to these factors that contribute to not meeting the State temperature standards. (The preceding discussion is partially in response to a public comment received during the 30 day comment period for this project). As discussed under direct and indirect effects later in this section, neither the no-action nor the action alternatives are expected to have a significant effect on temperature.

Based on existing stream temperature data, which indicates that Honey Creek provides desired temperatures for desert redband trout, and on the condition of other habitat parameters, including riparian vegetation and the other factors affecting stream temperature discussed above, Honey Creek is rated as functioning appropriately for stream temperature.

Chapter 3 - 106 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Fisheries / Watershed

First Swale Creek Existing Condition First Swale Creek is a perennial non-fish bearing tributary to Honey Creek, and the only other perennial stream (besides Honey Creek) that was significantly affected by the Grassy Fire. First Swale Creek contributes less than 5 percent of the flow of Honey Creek downstream of the confluence. Fish habitat parameters were not assessed in First Swale Creek, as it does not provide habitat for any fish species, although it does contribute to the water quality and habitat characteristics in Honey Creek. The primary habitat parameters in Honey Creek potentially affected by conditions in First Swale Creek are water temperature and sediment.

Approximately 0.6 miles of First Swale Creek are within the fire perimeter. The upper approximately 0.1 mile of First Swale in the project area is intermittent and not perennial. Throughout most of the affected reach, First Swale lacks large wood and most of the streambanks are in a burned condition. First Swale Creek is likely to contribute elevated levels of fine sediment to Honey Creek in spring 2005 as a result of the Grassy Fire consumption of streamside vegetation and lack of large wood instream. Also, a small (less than 4 feet) active headcut exists in First Swale Creek near the upper edge of the fire. The headcut is located upstream of the perennial portion of First Swale Creek, where the stream is intermittent. The headcut has the potential to erode upstream, thereby increasing the amount of sediment deposited in Honey Creek.

Sediment produced in First Swale Creek should have limited affects in Honey Creek, based on the following factors:

• Limited overall contribution of First Swale Creek to Honey Creek • Limited erosion predicted to enter streams predicted through WEPP modeling (Fremont-Winema National Forest 2004) • The ability of Honey Creek to transport fine sediment (characteristic of channel type (see Rosgen channel type discussion above) • The fact that Honey Creek has been rated as functioning appropriately for fine sediment

No water temperature data exists for First Swale Creek. Because shade-producing vegetation suffered nearly 100 percent mortality in the Grassy Fire, some increases in water temperature are possible in First Swale Creek. Given the north aspect of the stream and the limited contribution of First Swale to Honey Creek, any water temperature effects in Honey Creek are expected to be at an immeasurable, negligible level.

Second Swale Creek Existing Condition Second Swale Creek is a perennial, non-fish bearing tributary to Honey Creek within the project area. Fish habitat parameters were not assessed in Second Swale Creek, as it does not provide habitat for any fish species, although it does contribute to the water quality and habitat characteristics in Honey Creek. The primary habitat parameters in Honey Creek potentially affected by conditions in First Swale Creek are water temperature and sediment.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 107 Fisheries / Watershed

Streambanks and stream channel conditions, including large wood, appear to be in acceptable condition in Second Swale. The channel is stable and shows no signs of excessive erosion or deposition. The Grassy Fire had extremely limited impacts on Second Swale Creek and its associated RHCA. The fire did not affect streambanks or shade-producing vegetation. No increase in sediment deposition or water temperature is expected in Second Swale as a result of the Grassy Fire.

Subwatershed Conditions and Affect on Redband Trout Viability The only fish bearing stream within the Upper Honey Creek Subwatershed and on the National Forest portion of the Middle Honey Creek Subwatershed is Honey Creek. Throughout Honey Creek on National Forest System lands, redband trout and brook trout are the only fish species known or thought to occur, with roughly half of the fish present being redband trout and the other half brook trout.

A water diversion is located at the upstream end of Reach 1, which removes water from Honey Creek. The diversion is not screened and has the potential to entrap some redband trout, which could potentially be killed when the diversion is shut off. Field reconnaissance in 2004 found no fish in the ditch and this is not thought to have a measurable effect on the redband population, due to the lack of water and habitat in the ditch. The removal of water from Honey Creek has an effect on the amount of usable habitat in Honey Creek, particularly during the summer months. In late summer 2004, flows in Honey Creek below the diversion were measured at one cubic foot per second (cfs). Based on field observations, the diversion generally removes less than 20 percent of the flow in the summer.

Removal of the ditch is not in the foreseeable future. Although more redband would likely exist without the diversion in place, sampling data and professional opinion show a healthy redband trout population throughout the National Forest portion of Honey Creek. The water diversion has been in place since prior to 1964 and is now considered part of the baseline condition.

Brook trout are approximately as abundant as redband throughout the National Forest portion of Honey Creek. Brook trout do not threaten the existence of redband trout in Honey Creek, based on the species ability to co-exist (Cunjak and Green, 1986). Brook trout have existed in the watershed since they were introduced in the 1930s or 1940s (R. Smith, Pers. Comm., 10/28/04). Removal of all brook trout from the Honey Creek system would be a massive undertaking, requiring the poisoning of the entire stream, and is not in the foreseeable future. Brook trout are now considered part of the baseline condition.

Cattle grazing occurs throughout Honey Creek on National Forest System lands and on private areas downstream. Cattle grazing has the potential to affect riparian environments by changing, reducing, or eliminating vegetation or by actually eliminating riparian areas through channel widening, channel aggrading, or lowering of the water table (Platts, 1991). These potential effects can be reduced to a minimal level through proper grazing management. The Fremont National Forest began implementing grazing

Chapter 3 - 108 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Fisheries / Watershed

systems, with proper stocking levels, pasture rotations, and grazing utilization standards, along with the change from sheep, horse and, cattle grazing to strictly cattle grazing in the 1960s.

Limited photo monitoring efforts have shown vast improvements in stream channel conditions on the Fremont since the implementation of grazing systems. In 1997, the Fremont began a long term grazing effectiveness monitoring program to determine the effect of grazing standards on stream channel conditions at 15 sites across the Forest. Preliminary results of the effectiveness monitoring show that application and adherence to grazing standards has lead to improving stream channel and fish habitat conditions has occurred in grazed areas, which is the case in Honey Creek.

Honey Creek is listed as Water Quality Limited for temperature on the EPA 303(d) list of Impaired or Threatened Waterbodies. As discussed earlier in this section, Honey Creek is thought to be Functioning Appropriately for temperature, despite being included on the 303(d) list.

Generally water temperatures greater than 21o C are unfavorable and may cause stress to rainbow trout (Sigler and Sigler, 1987). However, Benke (1992) found redband trout to persist at higher water temperatures with limited effect on their physiology and presented evidence that the optimal temperatures for growth of redband trout are greater than 19 o C. In fact, some studies suggest water temperatures up to 24 o C provide good conditions for redband trout growth (Sonski, 1985). Recent studies completed by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality described critical thermal maximum of fish in Twelvemile Creek (Warner Basin stream) to be approximately 29 o C (Rodnick et al., 2002). Limited stream temperature data exists for Honey Creek. Water temperature data collected in Honey Creek (maximum recorded was 23.6 o C, in 2003) exceeds the state standard of 17.8o C, but did not exceed 24 o C. It should be noted that 2003 was a drought year resulting in higher than average water temperatures on the Fremont National Forest.

Habitat criteria in Honey Creek are in line with desired conditions and represent a relatively resilient, undisturbed stream. Instream habitat conditions for redband within the affected reach received a rating of functioning appropriately for the following elements: Rosgen channel type, riparian vegetation and associated bank stability, large woody debris, pool frequency, pool quality, and stream temperature.

The upper reaches of Honey Creek (upstream of Reach 1 and the project area) contain numerous (17) large, active, stable beaver dams that create 40 percent of the pool habitat by length in the reach, and much more by area. The beaver dams serve to retain high water tables in the associated meadows, thereby providing water storage that aids in the maintenance of late season flows. The beaver dams create ideal rearing habitat for redband trout. Sampling in these habitats in 2004 found them well stocked with estimates of over 100 healthy trout in some of the pools.

The lower reach of Honey Creek on National Forest System lands is primarily in a steep, rocky canyon, creating a relatively inaccessible stream reach. Because of its

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 109 Fisheries / Watershed

inaccessibility, the canyon reach generally does not contain roads within the canyon walls, and has not been subject to the past riparian timber harvest and disturbance typical of many stream reaches in the region. The canyon reach provides high quality spawning and rearing habitat for redband trout. Sampling conducted in 2004 found a well-stocked, healthy population of redband trout, with estimates of a total of over 500 trout per mile, representing multiple age classes. The Upper Honey Creek and the National Forest portions of the Middle Honey Creek subwatersheds are functioning appropriately as a redband trout reserve.

Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive (PETS) Fish Species within the Affected Subwatersheds Warner sucker (Catostomus warnerensis) occupy, and Designated Critical Habitat occurs in, Honey Creek, about five miles downstream of the project area.

The Forest has determined that with the implementation of the Grassy Fire Salvage Project no destruction/adverse modification of designated critical Warner sucker habitat would occur based on the physical separation of the project from Warner sucker habitat, and the fact that no changes to flow regime are expected. Any water quality and sediment impacts are expected to be minimal and short term in nature; no direct effects are possible based on the physical separation of the project area from Warner sucker habitat.

The Biological Assessment concludes that the Grassy Salvage Project May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Warner sucker, in the short-term. It is also the determination of the Forest that implementation of the Grassy Salvage Project will improve hydrologic function, watershed conditions, and Warner sucker habitat in the long term, by re-vegetating the watershed at an accelerated rate and reducing sediment deposition in Warner sucker habitat downstream through road drainage improvement, and the addition of large wood and headcut restoration in First Swale Creek, resulting in a long-term Beneficial Effect to Warner sucker. (Leal, 2005).

Region 6 Sensitive and Management Indicator Aquatic Species Within the Affected Subwatersheds Redband trout is the only Region 6 sensitive species known to exist within the Honey Creek Watershed. Redband are also a Management Indicator Species for the Fremont National Forest (Fremont National Forest LRMP 1989). The redband is a unique species adapted to the Warner Basin environments and habitats. These fish have adapted over time to live in harsh environments characterized by great extremes in water temperatures and flow. Recent genetic studies suggest that redband trout of the Sacramento River system, including those in the Goose Lake, Warner Lake, and Chewaucan Basins, represent distinct subspecies of redband (Behnke, 1992; Currens, et al., 2000).

Warner Basin redband are one of only eight separate desert basin populations of interior native redband trout (Benke, 1992). In 1997, several environmental groups petitioned the

Chapter 3 - 110 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Fisheries / Watershed

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list redband in the Great Basin. On March 15, 2000, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service found redband not warranted for listing at this time (USDI, 2000a). Reasons given for not listing included moderate to high numbers of redband as compared to state-wide averages, improving trend in habitat, return of adfluvial populations in the Goose Lake and Chewaucan River systems, and strong conservation efforts through various working groups and Watershed Councils.

Sampling conducted in 2004 found a well stocked, healthy population of redband trout in Honey Creek on National Forest System lands, with estimates of over 500 total trout per mile (including approximately 50 percent brook trout), representing multiple age classes.

A portion of a Fire-Trol LCA-R Liquid Concentrate aerial retardant drop hit approximately 300 feet of Honey Creek just upstream of the Grassy Project Area during the Grassy Fire suppression efforts. Live fish were observed in the area of the drop. Dead fish began to show up approximately 500 feet downstream of the retardant drop. It appeared that all of the fish in Honey Creek were killed in an approximately 2,000 foot long reach. Abundant live fish again began to appear at the downstream end of the affected reach, approximately 2,500 feet downstream of the drop. In all, 216 dead fish (all trout) were counted, 100 of which were identified as redband trout and 65 of which were identified as brook trout; 51 fish were not identified to species due to their location at the bottom of deep pools, under logs, etc. Investigation of areas further downstream found no additional dead fish. Given the well-stocked and healthy condition of the Honey Creek redband population, the affected reach is expected to be re-populated to a full stocking level within 10 years or less.

Environmental Consequences The description of fisheries/watershed resources, along with the analysis of the expected and potential effects for each alternative were assessed using relevant scientific literature, field surveys and professional judgment.

Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct and Indirect Effects Soils Detrimental compaction to soils in the Grassy Salvage project area would not increase. Compaction related to system and temporary roads would remain unchanged.

The potential for erosion of soil in the project area (0.09 tons per acre as determined by WEPP, which is low) would continue until natural regeneration of understory vegetation occurs. Understory vegetation, such as shrubs and grasses, increase the infiltration rate of soils by creating pathways for water infiltration along their roots. Increased infiltration of precipitation reduces the amount of overland flow. Overland flow has the potential to erode bare soil surfaces. Dead and down within the project area would slow the velocity of the overland flow, thereby reducing the potential for erosion. As

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 111 Fisheries / Watershed understory vegetation naturally regenerates over time, the vegetation would also slow the velocity of overland flow.

Stream Flow Regime As described in the previous section of this document, less than 25 percent of either subwatershed is in openings created by previous logging activities and the recent Grassy Fire. It has been generally noted that 20 to 30 percent of a watershed must be harvested before a significant change in flow can be detected (Troendle and Leaf, 1980). Because less than 25 percent of either subwatershed is in openings, no detectable changes in streamflow would be measurable in either subwatershed from past logging activities or the recent fire. On a local basis, large openings trap less snow and can decrease water yield (Troendle, 1983). Also, in the short term, vegetation that was killed in the fire no longer uses water and until this vegetation is replaced, increased ground water may be available for late season flows. This combination of larger openings and short-term loss of vegetation may result in a change in the local ground water hydrology. However, any such changes would be on a local level and measurable changes on a subwatershed basis would not be likely.

Water Quality Direct Effects The No Action alternative would have little to no affect on stream temperature in the planning area, and, therefore, the condition of the stream on the ODEQ 303(d) list would remain the same.

The watershed restoration projects that are aimed at rehabilitating key areas of the analysis area would not be implemented under this alternative and a passive approach to protection and restoration would be implemented. The headcut on First Swale Creek would not be repaired, and would continue to erode upstream contributing sediment to downstream areas including Honey Creek. Large woody debris would not be added to First Swale Creek where it would function to retain sediment.

Stream Channel, Riparian Vegetation, and Fish Habitat Direct Effects No potential direct effects are possible with Alternative 1, as no activity would occur within occupied fish habitat.

Indirect Effects Wildfire can eliminate the covering vegetation on slopes and along stream channels and can alter surface soil layers, increasing water yield and surface erosion. In the case of the Grassy Fire, 100 percent of the area experienced a low intensity fire (USDA Forest Service, 2004). Soils were not found to be hydrophobic. Storm events up to 25 years were modeled using the Watershed Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP, 2001) model. There were only slight increases in water yield predicted under any storm event. Sediment delivery predictions were 0.09 tons per acre, which is considered low. Due to

Chapter 3 - 112 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Fisheries / Watershed

adequate riparian buffers, little of this sediment was predicted to reach Honey Creek, and, therefore, no measurable change is expected in percent fine substrate within spawning areas. Dead and down wood has increased in the project area due to the falling of fire-killed trees. Down logs on the soil surface assist in slowing the velocity of overland flow, thereby reducing the potential of the water flowing over the land surface to cause surface erosion.

Most roads within the analysis area were used during the Grassy Fire suppression efforts. Suppression rehabilitation included providing adequate drainage and constructing rock fords at unimproved and/or damaged intermittent stream channel crossings to reduce sediment deposition. Under Alternative 1, only minimal maintenance of the road system would occur, although reconstruction activities, including further drainage improvements and minimal road surfacing, would not likely take place. Fine sediment levels, which are currently functioning appropriately, would likely remain unchanged in Honey Creek.

Honey Creek has exhibited late summer water temperatures that exceed state standards. Portions of Honey Creek and First Swale Creek were burned and mortality of shade producing shrubs and trees did occur. The loss of shade, while minimal, will increase solar radiation, and some increase in stream temperature will likely occur. Given the limited extent and magnitude of overstory loss adjacent to perennial streams, changes in stream temperature will not be quantifiable. All three alternatives would have similar effects to stream temperature, which are immeasurable increases in the short-term, followed by decreases in the long-term as overstory vegetation within RHCAs is regenerated. Alternative 1 would result in the slowest recovery of overstory shade-producing vegetation, and, therefore, water temperature, as no reforestation would occur adjacent to First Swale Creek.

Fire can also affect nutrient availability and subsequent nutrient loading of streams. Nutrients from the forest floor can be redistributed by leaching of the ash layer and soil, and transported to the stream by surface erosion, soil mass movement, or solution transport (Swanson, 1991). Increased nutrient loading (mostly nitrate-nitrogen and phosphorus) to streams are primarily seen following burns where fire-induced changes in soils result in increased flows. The cause of this increase is believed to be from increased flows that displace volatilized material or organic detritus from upslope areas adjacent to the channel. No measurable increase in water yield and minimal increases of fine sediment are predicted from the Grassy Fire. Fire induced nutrient loading to all potentially affected streams is expected to be minimal.

Large sized wood is functioning appropriately in Honey Creek, but is lacking in First Swale Creek. Within the burned area, recruitment of large wood to the channel is anticipated as burned overstory trees die and fall in the floodplain and active stream channel. Overall, within the burned area, all streams would see some increase in large wood under Alternative 1 over the long term.

Under Alternative 1, First Swale Creek would remain in its current condition, including the lack of large wood and the existing active headcut. Subsequent sediment deposition

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 113 Fisheries / Watershed has the potential to increase fine sediment levels in spawning areas and reduce the quantity of pool habitat downstream.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 proposes salvage logging on 589 acres, commercial thinning on 61 acres, fuels treatments on 134 acres (lop and scatter - 15 acres, crush - 119 acres, and prescribed fire for all 134 acres plus 25 landing piles), and stocking level control (small tree thinning) on 134 acres; 61 acres of which are in timber sale units. Also proposed in Alternative 2 is reforestation of 749 acres, about 5 miles of road maintenance or reconstruction, 5 acres of aspen treatment for wildlife enhancement in timber sale units, and watershed improvement projects (LWD and headcut repair in First Swale).

Soils Under Alternative 2, salvage logging would occur on 515 acres with a ground based logging system and 74 acres would be salvage logged by helicopter. Commercial harvest of green live trees would occur on 46 acres with ground based logging systems and 15 acres would be logged by helicopter. This harvest includes approximately ½ acre of thinning competing conifers from aspen stands for wildlife enhancement. The Fremont Soil Productivity Guide (2000), and Best Management Practices for Roads and Timber provide direction for the spacing of skid trails and the appropriate soil moisture conditions for heavy equipment on the land surface. Ground based logging systems would potentially increase the detrimental compaction within an activity area to a maximum of 12 percent when the Fremont Soil Productivity Guidelines are implemented. Ground based logging systems within stands that have previously been harvested would use existing skid trails, thereby increasing detrimental compaction to a maximum of 12 percent in stands that may already contain some degree of detrimental compaction.

Within the project area, this potential increase in detrimental compaction would not exceed the maximum set by the forest of 20 percent. Alternative 2 is consistent with the Fremont Forest Plan standards for soil and watershed protection, complies with the R6 Soil Quality standards, and is consistent with the Fremont Soil Productivity Guide. Helicopter logging does not have the potential to detrimentally compact the soil within the project area. Additionally, the presence of shrink swell clays and frost heave would act to alleviate the detrimental compaction that may occur within stands that are harvested using ground based logging systems.

With both helicopter and ground based logging systems, it is anticipated that trees would be felled and dragged a short distance across the land surface. This activity has the potential to displace surface soils within the project area. The Fremont Soil Productivity Guide (2000) defines detrimental displacement as, “…the removal of more than 50 percent of the A horizon from an area greater than 100 square feet, which is at least 5 feet in width.” It is not anticipated that detrimental displacement as defined by the Fremont Soil Productivity Guide would occur within the project area. As stated in McIver (2000), the extent to which logging exacerbates the soil, sediment, and hydrological problems in a post-fire landscape depends on the site characteristics,

Chapter 3 - 114 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Fisheries / Watershed

logging methods, and whether new roads would be needed. Post-harvest soil compaction monitoring was completed in the summer of 2004, one year following the Cub Salvage timber harvest (Ralston, Internal FS report, 2004). The soils in the Cub Salvage harvest area are similar to the soils found in the Grassy project area. Both experienced a low intensity burn prior to harvest, and have similar topography. The soil compaction monitoring at Cub Salvage indicated no detrimental compaction had occurred as a result of salvage harvest. It is unlikely that any amount of detrimental compaction would occur as a result of salvage harvest within the Grassy Project area.

See later discussion under the heading “Percent Fines in Spawning Gravels” for expected effects from salvage activities in regard to soil erosion and resulting sediment.

Within the helicopter units, the tops of the trees harvested would be left on the land surface. These treetops would act to help slow the velocity of water flowing over the land surface, thereby reducing the potential of the water to erode the soil. Additionally, the treetops would act as barriers to soil migration and displacement on the land surface.

An estimated 749 acres would be planted with tree seedlings. These tree plantations would increase infiltration into the soils as root systems develop. The increased infiltration capacity of the soil would decrease the probability of erosion causing overland flow. Additionally, the vegetation would slow the velocity of any overland flow that may occur, thereby reducing the waters potential for soil erosion. The effect of these plantings to overland flow and surface erosion would be immeasurable.

Stocking level control treatments would occur on 61 acres within units 12, 13, and 14 identified for commercial harvest. Stocking level control treatments would also occur on an additional 73 acres outside of harvest units, for a total of 134 acres. Stocking level control treatments would be hand thinning of small understory trees. This action would have an immeasurable effect to soils within the project area because there would be no ground disturbing activity.

Fuels treatments would occur on the same 134 acres identified for stocking level control treatments. Fuels treatments would include lop and scatter of the thinning slash on 15 acres, and crushing thinning slash on 119 acres. These areas would later be under-burned to further reduce the fuels loadings. A previous study of crushing thinning slash on the Fremont-Winema National Forests showed no evidence of detrimental compaction (Price, 2004). The effect of crushing thinning slash is unlikely to produce measurable compaction within the soils. Low intensity prescribed fire within the 134-acre area would not have a measurable effect on erosion within the project area based on the WEPP model predictions for erosion with low intensity fire within the project area completed for the BAER report (Fremont-Winema National Forest 2004).

The 1995 Beschta, et al. document, “Wildfire and Salvage Logging, Recommendations for Ecologically Sound Post-Fire Salvage Logging and other Post-Fire Treatments on Federal Lands in the West” (1995), recommends that salvage logging should be prohibited on steep slopes, on fragile soils, and in riparian areas. Areas with steep slopes

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 115 Fisheries / Watershed

that are proposed for harvest would be harvested by helicopter. The removal of fire- killed trees from these areas would not impact the soil’s ability to resist erosion. Additionally, the treetops left on the ground in helicopter-logged areas would reduce the current potential for erosion and soil displacement on the steep slopes. Fragile soils are located sporadically within the project area. All of the fragile soils are within riparian areas. There is no proposed harvest within the riparian habitat conservation areas. Best Management Practices would be used on all timber harvest and road management activities.

One new temporary road, about 250 feet in length, would be needed to access a landing location in Unit 5. This road would be entirely within the timber sale unit, on moderate slopes, and over 500 feet from Honey Creek. An estimated 5 miles of road that already exists would receive routine maintenance, including re-opening, and be used for timber haul. Additionally about 5 miles of reconstruction, consisting of padding and drainage improvements and/or brushing would be completed (see Transportation System Needs table in Chapter 2). Reconstruction of these roads would generate a small amount of road-derived sediment in the short-term (0 to 2 years). However, drainage improvements to these roads would decrease the sediment generation from these roads over the long- term (greater than 2 years).

Repair of the headcut on First Swale Creek would prevent the continued erosion of the streambanks on First Swale Creek.

Stream Flow Regime Changes in stream flow regime are not expected to occur as a result of removing fire-killed trees. Less than 25 percent of either subwatershed is in openings created by previous logging activities and the recent Grassy Fire. It has been noted that 20 to 30 percent of a watershed must be harvested before a significant change in flow can be detected (Troendle and Leaf, 1980). Because less than 25 percent of either subwatershed is in openings, no detectable changes in streamflow would be measurable in either subwatershed due to past logging activities and the removal of trees killed in the Grassy Fire.

On a local basis, large openings trap less snow and can decrease water yield (Troendle, 1983). Also, in the short term, vegetation that was killed in the fire no longer uses water and until this vegetation is replaced, increased ground water may be available for late season flows. This combination of larger openings and short-term loss of vegetation may result in a change in the local ground water hydrology. However, any changes are on a local level and measurable changes on a subwatershed basis would not be likely.

In addition to the removal of fire-killed trees, 61 acres of live trees would be commercially harvested and small tree thinned (stocking level control) and 73 acres of live trees outside of harvest units would only be small tree thinned. This opening in canopy closure is occurring on less than 1 percent of the subwatershed and would not produce measurable stream flow regime changes.

Chapter 3 - 116 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Fisheries / Watershed

Under Alternative 2, 749 acres would be planted with tree seedlings. This planting within the project area would increase the rate of revegetation of the burned landscape. Therefore, local groundwater hydrology changes that may occur due to the Grassy Fire would be restored to pre-fire conditions more rapidly than if the vegetation was allowed to naturally re-establish.

Water Quality Alternative 2 would have little to no affect on stream temperature in the planning area, and therefore the condition of the stream on the ODEQ 303(d) list would remain the same.

The riparian improvement projects that are aimed at rehabilitating key areas of the analysis area would be implemented under this alternative. The headcut on First Swale Creek would be repaired, and would no longer be contributing sediment downstream. Large woody debris would be added to First Swale Creek where it would function to retain sediment.

Road reconstruction that would occur on 2 to 3 miles of road would include padding and drainage improvements. The road reconstruction that would occur would reduce the potential for these roads to contribute road-derived sediment to stream channels within the project area. Road densities within the two subwatersheds would remain the same and their potential to contribute sediment to stream channels would continue.

Other than the riparian improvement projects there are no other ground disturbing activities within RHCAs. Close adherence to BMPs, Mitigation and Resource Protection Measures, and INFISH standards, including location and rehabilitation of landings and skid trails, and the location of crushing activities will minimize any potential water quality effects from theses and any other ground disturbing activities associated with Grassy Salvage to a negligible level.

Stream Channel, Riparian Vegetation, and Fish Habitat Direct effects No potential direct effects to any fish species are possible with Alternative 2, as no activity would occur within occupied fish habitat.

Indirect Effects Rosgen Channel Type Honey Creek is functioning appropriately as far as predicted Rosgen channel type. Wildfire, followed by salvage logging and associated road reconstruction and use, can significantly increase water yield and accelerated erosion. These changes can have a dramatic effect to channels downstream, depending on the magnitude of the change and the condition and type of channels affected. Honey Creek consists primarily of Rosgen B channels (Rosgen, 1994), which have a low sensitivity to disturbance (changes in stream flow and timing and/or increases in sediment) (Rosgen, 1996). A low sensitivity rating

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 117 Fisheries / Watershed

for these channel types is given because they are armored and have a moderate to high stream power (ability to move bed load). Little increase in water or sediment yield is predicted under Alternative 2 and, therefore, no change in channel types is predicted. The primary existing risk to the channel type of Honey Creek is posed by the potential for sediment to be introduced via First Swale Creek. The primary existing risk to the channel type of First Swale Creek is instability and erosion because of its lack of large wood and the existing headcut. Under Alternative 2 (and Alternative 3), the primary risk factors to both Honey Creek and First Swale Creek would be addressed through the addition of wood to, and the repair of the headcut in, First Swale Creek.

Riparian Vegetation and Associated Bank Stability Honey Creek is functioning appropriately for riparian vegetation and associated bank stability. The streambanks in First Swale Creek within the project area are primarily in a burned, un-vegetated condition. When streams are lined with riparian vegetation, such as sedges, willows, and dogwood, banks are typically highly stable, making the channel less susceptible to alteration during high flow. Under Alternative 2, no significant increases in water yield or sedimentation are predicted; therefore, riparian vegetation and bank stability would remain in its current condition in Honey Creek. The addition of large wood and the headcut repair would aid in stream channel and stream bank stabilization in First Swale Creek.

Large Wood Honey Creek is functioning appropriately for large wood, while First Swale Creek is lacking in large wood. Under Alternative 2, no harvest would occur within RHCAs (within 300 feet of Honey Creek and 150 feet of First Swale Creek). As fire-affected trees within the RHCAs die, they would provide an important source of wood to the affected stream channels and adjacent slopes. Large wood within Honey Creek would continue trending toward attainment of desired future condition and remain functional. The amount of large wood entering First Swale Creek is expected to increase by an estimated 35 pieces under Alternative 2 in the short term, which would be sufficient to move to a functional condition.

Pools Honey Creek is functioning appropriately for pool frequency and pool quality based on exceeding the ICBEMP 75th percentile pool frequency standards, and meeting the ICBEMP 50th percentile large pool standard while naturally lacking large pool forming wood. Under Alternative 2, RHCAs have been established on all streams. The amount of large wood recruited to the channel will increase over time, and, therefore, the number of deep pools is expected to increase within the fire perimeter. As large wood continues to increase (see large wood discussion above) in the affected reaches, and as sediment input decreases (see sediment discussion below) under Alternative 2, the number of large pools is expected to increase in the affected stream reaches.

Chapter 3 - 118 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Fisheries / Watershed

Percent Fines in Spawning Gravels Honey Creek is currently functioning appropriately for fine sediment, as it does not contain excess levels of fine sediment. The major cause of sedimentation to streams is from roads in most watersheds. No new specified road construction would occur with this project. Approximately 300 feet of temporary road improvement on existing road template and 250 feet of new temporary road construction would occur using the Forest Road Best Management Practices (BMPs; Fremont National Forest, 1998). The 250 feet of new temporary road is needed to provide access to Unit 5, which is across the irrigation ditch from existing road 012. The unit, the proposed temporary road, and the ditch are all greater than 300 feet from Honey Creek, and lie on a bench above the topographic break into the creek canyon.

No temporary road would be constructed or used within RHCAs. Given the physical separation of temporary road construction from spawning areas (greater than 300 feet in all cases) and the BMPs in place, the amount of fine sediment in spawning gravels is not expected to change in the short term as a result of temporary road construction. Under Alternative 2, improvements (cross drainage, rolling dips etc.) would be made to roads within the project area, which is expected to produce a slight long-term decrease in the amount of fine sediment in spawning gravels.

Salvage activities proposed under the action alternatives are not expected to add significantly to fine sediment entering fish bearing areas. If any project-generated sediment were to reach fish-bearing streams, it is expected that it would be short-term in nature, and at an immeasurable, negligible level. The use of timber BMPs (USDA 1988), close adherence to the Soil Productivity Guide, and retention of riparian buffers (RHCAs) would ameliorate most sediment reaching stream channels. Road related activities (road use, maintenance and construction of temporary road) would also have minimal effect as long as road BMPs (Fremont National Forest 1998) are followed.

The amount of fines in spawning gravels may slightly increase in the short term (2 years) with Alternative 2, as heavy equipment would be operating instream and mobilizing instream and streambank sediment during implementation of the headcut repair. This potential increase is expected to be at an immeasurable, negligible level, based on the current condition of the site (bare, vertical headcut that is actively eroding during spring flows). The potential impact to redband trout posed by a potential increase in fine sediment deposition in spawning areas would be minimized by the restriction of all instream activities to those recommended by the Oregon Guidelines for Timing of In- Water Work to Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources (ODFW, 2000), at which time the work site is dry.

Any sediment generated by felling dead trees adjacent to First Swale Creek in the stream channel is expected to be at an immeasurable, negligible level, based on the method being used (handwork with chainsaws) and the limited ground disturbance expected to result. The preferred work period for the Warner Basin is July 1st through September 15th, after all sensitive fish species in the affected reaches have spawned and the juveniles have emerged from the gravels.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 119 Fisheries / Watershed

BMPs are not a sole solution to eliminating adverse effects on aquatic resources from excessive management/development projects (Espinosa et al., 1995). BMPs can, however, protect resources during a project with generally acceptable levels of management/development like the action alternatives in the Grassy project. BMPs, combined with proper unit location and design such as INFISH-compliant RHCAs and the Fremont Soil Productivity Guidelines, are expected to be an effective combination of factors in insuring that effects from sediment will be minimal and short term.

Water Temperature Although Honey Creek is considered functioning appropriately for water temperature, it would continue to exceed state water quality standards. Water temperature may, in fact, increase with the loss of overstory from fire-induced mortality. However, these effects have been mitigated to the greatest extent possible by establishment of wide buffer zones (RHCAs) throughout the project area. Conifer planting would take place within the First Swale Creek RHCA, which would accelerate the recovery of shade- producing vegetation and, therefore, water temperature. No planting would likely be done in the Honey Creek RHCA due to the extremely limited effects to overstory vegetation there and the poor growing conditions throughout most of the reach.

Alternative 3 Alternative 3 is the same as Alternative 2, with the exception of additional snag retention within salvage units or snag habitat areas and 61 less acres of commercial harvest (no green commercial harvest). The effects of Alternative 3 will be discussed only where the effects differ from those described in Alternative 2.

Soils Under Alternative 3, the amount of salvage logging by ground based and helicopter logging systems would remain the same as described in Alternative 2. There would be no commercial harvest of live trees under this alternative. This means that under Alternative 3, there would be 46 fewer acres of potential for detrimental compaction of soils due to ground based logging.

Stream Flow Regime Same as Alternative 2

Water Quality Same as Alternative 2

Stream Channel, Riparian Vegetation, and Fish Habitat

It has been determined that implementation of Alternative 3 would have no measurable difference in effects to redband trout and/or redband trout habitat than Alternative 2. This is because no measurable difference to water quality and/or flow regime are

Chapter 3 - 120 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Fisheries / Watershed

predicted between the two alternatives. Both alternatives include the watershed improvement projects (addition of wood and headcut repair) that have the greatest potential to affect fish habitat and water quality. Roadwork and project related road- generated sediment impacts are the same under both alternatives.

Cumulative Watershed Effects Cumulative watershed effects are defined as two or more individual effects, which, when considered together, make significant change to some biological population, water quality, or other valued resource, or which compound or increase other environmental effects.

Although cumulative watershed effects are normally defined in terms of adverse impacts, it is possible to identify and achieve positive cumulative watershed effects resulting from projects. Thus, the cumulative watershed effects should assess both positive and negative effects of past, present, reasonably foreseeable future and adjacent activities. Activities considered in this analysis are the proposed timber treatments, past timber harvests, fire suppression activities, timber harvest on adjacent private land, watershed improvement projects, fuels treatments, livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, firewood gathering, mushroom harvesting, noxious weed treatment, and future implementation of the North Warner Access and Travel Management Plan (Fremont National Forest, 2001), which includes closing and decommissioning roads within the project area.

The impact of the proposed activities on the Upper Honey and Middle Honey subwatersheds would be a function of past activities in the subwatersheds, as well as the inherent sensitivity of the subwatershed to disturbance. The following table summarizes the sensitivity of each subwatershed. The components of this table were described in more detail earlier in the Existing Watershed Condition discussed earlier in this section. As shown in the table below, both subwatersheds are rated as having an overall sensitivity rating of low.

Table 3-29: Subwatershed Sensitivity Upper Honey Middle Honey Hydrologic Soil Group Low Moderate Mass Movement Hazard Low Low Drainage Density Low Low Watershed Relief Ratio Moderate N/A Overall Sensitivity Low Low

Alternative 1 – Cumulative Watershed Effects Under the No Action alternative, activities that have occurred in the past include previous timber harvest, fire suppression activities, timber harvest on adjacent private land,

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 121 Fisheries / Watershed

livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and firewood gathering. Reasonably foreseeable future actions within the subwatersheds are fire suppression activities, livestock grazing, noxious weed treatment, dispersed recreation, firewood gathering, and road decommissioning.

Private timber harvest in the Middle Honey Creek subwatershed is a recent/ongoing activity. The Grassy Fire burned 2,630 acres of private land, which is presently being salvage logged. The vast majority of the Upper Honey Creek subwatershed is managed by the Forest Service. No known private land timber harvest is occurring within this subwatershed. The salvage harvest that is occurring on the adjacent private land within the Middle Honey Creek subwatershed is removing fire-killed trees, and, therefore, is not impacting the stream flow regime or transpiration rates within that subwatershed. It is reasonably foreseeable that timber harvest may continue to occur on private land within the Middle Honey Creek subwatershed in the future. The likelihood of stream flow regime changes occurring within this subwatershed would be a function of the change in the live canopy cover relative to historic values.

As described earlier under the heading “Soils Existing Conditions,” past timber harvest of National Forest System lands has occurred on a total of 3,420 acres within the Upper Honey Creek subwatershed from 1977 to the present and on 127 acres within Middle Honey Creek subwatershed from 1977 to present. Wildfire has created additional openings within each of these subwatersheds. Since 1985, approximately 1,050 acres of the Upper Honey Creek subwatershed, and 2,988 acres of the Middle Honey Creek subwatershed have burned. Over 99 percent of the openings due to fire in the Upper Honey and Middle Honey Creek subwatersheds (1,046 acres and 2,988 acres respectively) are a result of the 2004 Grassy Fire.

Vegetative recovery (in terms of transpiration rates) is considered complete twenty years post disturbance (harvest or wildfire). Within the Upper Honey Creek subwatershed, 1,020 acres have 100 percent vegetative recovery, 2,404 acres have an average of 70 percent vegetative recovery, and 1,046 acres burned in the Grassy Fire have 0 percent vegetative recovery. Within the Middle Honey Creek subwatershed, 127 acres have 75 percent vegetative recovery, and 2,988 acres burned in the Grassy Fire have 0 percent vegetative recovery. Therefore, 9 percent of the Upper Honey Creek subwatershed and 14 percent of the Middle Honey Creek subwatershed are presently in openings as a result of previous timber harvest and wildfire activity. It has been noted that 20 to 30 percent of a watershed must be harvested before a significant change in flow can be detected (Troendle and Leaf, 1980). Measurable changes to stream flow are not expected to occur.

Chapter 3 - 122 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Fisheries / Watershed

Roads are generally major contributors of sediment to stream channels. Under the No action alternative, drainage improvements to 2 to 3 miles of road would not occur. However, implementation of the North Warner Access and Travel Management Plan (Fremont National Forest 2001) is a reasonably foreseeable action within the Upper Honey Creek and Middle Honey Creek subwatersheds. Implementation of this plan would obliterate 35.6 miles of road and hydrologically stabilize and block 39.9 miles of road within the Upper and Middle Honey Creek subwatersheds. This would reduce the open road densities within these subwatersheds to 2.5 mi/mi2, thereby reducing the potential sediment contribution of these roads to stream channels within the two subwatersheds. Road densities within the Upper Honey Creek and Middle Honey Creek subwatersheds are rated as functioning inappropriately and functioning as risk, respectively. Implementation of the North Warner Access and Travel Management Plan (Fremont National Forest 2001) would reduce the road densities within both subwatersheds to functioning at risk.

Under the No Action alternative, fire suppression activities would continue to occur as needed. Fire suppression activities such as hand line construction and machine line construction create soil disturbances and can channelize surface runoff. Any future fire line construction would follow guidelines for water barring to decrease the short-term impact on the land surface. The Grassy Fire created 18.9 miles of dozer line outside of Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) and 9 miles of hand line (approximately 1000 feet of which was located within RHCAs). The fire line created for the Grassy Fire suppression efforts has all been water barred to minimize potential sediment delivery from this disturbance.

Livestock grazing on private and public lands would continue to occur. Grazing has the potential to reduce the vigor of ground cover vegetation, compact and disturb soils due to hoof action, and decrease stream bank stability at high use watering areas. Grazing on public lands would continue to follow established utilization and stubble height standards and guidelines to ensure the health of the rangelands and stream banks within grazing allotments.

Dispersed recreation, hunting, firewood gathering, and mushroom harvesting are considered to have no effect on the hydrologic function of the subwatersheds.

Soils within the Upper Honey Creek and Middle Honey Creek subwatersheds would remain functioning appropriately.

Reasonably foreseeable noxious weed treatments include chemical treatment of three known noxious weed sites within the burn area in the immediate area of these noxious weed sites. This noxious weed treatment would have no measurable effect on the hydrologic function or soil function of the subwatersheds.

Summary First Swale Creek is in a degraded condition, lacking large wood for sediment retention and actively eroding at the headcut. Under Alternative 1, this area of sediment

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 123 Fisheries / Watershed

production would not be repaired and continued degradation of the stream channel and subsequent downstream sediment deposition would occur. Future implementation of the North Warner Access and Travel Management Plan (Fremont National Forest 2001) would reduce sediment delivery from roads to streams within Upper Honey and Middle Honey Creek subwatersheds. Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions identified would not have a cumulative effect on the Upper Honey or Middle Honey Creek subwatersheds.

Alternative 2 - Cumulative Watershed Effects Under the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), commercial harvest of both live and dead trees, small tree thinning, fuels treatments, prescribed burning, road management activities (including reconstruction of 2 to 3 miles of road), watershed restoration projects, and wildlife enhancement projects would occur in addition to the reasonably foreseeable future actions presented under Alternative 1.

Commercial harvest of 61 acres of live trees and small tree thinning on 134 acres of live trees would not have a measurable impact on the hydrologic function of the Upper Honey Creek and Middle Honey Creek subwatersheds. Commercial salvage logging of the dead trees would have no impact on the hydrologic function of the subwatersheds. As described above in the No Action alternative, previous harvest and wildfires (including the Grassy Fire) have not reduced the evapo-transpiration rate of the subwatersheds sufficiently to effect measurable changes in stream flow regime.

Tree planting within 749 acres would accelerate the vegetative recovery (recovery of transpiration rates) within the burned area of the subwatersheds. Because the area burned is such a small percentage of each subwatershed, the effects of the planting would not cause a measurable impact to stream flow regime.

Ground-based logging systems would be used for 561 acres of harvest and 89 acres would be logged by helicopter. As described previously in the document, no detrimental compaction is expected to occur as a result of ground-based logging systems due to low ground pressure equipment, the soil and land surface characteristics, the low intensity of the soils burn, and past monitoring. In addition, no detrimental soil compaction is expected to result from slash crushing that would occur on 119 acres because crushing would only occur in areas with soil types and slopes found by Price (2005) to be compatible with the treatment. Soils compaction measurements taken within the project area did not display detrimental compaction within the project area as a result of previous harvest.

Watershed restoration projects include stabilizing the headcut on First Swale Creek and adding large woody debris to the stream channel. Headcut stabilization would protect the stream channel from migrating further upstream, and the channel losing connection with its floodplain. Sediment transport would be reduced in First Swale Creek by stabilization of the actively eroding headcut. Addition of large woody debris to the stream channel would aid in sediment retention within the stream channel.

Chapter 3 - 124 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Fisheries / Watershed

Roads are generally major contributors of sediment to stream channels. Under Alternative 2, drainage improvements to 2 to 3 miles of road would occur and would have the potential to reduce sediment input to stream channels. In addition, implementation of the North Warner Access and Travel Management Plan (Fremont National Forest 2001) is a reasonably foreseeable action within the Upper Honey Creek and Middle Honey Creek subwatersheds. Implementation of this plan would obliterate 35.6 miles of road and hydrologically stabilize and block 39.9 miles of road within the Upper and Middle Honey Creek subwatersheds. This would reduce the open road densities within these subwatersheds to 2.5 mi/mi2, thereby reducing the potential sediment contribution of these roads to stream channels within the two subwatersheds.

Road densities within the Upper Honey Creek and Middle Honey Creek subwatersheds are rated as functioning inappropriately and functioning as risk, respectively. Implementation of the North Warner Access and Travel Management Plan (Fremont National Forest, 2001) would reduce the road densities within both subwatersheds to functioning at risk.

Under Alternative 2, fire suppression activities would continue to occur as needed. Fire suppression activities such as hand line construction and machine line construction create soil disturbances and can channelize surface runoff. Any future fire line construction would follow guidelines for water barring to decrease the short-term impact on the land surface. The Grassy Fire created 18.9 miles of dozer line outside of Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) and 9 miles of hand line (approximately 1,000 feet of which was located within RHCAs). The fire line created for the Grassy Fire suppression efforts has all been water barred to minimize potential sediment delivery from this disturbance.

Dispersed recreation, hunting, firewood gathering, and mushroom harvesting are considered to have no effect on the hydrologic function of the subwatersheds.

Summary First Swale Creek is in a degraded condition, lacking large wood for sediment retention and actively eroding at the headcut. Under Alternative 2, this area of sediment production would be repaired and continued large wood would be added to the stream channel, thereby reducing the amount of sediment deposition occurring downstream. In

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 125 Fisheries / Watershed

addition, future implementation of the North Warner Access and Travel Management Plan (Fremont National Forest, 2001) would reduce sediment delivery from roads to streams within Upper Honey and Middle Honey Creek subwatersheds. Prior WEPP modeling has shown that prescribed burning within the project area would have a low potential to generate sediment deposition. Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions identified would not have a cumulative effect to sediment within the Upper Honey or Middle Honey Creek subwatersheds. Implementation of activities proposed in Alternative 2, in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not have negative cumulative watershed effects in the Upper Honey Creek and Middle Honey Creek subwatersheds.

Alternative 3 - Cumulative Watershed Effects Alternative 3 is the same as Alternative 2, except there would be no live tree harvest, which would reduce the total commercial harvest amount by 61 acres.

The Cumulative Watershed Effects with Alternative 3 are essentially the same as described for Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2, there were no anticipated cumulative effects resulting from utilizing ground based and helicopter logging systems to commercially harvest timber within the project area. Alternative 3 reduces the total commercial harvest by 61 acres, and is also not expected to produce cumulative effects as a result of the commercial harvest.

Cumulative Effects to Sensitive Fish Populations Alternative 1 Minor changes in redband trout habitat are expected under Alternative 1 in the short-term. Short-term changes include increased fine sediment from First Swale Creek based on the burnt streambanks, lack of large wood, and the active headcut. Also, late summer stream temperature may immeasurably increase due to reduced overstory canopy in First Swale Creek. Long-term (20 years) changes include: numerous snags greater than 12 inches dbh would be recruited to affected stream channels. Increased wood would increase both the quantity and quality of pool habitat in Honey Creek and aid in sediment retention in Honey Creek and First Swale Creek.

Alternatives 2 and 3 The South Zone hydrologist predicted no measurable change in stream flow or water quality resulting from implementation of Alternative 2 or 3.

Road drainage under Alternatives 2 and 3 would be improved. Roads BMPs (Fremont National Forest, 1998) would be applied to all temporary road use. Road improvements would reduce hydrological effects related to roads.

Soils in the project area are currently within Regional standards for compaction (see above). Minimal sediment transport from the soil profile is also predicted from the burned area and logging is not expected to significantly increase transport rates. Since

Chapter 3 - 126 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Fisheries / Watershed

sediment loss from the project area is expected to be minimal, nutrients that bind themselves to sediment (phosphorus and calcium) are apt to be minor. In addition since RHCAs would not have ground-disturbing activity (except the watershed improvement projects) under Alternatives 2 and 3, most sediment transported down slope would be filter out before it reaches the channel. Significant changes in water quality due to sedimentation or nutrient loading is not expected to occur. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have no effect on stream temperatures, as no activity would occur within the RHCA of any perennial stream, except the addition of large wood in First Swale Creek.

In-channel habitat conditions within all potentially affected stream reaches would see improvements in large wood, number of pools, and number of deep pools. In headwater areas above the fire, instream habitat is expected to remain static or improve over time.

In assessing cumulative effects on fish habitat and redband trout populations, past and reasonably foreseeable future activities, both within the project area and within adjacent areas, including fire suppression activity, are factors to be considered. Past activities in the affected subwatersheds, including grazing, timber harvest, road construction, and recreational activities, are assumed to have negatively affected erosion rates, peak and base flows, channel shape and pattern, and water quality, as has been documented in nearby watersheds (USDA, 1998, USDA, 1996). During the past 30 years, the 41,000- acre cumulative effects analysis area, which encompasses the Middle and Upper Honey Creek subwatersheds, has had a total of 1,560 acres of clearcut harvest (all in Upper Honey) and 1,950 acres of overstory removal (95 percent in Upper Honey). In the past 30 years those sales that have impacted more than very small acreages include (by decade):

Due to timber harvest and associated road construction, erosion rates have likely increased over what would be predicted within an undisturbed watershed. Changes in peak flow are believed to be not measurable due to the presence of overstocked stands within the watershed that have mitigated past harvest activities. Drainage efficiency needs to be reduced through aggressive road treatments that hydrologically disconnect roads within the affected subwatersheds, which would be accomplished through implementation of the North Warner Access and Travel Management Plan (Fremont National Forest, 2001) (see reasonably foreseeable actions below).

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 127 Fisheries / Watershed

Livestock grazing at the turn of the century likely decreased or altered streamside vegetation, particularly in the reaches of Honey Creek upstream of the project area, by removing woody shrubs and channel stabilizing sedges. As a result of these changes, width-to-depth ratios may have increased, compromising instream habitat conditions and increasing late summer water temperatures. The Fremont National Forest began implementing grazing systems, with proper stocking levels, pasture rotations, and grazing utilization standards, along with the change from sheep, horse, and cattle grazing to strictly cattle grazing in the 1960s.

Reasonably foreseeable future activities include implementation of the North Warner Access and Travel Management Plan (Fremont National Forest, 2001) including road maintenance, road drainage improvements, road closures, and road decommissioning throughout the project area. Timber harvest outside of the project area, trail reconstruction, and a wide range of recreational uses are other activities likely to occur in the project area that may affect fish habitat and/or redband trout populations. All of these activities would be designed to maintain or improve the resiliency of the watershed by improving vegetation conditions, reducing sedimentation, restoring base flows, improving in-channel habitat conditions and increasing the health and vigor of streamside vegetation where and when possible. Improvements in watershed and stream channel conditions would increase the abundance of sensitive fish species within the affected subwatersheds.

Grazing standards implemented on the Honey Creek Allotment are designed to maintain healthy range conditions while achieving full utilization of allocated forage (USDA Forest Service, 1989). Management of the Honey Creek Allotment in 2005 will include increased permittee riding in the area to minimize cattle use in the burned area in order to promote vegetative recovery, and ultimately promote watershed health.

Past, current, and reasonably foreseeable future actions identified in the affected subwatersheds, when combined with the actions proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 are determined to pose no significant threat to water quantity and/or water quality (see above), and do not occur within fish bearing stream channels. In summary, no negative cumulative affects to redband trout and/or their habitat is expected to occur under Alternative 2.

In conclusion, the Upper Honey Creek and the National Forest portion of the Middle Honey Creek subwatersheds are rated functioning appropriately for redband trout, as Honey Creek, the only fish bearing stream in area, had all habitat elements rated as functioning appropriately. Both subwatersheds and all potentially affected stream

Chapter 3 - 128 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Fisheries / Watershed

channels are considered to be on an overall upward trend, with the exception of the impacted reach of First Swale Creek, as previously discussed. The primary risks posed to First Swale Creek would be remedied under Alternatives 2 and 3.

Biological Evaluation: Determination of Effects to Sensitive Fish Populations Alternative 1 Short-term increases in fine sediment are likely to occur in Honey Creek, primarily based on the conditions in First Swale Creek described above. Therefore, Alternative 1 may impact individual redband trout, although it is not expected to contribute to a loss of species viability or lead to federal listing of redband trout.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Alternatives 2 and 3 may impact individual redband trout, but would not result in a trend toward federal listing. Sensitive fish populations are thought to be healthy based on sampling conducted in 2004 (see PETS/redband trout discussion above). Mitigations identified in this report, reconstruction of problem road segments, establishment of adequate RHCAs (300+ feet on perennial and 50+ feet on intermittent channels), and close adherence to Forest Soil Productivity standards, timber sale BMPs, and road BMPs would minimize any potential effects. Implementation of the watershed restoration activities proposed with both Alternatives 2 and 3 would accelerate recovery of water quality in First Swale Creek and Honey Creek downstream of First Swale, which is redband trout habitat. At a watershed scale, upgrading of existing roads, decommissioning of unneeded roads, strict adherence to grazing standards and guidelines, and improvements in upland vegetation (move forest canopy toward Historic Range of variability) are reasonably foreseeable actions that would improve and/or reestablish watershed processes.

The above determination regarding sensitive fish species (redband trout) combined with the analysis of effects to habitat and the potential for direct effects disclosed in this document, constitute the Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Aquatic Species for this project.

Mitigation and Resource Protection Measures Common to All Action Alternatives 1) All instream work would be conducted between July 1st and September 15th as recommended by the Oregon Guidelines for Timing of In-Water Work to Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources (ODFW 2000). 2) All roadwork associated with implementation of Grassy Fire Salvage would follow the Roads Best Management Practices (Fremont National Forest, 1998). 3) No activity would occur within any RHCA with the following exceptions: a) watershed restoration projects and, b) potential road drainage improvements.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 129 Fisheries / Watershed

Consistency with the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) – Alternatives 2 and 3 The timber salvage portion of this project would not retard or prevent attainment of Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) or adversely affect native fish (TM-1of INFISH).

Neither of the affected subwatersheds is an INFISH priority watershed. None of the alternatives involve road construction or timber harvest within RHCAs. Proposed road reconstruction and instream restoration would serve to accelerate attainment of RMOs and are fully consistent with the goals and applicable INFISH Standards and Guidelines, particularly, RF-2, and FW-1 of INFISH.

Implementation of Grassy Salvage Alternative 2 and/or Alternative 3 is not expected to adversely affect inland fish nor would it prevent attainment of RMOs as described in INFISH.

Table 3-30: Summary of Effects to Watershed and Fish Habitat Indicators by Alternative Functioning Functioning Functioning Elements Appropriately at Risk Inappropriately Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Roads X Improve Improve Improve Soil X Same Same Same Riparian Vegetation/ Bank Stability X Degrade Improve Improve Channel Shape X Degrade Improve Improve Pool frequency X Degrade Same Same Large Wood Frequency X Same Improve Improve Degrade Degrade Degrade (st) (st) (st) Improve Improve Improve Temperature X (lt) (lt) (lt) Fine Sediment X Degrade Improve Improve st = short-term lt=long term

Chapter 3 - 130 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Economics

Economics

Introduction On August 13, 2004, the Grassy Fire was started by lightning. It was declared controlled on August 22, after burning approximately 4,200 acres, including approximately 1,500 acres on National Forest System lands. Proposals to salvage trees killed by the fire, while meeting standards and guidelines for all resources, were analyzed by the Grassy Fire Salvage Interdisciplinary team.

The economic impact analysis will address the issues of economic impact of the various alternatives in the short term. Economic impact analysis is, in some ways, similar to social impact analysis. However, it focuses on jobs, employee compensation, and other economic effects on the people, primarily during the period that project activities are underway.

The lumber and wood products sector, including secondary wood products, is a large contributor to the economic well being of the Lakeview, Oregon area. Contributions to the local economy are made not only by direct employment and salaries, but also because many local businesses derive a portion of their sales from primary wood products employees. The number of jobs estimated to be supported in the local area by the various alternatives is an indicator of contribution to local economy (see Table 3-31). This analysis will focus on the number of timber-related jobs supported under the different alternatives. The alternatives are all analyzed in an identical manner using identical assumptions. Thus, the relative economic impacts of the various alternatives can be accurately described and used in formulating a decision.

Purpose and Need This project occurs within the Lakeview Federal Sustained Yield Unit. The Chief of the Forest Service established the Lakeview Federal Sustained Yield Unit on October 10, 1950. The Unit was established in recognition of the important interrelationship between the Fremont National Forest and the local communities of Lakeview and Paisley to promote their economic stability. Revised Unit goals (see Chapter 1) are consistent with the overall management goals and objectives for the Fremont National Forest as established by the LRMP.

As stated in Chapter 1, a purpose of this project is, “…to provide the highest level of local job support and recovery of commercial timber value that is compatible with the first purpose above and with the standards and guidelines in the Fremont N.F. Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP).” Note: the referred-to first purpose above is “…to as rapidly as feasible restore a sustainable ponderosa pine forest in the Grassy Fire area.”

Under the terms of the Lakeview Federal Sustained Yield Unit, the Collins Companies Fremont Sawmill, in Lakeview Oregon, the only mill in the Unit, would be given initial

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 131 Economics

exclusive rights to purchase any timber sold from the Grassy Salvage project. Due to the rules of the Lakeview Federal Sustained Yield Unit, Fremont Sawmill has not had access to the large volume salvage sales that have been offered in southern Oregon over the past 3 years (Toolbox, Davis, Biscuit). Because of this, any potential relating to a “glut” of available raw materials is minimal.

Regulatory Framework The Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (1989), includes Forest-wide management goals to:

• Provide sawtimber and other wood products (including firewood for personal or commercial use) to help sustain a viable local economy.

• Strive for economically efficient management.

The LRMP also includes Forest-wide management objectives to offer affordable sales. In addition, Forest-wide standards supplement national and regional policies, standards, and guidelines found in Forest Service manuals and handbooks relevant to timber harvesting include:

• Providing well-designed timber sales to be affordable under average market condition at time of sale.

• Increasing the use of available wood fiber consistent with management objectives and economic principles.

Analysis Method Economic impact is a concern in the Grassy Fire Salvage Project. This concern can be expressed in the number of jobs estimated to be supported in the local area by the various alternatives. Both the production of timber and the restoration activities contribute to economic activity. The type of analysis used here will produce numbers that will be most useful in comparing the relative impact of the alternatives.

Direct jobs are those that are directly related to the activity in question. For timber harvest, this involves the jobs associated with logging and milling.

The calculation of direct jobs is based on statewide estimates of log consumption by industry and employment for 1998. For the purposes of this analysis, a figure of 7.5 direct and 11 indirect jobs per million board feet is used to compare the potential effects of the alternatives on the local economy. These figures are primarily meant for comparison purposes.

Total jobs are the sum of direct, indirect, and induced jobs. Indirect jobs are jobs that are closely related to the item that generates the direct impact, but do not deal with initial processing. This may, for example, include lumber haul (which deals with lumber rather

Chapter 3 - 132 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Economics

than logs), purchases made by the mill to keep it operating, and so on. Induced jobs are those that are one step farther removed. These impacts are associated with expenditures made by the people that benefit from the direct and indirect activities. These would include services (grocery stores, gas stations, telephone, electricity, etc.), retail and wholesale trade, and anything manufactured or processed that these people might buy.

The use of multipliers derived from economic base studies is a standard procedure for expanding direct jobs to total jobs. A multiplier of 1.5 was used here, as it was typical of rural eastern Oregon economies during the 1990s. The multiplier was developed for use in the 1994 through 1998 Timber Sale Program Information Reports (TSPIR) by the National Forests in Region 6. The multiplier was calculated using a two-step process. First, direct timber industry employment effects were empirically derived based on “Oregon’s Forest Products Industry” reports and county-level employment data. The Oregon Industry reports track log flows to mills by mill study area for a given year. The employment data for the counties in the mill study area are summed by industry (mill type) for the same year. The total jobs for an industry are divided by the log flow to that industry which provides an empirical direct job response coefficient per unit of log supply such as a million board feet.

The total employment per million board feet was then calculated using these direct effects with the Implan regional economic modeling system. An Implan model matching the year of the mill study and employment data was built for the National Forest's impact area. Using the relationship between employment and final demand for the timber industry, a change in final demand based on a million board feet was analyzed. The results reported total employment based on one million board feet. The multiplier was derived by dividing the total employment, generated using Implan, by the direct employment response coefficient.

Existing Condition Due to drying, decay, and staining by fungus, trees killed by the fires will lose a substantial portion of their economic value as a source of forest products if they are not salvaged promptly. The speed at which deterioration occurs depends on several factors, including tree species and size. Smaller diameter trees are more susceptible to loss of commercial value than larger diameter trees. In addition, dead trees that still contain sound wood may become infected with blue stain fungus, which does not weaken the wood, but does decrease the value and grade of lumber that can be produced.

One study entitled Lumber Recovery from Dead Ponderosa Pine in the Colorado Front Range (PNW Research Paper 428, 1990), found approximately a 10 percent decline in value in the first year after death, primarily because of blue stain. This study was oriented toward trees dead two years and longer and it had only a small sample of trees dead just one year. A second PNW study, entitled Deterioration of Fire-Killed and Fire- Damaged Timber in the Western United States (PNW-GTR-292, 1992), reviewed other literature on the subject and notes that one study found that blue stain had deteriorated 25 percent of the cubic volume. This study includes no estimate of economic deterioration in ponderosa pine. A third, undated study (circa 1990) entitled Evaluation of Fire-Killed

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 133 Economics

Ponderosa Pine for Volume and Value Loss by the Timber Quality Research Unit of the PNW Research Station revealed that timber processed within the first year saw an 18 percent decrease in value by grade. After the first year, value recovered from logs would be equivalent to grading them all at the lowest pine grade. The latter study used data derived from the August/September 1988 Teepee Butte Fire in the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area.

While the rate of value decline varies by the time of year of the burn, burn intensity, weather conditions after the burn, the delay before processing, and other factors, it is clear from the above research that delays in processing fire-damaged timber will cause the value of that timber to decline dramatically and rapidly. As time goes on, both the volume available for consideration and the value of the products will decrease, thereby reducing the cost effectiveness or eliminating the opportunity altogether.

Environmental Consequences for Economic Impact

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 1 would not result in recovery of any timber resource value and would not create or support timber-related jobs. There would be no direct benefits to the local economy. Other jobs, such as those associated with routine road maintenance, do occur; however, these kinds of jobs are not related to the issue of timber-related jobs and are not estimated here. This alternative would not meet the intent of MA 5 to provide for commercial production of timber, nor meet the intent of the Forest Plan within the Lakeview Federal Sustained Yield Unit to contribute to the economic stability of local communities.

There may be negative impacts to the local economy because existing timber-related jobs would not be maintained. The No Action alternative continues the economic situation as it has been for the last few years. The most recent employment information for Lake County (Oregon Employment Department, 2004) indicates that of the 3,508 people in the labor force, 383 or 10.9 percent are unemployed.

Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3) Alternatives 2 and 3 would both achieve a variable recovery of wood product value and provide a varying level of timber-related job creation or support. The job creation or support would occur for a minimum period of several months, likely during 2005, as timber is harvested and milled. Both direct and indirect benefits from employment would contribute to the local economy. There would also be some benefits to the local economy from tree planting activities, likely in the year following harvest. This benefit would be the same with all action alternatives.

Chapter 3 - 134 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Economics

Table 3-31: Economic Impact of Timber Sale Activities Total Jobs Created or Timber Recovered for Jobs Created or Maintained (Including Alternative Wood Products (mmbf) Maintained (Direct) Indirect) 1 0.0 0 0 2 5.3 40 60 3 4.8 36 54

Consistency with Forest Plan All action alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan in that they lead to economic activity. All economic elements are consistent with current regulation.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 135 Inventoried Roadless Areas and Other Unroaded Areas

Inventoried Roadless Areas and Other Unroaded Areas

Inventoried Roadless Areas Introduction In 1972, the Forest Service began identifying roadless areas for wilderness consideration through Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE I). In 1979, the agency completed RARE II, a more extensive national inventory of roadless areas. The Fremont National Forest incorporated RARE II data to develop inventories of roadless areas into the Forest Plan.

Regulatory Framework On January 12, 2001, the Department of Agriculture issued the Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule, accompanied by a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision, published as part of the final rule, 36 CFR 294, Special Areas, Roadless Area Conservation (NARA, 2001). The rule established prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting in inventoried roadless areas on National Forest System lands. The intent of the rule was to provide lasting protection for inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System in the context of multiple-use management. On May 10, 2001 the Idaho District Court enjoined the Forest Service from implementing all aspects of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, as well as a section in the Forest Planning Rule that addresses the inventory and evaluation of roadless areas during Forest Plan revision (USDC, 2001). On December 14, 2001, Forest Service Manual (FSM) Interim Directive No. 1920-2001-1 was issued (USDA, 2001). This created a new manual section on Management of Inventoried Roadless Areas and revised decision authorities for timber harvest and road construction and reconstruction projects in Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs).

On July 11, 2003, Wyoming U.S. District Court Judge Clarence Brimmer issued a decision that stopped the rule from being implemented. On May 11, 2004, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to hear the appeal of the Wyoming District Court’s July 2003 order to permanently enjoin and set aside the roadless rule. On July 12, 2004, the USDA announced a public review and comment on a proposed rule that would replace the 2001 roadless rule. The proposed new rule includes a petitioning process that would allow Governors an opportunity to seek establishment of management requirements for National Forest System inventoried roadless areas within their states. In addition, the Forest Service announced that it is reinstating interim protection measures for inventoried roadless areas.

Existing Condition There are no inventoried roadless areas (IRA) within the Grassy Fire Salvage project area. The nearest IRA is the Drake-McDowell Roadless Area, which, at it nearest point, is approximately two miles south of the project area boundary (and the fire perimeter). The Drake-McDowell IRA is 5,768 acres.

Chapter 3 - 136 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Inventoried Roadless Areas and Other Unroaded Areas

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives 1 (No Action), 2, and 3 There are no inventoried roadless areas (IRA) within the Grassy Fire Salvage project area and none of the alternatives include proposed activity within an IRA. It is unlikely that either sound, other than distant helicopter sounds from Grassy Fire Salvage, or smoke associated with activity fuels reduction would impact the Drake-McDowell IRA. Due to the small amount of helicopter yarding (89 acres with Alternative 2 and 74 acres with Alternative 3), which would be accomplished in about one week’s time, the intrusion on solitude (from noise) would be minimal. The project area is, at a minimum, two miles to the north of the IRA. Prevailing winds are from the south and southwest. The Drake- McDowell IRA is separated from the project area by the Crook Peak – McDowell Peak subwatershed divide. Because of these factors, none of the alternatives would significantly affect the natural integrity, solitude, apparent naturalness, special features, manageability, or boundaries of the Drake-McDowell IRA, or any IRA. There would be no direct or indirect effect as a result of implementation of either the no action alternative, or any action alternative.

Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives Cumulative effects to be considered in the context of this analysis include the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the Grassy Fire Salvage Project, when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative effects are the total effect of direct and indirect effects of the action, plus past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on a given resource. Because the Drake-McDowell Roadless Area is not within the area of cumulative effects analysis (Upper Honey and Middle Honey Creek subwatersheds) and the direct effects are minimal, as discussed above, no cumulative effects are expected to occur. All alternatives, which themselves would have minimal and insignificant direct or indirect effects, together with reasonably foreseeable and ongoing activities, would likely result in no cumulative effects in the Drake-McDowell IRA.

Consistency with Forest Plan and Other Laws and Regulations All alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan direction regarding IRAs and the Interim Directives associated with the Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule.

Other Unroaded Areas Introduction Unroaded areas are defined in the FEIS for the Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule as “any area, without the presence of a classified road, of a size and configuration sufficient to protect the inherent characteristics associated with its roadless condition. Unroaded areas do not overlap with inventoried roadless areas.” (USDA, 2000, FEIS Glossary, G-12).

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 137 Inventoried Roadless Areas and Other Unroaded Areas

Unroaded areas have typically not been inventoried and are, therefore, separate from inventoried roadless areas. For the sake of clarity, the term “unroaded area” will be used in this section to differentiate these areas from IRAs. As stated, unroaded areas do not overlap with Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA), which are considered in the previous section.

During initial public scoping for the Grassy Salvage Project, the Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC) submitted a map of an unroaded area in and adjacent to the project area. The area’s primary feature is the rugged canyon of Honey Creek, which is up to 300 feet deep. Approximately 360 acres (or 29 percent) of the 1,258-acre area identified by ONRC lies within the project area.

The 1,258-acre area is about four miles long and varies in width between ¼ mile wide and ½ mile wide, through the canyon, increasing to over a mile wide at its lower elevations as it exits the canyon. It is defined on its upper elevations by Roads 012, 013, 123, and 352. These roads are either mid-slope or top of slope roads in relation to the canyon. A National Recreation Trail traverses portions of the area. An irrigation ditch, which transfers water from Honey Creek (discussed earlier in the Fisheries/Watershed section), runs through the entire southeast edge of the area, just below Road 012.

Regulatory Framework There are no Forest-wide or Management Area standards specific to unroaded areas, although many of the resources that unroaded areas typically contain (i.e. wildlife, riparian resources, trails, and non-motorized recreation) are specifically covered by LRMP standards and guidelines or goals.

Analysis Area The analysis area for the direct and indirect effects on the unroaded area consists of the area within the ONRC-mapped unroaded area, within the Grassy Salvage Project area boundary. The analysis area for cumulative effects is the extent of this unroaded area, both inside of and outside the project area boundary. This area was not identified during the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE I), RARE II, or the EIS for the Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule as an eligible area of 5,000 or more acres in size.

The analysis of effects on an unroaded area requires a description of the activities that are proposed within it, weighed against the values unroaded areas can provide or contribute to. Those values include:

• Natural appearing landscapes for dispersed unroaded recreation opportunities such as hiking, camping, wildlife viewing, hunting, and the solitude they can provide. • Protection of cultural and heritage resources. • High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air.

Chapter 3 - 138 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Inventoried Roadless Areas and Other Unroaded Areas

• Habitat for abundant and healthy fish and wildlife populations. • Diversity of plant and animal communities, including areas that are relatively at less risk from noxious weeds. • Habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. Effects of proposed actions were determined using a qualitative discussion based on amount and type of proposed activities. Those activities that are included in at least one action alternative that have the potential to have an effect on the ONRC-submitted unroaded area include: commercial salvage, commercial thinning, fuels treatments, stocking level control, and reforestation and transportation system improvements. These activities are proposed in varying amounts in the alternatives, as shown in the tables below. Other activities included in the action alternatives, such as aspen enhancement and large woody debris placement, would have minimal effect and are not considered further in this section, though information provided in several resource sections in Chapter 3, such as wildlife and noxious weeds, is also applicable to the unroaded area.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects The analysis area for the direct and indirect effects on the unroaded area consists of the 360 acres within the ONRC-mapped unroaded area, within the Grassy Fire Salvage project area boundary.

Alternative 1 The No Action alternative would not include any commercial salvage, commercial thinning, fuels treatment, stocking level control, reforestation, or transportation system improvements in the unroaded area. There would be no direct effect on the natural appearance, opportunities for solitude, cultural resources, soil, water, air, wildlife habitat, noxious weed presence, or habitat for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. The degree of natural appearance would remain as is in both the short term and the long term, though it would evolve over an approximate 15-year period from one characterized primarily by a mosaic of standing dead trees, to one primarily of dead and downed trees, through time. There would be no change in the unroaded character of the area.

Alternative 2 Of the approximate 360 acres of the 1,258-acre ONRC unroaded area that lie within the project area, about 123 acres have proposed activity (salvage harvest and planting, green harvest, small tree thinning or planting outside of harvest area) with Alternative 2. The action with the greatest potential for an impact on unroaded characteristics (ground-based logging involving skidding and temporary roads) would occur on about 25 acres, in 6 small separate areas.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 139 Inventoried Roadless Areas and Other Unroaded Areas

Overall, activities would be in 11 separate areas ranging in size from less than one acre to 40 acres. About 50 percent of overall activity would be timber harvest achieved using helicopter systems (for an example, see photo on front cover of EA – taken in Unit 8). The tables below display this activity by unit (see also Figure 3-2).

Table 3-32: Alternative 2 Timber Harvest Units within ONRC Unroaded Area Ac. within ONRC Total unroaded Logging General Unit Acres area System Rx Comments Ground- Small part of unit lies below 1 364 3 based Salvage Rd 012 Ground- Small part of unit lies below 3 9 < 0.5 based Salvage Rd 012 Ground- Unit is below Rd 012. 5 8 8 based Salvage 250 ft. of temp. road needed Ground- Small part of unit lies below 7 25 based Salvage Rd 013

8 41 40 Helicopter Salvage

9 33 8 Helicopter Salvage Ground- 11 3 3 based Salvage Ground- Green w Small part of unit lies below 13 23 6 based Salv Rd 352 Green w 14 15 15 Helicopter Salv 63 Helicopter Acres25 TOTAL 88 acres Ground-based Acres

Table 3-33: Other Alterative 2 Components within ONRC Unroaded Area Activity or Design Acres Comment Component

Planting outside Harvest Small area below Rd 123 in far Units (acres) 2 north part of project area

Stocking Level Control (small tree thinning) (acres) 33 3 separate areas Snag Retention Area in proximity to Harvest Units (acres) 64

Chapter 3 - 140 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Inventoried Roadless Areas and Other Unroaded Areas

Figure 3-2: ONRC Unroaded Area – Alternative 2

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 141 Inventoried Roadless Areas and Other Unroaded Areas

The preceding information is presented partially in response to a public comment received during the 30-day comment period for this project.

Natural Appearance and Solitude; Unroaded Recreation Opportunity Apparent naturalness would be decreased by harvesting timber on a total of approximately 88 acres within the unroaded area. Stumps would be visible in the foreground. Given the canyon topography of the area, there are a few vistas from which the effects of most of this activity would be apparent. Since most fire-killed trees generally fall down within 15 to 20 years, removing some of these trees through timber harvest would alter the visual effect from a distance in the long term from one in which large numbers of downed trees dominated to one in which much smaller numbers of downed trees were apparent. There would be a short-term interruption of solitude due to equipment involved with timber harvest, including use of helicopter within the vicinity of the unroaded area.

One new temporary road, about 250 feet in length, is expected to be constructed within the unroaded area. This road would provide log truck access to a projected landing location in Unit 5 (in the NW 1/4 , SW 1/4 of Section 32) just across the existing irrigation ditch. The temporary road would be entirely within the timber sale unit. Alternatives to temporary road construction would be to use longer skidding patterns within unit 5, or temporary structures to allow skidding over the ditch. The effect from temporary road construction on natural appearance and solitude would be to diminish both. This effect would be localized and of short duration (road would be obliterated following use). The presence of the irrigation ditch currently diminishes natural appearance at this location.

Unroaded recreation opportunities would be somewhat diminished in quality in the short term. The primary unroaded recreation opportunity that is present is Fremont National Recreation Trail (NRT) #160, part of the Warner Mountains Trail System. Fremont NRT #160, when completed, will run the full length of the Fremont National Forest, approximately 175 miles. It will eventually connect the Desert Scenic Trail to the Pacific Crest Trail. The trail offers opportunities to pass through every kind of environment this diverse National Forest has to offer, from high desert juniper and sage covered slopes to park-like open stands of ponderosa pine. The trail is open to hikers, pack stock, and mountain bikes.

While salvage activities, which are expected to take between one and two months, are occurring, a short-term interruption in solitude associated with the operation of either ground-based or helicopter yarding systems would occur. In the long term, because mitigation measures designed to protect the NRT are included for all of the action alternatives (see Chapter 2), the effect on the recreation opportunity associated with the trail would be minimal.

Due to the small amount of area affected and the short period in which operations would be occurring, the overall effect of Alternative 2 would be minimal in relation to any unroaded characteristics.

Chapter 3 - 142 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Inventoried Roadless Areas and Other Unroaded Areas

Cultural Resources Mitigation measures designed to protect all known or discovered cultural resources are included for all of the action alternatives (see Chapter 2). Therefore, there should be no short term or direct effects on any of the cultural resource sites that may occur within the unroaded area.

Noxious Weeds Effects of the alternatives on the potential for spread of noxious weeds are discussed elsewhere in Chapter 3. There are no specific effects relating to noxious weeds within the unroaded area that differ from those described under the general Noxious Weeds section.

Soil, Air, and Water; Wildlife Habitat; Habitat for Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive Species Effects of the action alternatives on the potential for effects on these resources are discussed elsewhere in Chapter 3. Only those effects that differ or are specific to a particular unroaded area will be discussed here.

The unroaded area contains a perennial, fish-bearing stream (Honey Creek). None of the alternatives would include any salvage harvest units in the vicinity of Honey Creek (a minimum 300 foot, each side of the stream RHCA is established). For all units, both those within and outside the unroaded area, Timber Best Management Practices, Road Best Management Practices, and Soil Productivity Guidelines (see Appendix B) would be in effect. With these protective design measures in place, any detrimental effects on the soil, water, and fisheries resources within the unroaded area should be minimal and short term in nature. If any project-generated sediment were to reach fish bearing streams, it is expected that it would be short-term in nature, and at an immeasurable, negligible level. No significant increases in water yield or sedimentation are predicted. See the Fisheries and Watershed section of Chapter 3 for additional detail.

The following table displays summarized information (for all alternatives) from the Wildlife, Fisheries, and Botany biological evaluations pertaining to Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species that have a presence (or habitat presence) within the unroaded area, and the effects on these species and habitats. Additional detail is available in the appropriate sections elsewhere in Chapter 3.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 143 Inventoried Roadless Areas and Other Unroaded Areas

Table 3-34: Summary of Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species With a Presence (or Habitat Presence) within the Unroaded Area – All Alternatives

Alternative Species Name Status 1 2 3 Baker’s globemallow (Iliamna bakeri) Sensitive NE MIIH MIIH Leather lichen (Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus) Sensitive NE MIIH MIIH Wrinkled jelly lichen (Leptogium burnetiae var. hirsutum) Sensitive NE MIIH MIIH Gray flycatcher (Empidonax wrightii) Sensitive NI MIIH MIIH California wolverine (Gulo gulo) Sensitive NI MIIH MIIH Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) Sensitive NI MIIH MIIH Warner sucker (Catostomus warnerensis) Sensitive NE NLAA NLAA Redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss spp.) Sensitive MIIH MIIH MIIH NE = No Effect from the project on the species or critical habitat. NLAA = The project may affect the species or critical habitat, but those effects are not likely to adversely affect the species or critical habitat. NI = No Impact MIIH = May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species.

Effects on Distinctive Features within the Unroaded Area As described earlier in this section, the primary distinctive feature is the canyon of Honey Creek. Appearance of naturalness would be affected, as some vistas that are currently observed as an expanse of dead trees would become composed of intermittent dead trees (retention clumps in harvest units, interspersed with areas adjacent to units that have 100 percent snag retention). Since there is a RHCA in the bottom of Honey Creek, in which no salvage would occur for at least 300 feet each side of the stream, the effects of Alternative 2 would be limited to the area beyond that distance from the stream. Removing some of these trees through timber harvest in the area above the RHCA would alter the visual effect from a distance in the long term from one in which large numbers of downed trees dominated to one in which much smaller numbers of downed trees were apparent.

Alternative 3 Of the approximate 360 acres of the 1,258-acre ONRC unroaded area that lie within the project area, about 102 acres have proposed activity (salvage harvest and planting, green

Chapter 3 - 144 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Inventoried Roadless Areas and Other Unroaded Areas

harvest, small tree thinning or planting outside of harvest area) with Alternative 3. The action with the greatest potential for effect on unroaded characteristics (ground-based logging involving skidding and temporary roads) would occur on about 19 acres, in five small separate areas.

Overall, activities would be in nine separate areas ranging in size from less than one acre to 40 acres. About 47 percent of this activity would be would be timber harvest achieved using helicopter systems. The tables below display this activity by unit (see also Figure 3-3).

Table 3-35: Alternative 3 Timber Harvest Units within ONRC Unroaded Area Ac. within ONRC Total unroaded Logging General Unit Acres area System Rx Comments Ground- Small part of unit lies below 1 364 3 based Salvage Rd 012 Ground- Small part of unit lies below 3 9 < 0.5 based Salvage Rd 012 Ground- Unit is below Rd 012. 5 8 8 based Salvage 250 ft. of temp. road needed Ground- Small part of unit lies below 7 25 5 based Salvage Rd 013

8 41 40 Helicopter Salvage

9 33 8 Helicopter Salvage Ground- 11 3 3 based Salvage 48 Helicopter Acres TOTAL 67 acres 19 Ground-based Acres

Table 3-36: Other Alterative 3 Components within ONRC Unroaded Area Activity or Design Acres Comment Component

Planting outside Harvest Small area below Rd 123 in far Units (acres) 2 north part of project area

Stocking Level Control (small tree thinning) (acres) 33 3 separate areas Snag Retention/Snag Habitat 20 more acres in Alt. 3 because area in proximity to Harvest Units 13 and 14 in Alt. 2 are not Units (acres) 84 harvest in Alt. 3

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 145 Inventoried Roadless Areas and Other Unroaded Areas

Figure 3-3: ONRC Unroaded Area – Alternative 3

Chapter 3 - 146 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Inventoried Roadless Areas and Other Unroaded Areas

Natural Appearance and Solitude; Unroaded Recreation Opportunity Apparent naturalness would be decreased by harvesting timber on approximately 67 acres within the unroaded area. Stumps would be visible in the foreground. This is 21 acres less commercial harvest than would occur with Alternative 2. Because of this slight reduction in activity from Alternative 2, the effects on natural appearance, solitude, and unroaded recreation opportunity would be minimally less than those described above for Alternative 2

Due to the small amount of area affected and the short period in which operations would be occurring, the overall effect of Alternative 3 would be minimal in relation to any unroaded characteristics (See Alternative 2, above).

Cultural Resources See Alternative 2, above.

Noxious Weeds See Alternative 2, above.

Soil, Air, and Water; Wildlife Habitat; Habitat for Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive Species See Alternative 2, above.

The preceding displays summarized information (for all alternatives) from the Wildlife, Fisheries, and Botany biological evaluations pertaining to Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species that have a presence (or habitat presence) within the unroaded area, and the effects on these species and habitats. Additional detail is available in the appropriate sections elsewhere in Chapter 3.

Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects is the extent of the unroaded area, both inside of and outside the project area boundary. Approximately 71 percent of the ONRC- submitted 1,258 acre area is outside the project area boundary. The entire 1,258-acre area identified by ONRC lies on National Forest System lands. The analysis of cumulative effects on unroaded areas requires a consideration of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities within the cumulative effects analysis area, weighed against the values unroaded areas can provide or contribute to.

Past Activities The relatively small current size of the identified unroaded area (1,258 acres) is a result of over a century of European settlement in the area and accompanying activities such as timber harvest/road construction and ranching. Of those activities displayed in Appendix A, the Honey Timber Sales of the 1980s are most likely to have had an influence on the current size of the unroaded area. However, even those sales primarily used existing road

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 147 Inventoried Roadless Areas and Other Unroaded Areas

systems. Apparently the roads that currently define the edges of the unroaded area date back to at least the 1960s.

Within the 1,258-acre area, minimal timber harvest and no discernable road construction have occurred. The primary additional past activities that have occurred inside the area include livestock grazing for at least the past 80 years, fire suppression activity for approximately that same length of time, and dispersed recreation, including hunting and fishing. Since 1986, hiking on Trail #160 of the Warner Mountains Trail System has occurred.

The most significant human feature within the area is the irrigation ditch, which, for over 40 years, has removed water from Honey Creek using a ditch alignment that fully traverses the southern edge of the unroaded area. The most significant past event that has occurred within at least portions of the unroaded area was the Grassy Fire of 2004 itself and the suppression activities in response to the fire.

Despite this past activity and its effect on the unroaded characteristics of the current 1,258 acre area, it continues to provide many of the values that are often best provided in an unroaded setting, including natural appearing landscapes, some measure of solitude, and habitat for abundant and healthy fish and wildlife populations.

Alternative 1 and Action Alternatives Natural Appearance and Solitude; Unroaded Recreation Opportunity In addition to the direct and indirect effects discussed in the previous section, the eventual full implementation of the North Warner Access and Road Management Plan has the potential to have an effect. That effect would be beneficial to values associated with unroaded characteristics, since the area accessible by roads would decrease under that plan.

Grazing on National Forest System lands may have minor long-term impacts on apparent naturalness, although effects are likely to be similar or of less magnitude than past impacts.

Future fire suppression on National Forest System lands would be expected to produce a long-term negative effect on the development of sustainable ponderosa pine ecosystems. Fire suppression on National Forest System lands would have a short-term negative effect on solitude.

Indirect effects associated with recreational use, including noxious weed spread, erosion, litter, and evidence of fire rings, are expected to remain minor but could create localized long-term negative impacts on natural appearance.

Cultural Resources All reasonably foreseeable future activities that could potentially affect cultural resources would include mitigation measures designed to protect all known or discovered cultural

Chapter 3 - 148 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Inventoried Roadless Areas and Other Unroaded Areas resources. Therefore, there should not be direct cumulative effects on any of the cultural resource sites that exist within any portion of the unroaded area. The implementation of the North Warner Access and Road Management Plan has the potential to decrease the potential for illegal gathering because the overall level of roaded access would decrease.

Noxious Weeds Cumulative effects of the alternatives, when considered in the context of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities on the potential for spread of noxious weeds, are discussed elsewhere in Chapter 3. There are no specific cumulative effects relating to noxious weeds within the unroaded area that differ from those described under the general Noxious Weed section.

Soil, Air, and Water; Wildlife Habitat; Habitat for Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive Species Effects of the alternatives on the potential for cumulative effects on these resources are discussed elsewhere in Chapter 3. There are no specific cumulative effects relating to these resources within the unroaded area that differ from those described under the appropriate sections found elsewhere within Chapter 3.

In conclusion, both action alternatives, together with reasonably foreseeable and ongoing activities, would produce a short-term reduction in solitude within the ONRC mapped unroaded area.

Consistency with Forest Plan and Other Laws and Regulations All alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan direction.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 149 Noxious Weeds

Noxious Weeds

Introduction The definition of a noxious weed by the Oregon State Weed Board is a weed that is injurious to public health, agriculture, recreation, wildlife, or any public or private property (Oregon Department of Agriculture, 1998). The definition of a noxious weed by the Forest Service is a plant that generally possesses one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage, poisonous, toxic, parasitic, a carrier or host of serious insects or disease, and being native or new to, or not common to, the United States (USDA Forest Service, 1995). Noxious weeds are designated as such by the government on a federal, state, and county level. Current direction from the Fremont Land and Resource Management Plan states that noxious weed populations will be controlled or eradicated to the extent that funding is available.

Noxious weeds have become an increasing concern of the public as they spread and have negative impacts to wildlife, livestock, crops, and ecosystem health. Overall, noxious weeds cause an estimated $27 million in losses to crop, pasture, and forest production in the U.S. each year (Pimentel et al., 1999 as cited in ODA, 2001).

In disturbed areas where native vegetation is destroyed, noxious weeds have an advantage over native vegetation in colonizing disturbed areas quickly. Through their ability to germinate, flower, set seeds, and colonize a disturbed area very aggressively, noxious weeds destroy the native plant community, decreasing species diversity and richness. In some areas, noxious weeds have out-competed all other plants on the landscape and have created a monoculture, threatening the existence of some native plant species.

An environmental assessment (EA) was completed in 1998 to adopt a long-term Integrated Weed Management strategy (IWM) for the entire Fremont National Forest. IWM, as defined by the Forest Service Manual (1995), is an interdisciplinary pest management approach for selecting methods for preventing, containing, and controlling noxious weeds in coordination with other resource management activities to achieve optimum management goals and objectives. This EA emphasizes prevention foremost, and treatment secondly, of existing and new noxious weed populations on the Fremont National Forest. A strong emphasis of the IWM program is also on prevention, including education, planning, coordination, revegetation, inventory, and monitoring of noxious weed sites. The EA decision approved use of many weed control strategies and treatments including the use of several herbicides.

Chapter 3 - 150 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Noxious Weeds

Oregon Department of Agriculture noxious weed rating system designations are as follows:

“A” - A weed of known economic importance, which occurs in the state in small enough infestations to make eradication/containment possible; or is not known to occur, but its presence in neighboring states make future occurrence in Oregon seem imminent.

“B” - A weed of economic importance, which is regionally abundant, but which may have limited distribution in some counties. Where implementation of a fully integrated statewide management plan is infeasible, biological control shall be the main control approach. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Limited to intensive control at the state or county level as determined on a case-by-case basis.

“T” – A priority noxious weed designated by the State Weed Board as a target weed species on which the Department will implement a statewide management plan.

Management Directives The Fremont Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), 1998 Environmental Assessment for the Management of Noxious Weeds (Weed EA), and Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices are the management directives that apply to this project.

Existing Condition A weed survey was performed in September and October of 2004 after the Grassy Fire burned (see the following tables). The Grassy fire disturbed 1,436 acres of National Forest System lands, consuming most all vegetation and providing the opportunity for noxious weeds to establish without competition. Several isolated populations of Canada thistle (Circium arvense) and Mediterranean sage (Salvia aethiopis) exist in and along the edge of the proposed treatment area. All weeds infestations are small (less than a tenth of an acre). More surveys are planned in 2005. Mediterranean sage and Canada thistle appear to be widespread, indicating they are not new invaders in this area.

Since Mediterranean sage rosettes were only 5 to 6 inches in diameter at most, the plants were difficult to locate (new or old sites). Canada thistle was also difficult to locate with rosettes 1 to 2 inches tall and 3 to 4 inches in diameter. Due to the smallness in plant size, there is a high probability more weed populations currently exist within the burn boundary than were identified. It is also likely weed sites were established and current sites enlarged due to the disturbance of the burn and suppression efforts. The weed crew surveyed roads and water areas. The sites found within the burn boundary were located on old landings and skid trails.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 151 Noxious Weeds

Table 3-37: Noxious Weed Sites Surveyed within the Burn Boundary - September and October 2004. Legal Site ID # Species T R Sec ¼ of the ¼ Acres Landmark Location Canada Inside Proposed Harvest Unit #9 along an old road bed (3615 Rd. – 0602023128 Thistle 37 22 5 NW NW 0.1 3720 – 136 – 132 – 135) Outside Proposed Harvest Unit #9 with the 135 road running through Canada site. (3615 Rd. – 3720 – 136 – 132 – 135). This spot could potentially 0602023129 Thistle 37 22 5 NW NW 0.1 be used as a staging area for equipment in Unit #9. Outside Proposed Harvest Unit #9 with the 135 road running through Mediterranean site. (3615 Rd. – 3720 – 136 – 132 – 135). This spot could potentially 0602023130 Sage 37 22 5 NW NW 0.1 be used as a staging area for equipment in Unit #9. Canada Inside and Outside Proposed Harvest Unit #11 (3615 Rd. – 3720 – 0602023146 Thistle 37 22 6 SE NW 0.1 012). Mediterranean 0602023204 Sage 36 22 30 NW SE 0.1 Located along road edge (3615 Rd. – 3616)

Table 3-38: Noxious Weed Sites Surveyed Outside the Burn Boundary* Legal Site ID # Species T R Sec ¼ of the ¼ Acres Landmark Location Canada 0602023200 Thistle 36 22 31 SW SW 0.1 Located in stream channel (3615 Rd. – 3616 – 352) Mediterranean 0602023202 Sage 36 22 30 NW SW 0.1 Located in old gravel pile inside a rock pit. (3615 Rd. – 3616 – 117) Mediterranean 0602023203 Sage 36 22 30 NW SE 0.1 Located in old gravel pile inside a rock pit. (3615 Rd. – 3616 – 117) *Pose a potential threat due to locations on travel routes, gravel pits for road material, and possible landing sites.

All Mediterranean sage plants at site #0602023130 were manually removed. All Canada thistle sites and two Mediterranean sage sites (0602023204 and 0602023202) will be sprayed in 2005. The chemical control efforts will not completely eradicate those surveyed sites. New rosettes will continue to grow next year. Canada thistle seed remains viable for about 20 years.

Chapter 3 - 152 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Noxious Weeds

Canada thistle with a “B” designation under the Oregon Department of Agriculture rating system is a perennial noxious weed with a deep taproot that reproduces by seeds and underground roots nodules. Canada thistle is very difficult to dig up because of the extensive underground root system. Cultivation may increase spread of this weed through reproduction by root nodules. Herbicide control is the most effective method of control when applications are in the fall. Early burning of Canada thistle can stimulate growth and flowering. Many biological control agents have been released; however, only a few have established, spread, and proved positive efforts on control. Canada thistle is a dioecious plant (having male and female reproductive organs in separate plants); therefore; some existing populations may not reproduce through viable seed but primarily reproduce through the underground root nodules.

Mediterranean sage with a “B” and “T” designation under the Oregon Department of Agriculture rating system is a perennial tumbleweed that reproduces by seeds only. It also has a stout tap root system. This noxious weed is very aggressive and invasive. One of its competitive characteristics is the ability to go dormant to avoid summer droughts. Digging plants up is an effective control method. Mediterranean sage can be cultivated prior to seed set with some control. Chemical control can be effective to control Mediterranean sage when applications provide adequate wetting of plants in the fall or spring. A crown root weevil was released in 1973 and established throughout Lake and Klamath Counties as a biological control agent. However, as stated in the 1998 EA for management of noxious weeds, the crown root weevil is not strong enough to stop the spread of this weed.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 With a lack of vegetation treatments under this alternative, the risk of noxious weeds spreading is lowered compared to the action alternatives. With less activity there will be no additional soil disturbance. Noxious weeds would continue to be managed under the 1998 EA for management of noxious weeds on the Fremont National Forest. Because there is an existing seed source (and possibly buried seed bank) in the area, and because the fire created exposed soil and open canopy condition, weed spread may occur even with no action. Under all alternatives, conditions will be suitable for weed spread/introduction for five to ten years following the fire.

Alternatives 2 and 3 A potential effect to noxious weeds under the action alternatives is that noxious weed plants or plant parts may be moved from one place to another as a result of equipment activity in unknown infested sites. Plants can be dragged by equipment or can stick to equipment as it moves through a weed site and later fall off equipment in a new site. With project-specific protection measures and avoidance of noxious weed sites, the risk of current sites spreading or new infestations occurring following treatment would be

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 153 Noxious Weeds

low. The wildfire caused bare exposed soil and increased sunlight, opening the opportunity for new weed establishment. Harvest landings, in particular, are areas of continued disturbance and more sensitive to invasion from noxious weeds. Monitoring the areas of high risk followed by immediate treatment will prevent new infestations.

Increased traffic and maintenance of roads may also increase the risk of transporting new weeds into the area or spread existing weeds along roadsides and further disturbing the soil. Implementing prevention practices including weed free equipment and avoidance of weed infestations would decrease any potential risk for establishment of new noxious weed sites. Under all alternatives, conditions will be suitable for weed spread / introduction for five to ten years following the fire. The potential risk of noxious weed population changes due to proposed salvage activity is low.

Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives The Grassy burn, previous historical burns, past timber management activities, past road maintenance and reconstruction activities, and recreational visitors have disturbed many acres of land annually, creating the opportunity for many new noxious weeds sites and for existing sites to infest larger areas. In particular, past overstory removal and clearcut harvest activities that created substantially greater degrees of canopy openness likely had the greatest effect. During the past 30 years, the 41,000-acre cumulative effects analysis area, which encompasses the Middle and Upper Honey Creek subwatersheds, has had a total of 1,560 acres of clearcut harvest (all in Upper Honey) and 1,950 acres of overstory removal (95 percent in Upper Honey). In the past 30 years those sales that have impacted more than very small acreages include (by decade):

All of the above sales occurred during a period of lower consciousness and regulation in relation to noxious weed prevention. Yet, with annual efforts of mapping, monitoring, spraying, educating, and hand pulling of noxious weeds, the Fremont National Forest, including areas within this analysis area, have been kept largely free of noxious weed occurrence.

Future activities from recreational visitors (camping, hunting, mushroom picking, etc.), livestock, road crews, and Forest Service staff have the potential to cause movement and spread of noxious weeds. Weed seeds have developed dispersal mechanisms (barbs, burrs, and appendages) allowing them to be easily transported via animals and equipment.

Chapter 3 - 154 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Noxious Weeds

Future wildfires, fire suppression efforts, stream improvement projects, and road building/maintenance/decommissioning are activities that have the potential to cause ground disturbance. With decreased shading, a lack of native vegetation, and increased nutrient availability caused by these disturbances, noxious weeds have the potential to increase in density and frequency.

The past, present, and future activities have the potential to have a cumulative effect on changes in noxious weed populations without weed suppression and prevention practices. Weed suppression, control, eradication, and prevention practices will continue to be implemented throughout the project area. Herbicide applications around current noxious weed sites will decrease current plant density and cover. Implementation of the Grassy Fire Salvage, with associated protection measures, will not contribute to a cumulative effect on the spread of noxious weeds.

Project Specific Mitigation and Resource Protection Measures / Prevention Strategy In keeping with Forest and Regional direction, a site-specific application of Noxious Weed Prevention Policies, which is authorized under an existing Decision Notice, has been incorporated into this project. Existing noxious weed sites will be treated, under existing authority, in 2005. This shall be coordinated through the Forest weed coordinators. Harvesting personnel, road maintenance personnel, and Forest Service staff will be provided a map on weed locations within the area. Any newly found sites shall also be avoided.

See Chapter 2 “Mitigations and Resource Protection Measures” under the heading “Noxious Weeds” for the complete list of nine specific prevention or mitigation measures.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 155 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

THREATENED, ENDANGERED AND SENSITIVE PLANTS

Grassy Fire Salvage Project

Fremont National Forest Lakeview Ranger District October 2004

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: Potential habitat exists for the three sensitive plant species in the Grassy Fire Salvage Project area: Bakers globemallow, leather lichen, wrinkled jelly lichen; however, no plants were found during surveys.

Implementation of the Grassy Fire Salvage Project may impact individuals, but is not expected to contribute to the loss of viability of these species nor cause them to move toward federal listing under the Endangered Species Act.

/s/ Terry L. Spivey 10/14/04 Terry L. Spivey Date Botany Program Manager

/s/ Terry H. Sodorff 10/19/04 Reviewed by: Terry Sodorff Date District Ranger

Chapter 3 - 156 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants

Introduction It is the policy of the Forest Service that all actions and programs authorized, funded, or carried out by the Forest Service are reviewed to determine their potential for effect on threatened and endangered species and species proposed for listing (Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670.3). It is also Forest Service policy, as a part of the National Environmental Policy Act, to review programs and activities, through a biological evaluation, to determine their potential effect on sensitive species (FSM 2670.32).

A Biological Evaluation is prepared for proposed or listed threatened, endangered, and sensitive (PETS) species and is a review of a specific Forest Service activity to determine how the proposed action may affect PETS species. The Biological Evaluation process is intended to conduct and document activities necessary to ensure proposed management actions will not likely jeopardize the continued existence or cause adverse modification of habitat for species listed or proposed to be listed as endangered or threatened by the USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, this process is intended to conduct and document activities necessary to ensure proposed management actions will not contribute to the loss of viability for species listed as sensitive by the USDA-Forest Service Region 6; nor cause any species to move toward federal listing (FSM 2672.4 and Region 6 Supplement 2600-90-5, 8/1/90).

The Biological Evaluation is a four-step process. Each PETS species potentially occurring on the Lakeview Ranger District is evaluated based on these steps. Evaluation of impacts on a given species may be complete at the end of Step #1 or may extend through Step #4. The four-step process for the biological evaluation is described below:

• Step 1: A pre-field review of existing information.

• Step 2: A field reconnaissance of the project area.

• Step 3: A risk assessment and/or determination of effects to analyze how the proposed activity may affect any PETS species and identify the level of risk on a PETS species, or critical or essential habitat that may be impacted by a project.

• Step 4: If insufficient data exists to complete Step 3, a biological (or botanical) investigation may be required.

A summary of the Biological Evaluation process for this project, including an identification of all listed, proposed, and sensitive species that potentially could occur or are known to occur in the project area or that the project could potentially affect, is shown in Appendix A. Supporting documents are located on file at the Lakeview Ranger District.

Proposed Project The purpose of the Grassy Salvage Project is to, as rapidly as feasible:

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 157 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants

• Restore a sustainable ponderosa pine forest in the Grassy Fire area. • Provide the highest level of local job support and recovery of commercial timber value that is compatible with the standards and guidelines in the Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). • Promote riparian and upland habitats in the Grassy Fire area that meet the desired conditions established by the LRMP.

Step 1 – Pre-Field Review The following sources are reviewed for this document and are on file at the Lakeview Ranger District:

1. Regional Forester's Lists of Sensitive Plants (July 2004). 2. Oregon Natural Heritage Program database records. 3. District sighting reports and recent and historical records on file at the Lakeview Ranger District.

The pre-field review of the proposed project areas indicates potential habitat for the following sensitive plants due to combinations of various plant associations, elevation, and aspect requirements.

Habitat combinations exist throughout the area to create potential habitat for Illiamna bakeri (Bakers globe mallow), and, near creeks and seeps, for Leptogium burnetiae var. hirstum (wrinkled jelly lichen) and Dermatocarpon luridum (leather Lichen).

Step 2 - Field Reconnaissance Project-adequate surveys were done of the area, as a whole, throughout the past several years and as recently as September of 2004. Past and present project information regarding survey intensity and dates has been recorded in the Lakeview Ranger District Geographic Information System's TESPHAB and TESPSUR layers; with further documentation located in the botany project files.

Step 3 – Determination of Effects Baker’s Globe Mallow: (Illiamna bakeri) Status: Sensitive

Typical habitat for this species, as stated in Abrams and Ferris Illustrated Flora Of The Pacific, is, “Rocky slopes and chaparral, arid Transition Zone.” The habitat in which these plants have been found, on the Fremont portion of the Fremont-Winema National Forests, has been on elevations between 5,000 to 5,500 feet, on southwest and southeast slopes, on recently logged mixed conifer stands of timber in or near roads, skid trails, and landings, and in recent burned over areas of ponderosa pine/western juniper stands extending into mixed white fir/ponderosa pine stands. This habitat is similar to the habitat found in the Grassy Fire Salvage project area. No plants were found in recent surveys.

Chapter 3 - 158 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants

Protection Measures: Population may increase with mechanical disturbance and fire. I recommend monitoring long term affects of both.

The project implementation may impact individuals, but is not expected to contribute to the loss of viability of this species nor cause it to move toward federal listing under the Endangered Species Act.

Conclusion Based on available information, a loss of species viability for Baker’s globe mallow or trend towards listing this species under the Endangered Species Act will not occur.

Leather Lichen: (Dematocarpon luridium) Status: Sensitive

Typical habitat for this species, as stated in Macrolichens of the Pacific Northwest is, “Streamside or lakeside rocks where frequently wetted.” Perennial creeks exist within the project area that could support this species. No plants were found in recent surveys.

Protection measures include: Streamside buffers on all streams, seeps, and ponds within project area.

Conclusion Based on available information, a loss of species viability for leather lichen or trend towards listing this species under the Endangered Species Act will not occur.

Wrinkled Jelly Lichen: (Leptogium burnetia var. hirsutum) Status: Sensitive

Typical habitat for this species, as stated in Macrolichens of the Pacific Northwest is, “Generally in moist habitats. Typically epiphytic (grows on another plant for support) but also on decaying logs, mosses, and rock.” The project area is a dry ponderosa pine site with some drier mixed conifer sites, not a very conducive habitat for wrinkled jelly lichen; however, perennial creeks and seeps exist within the project area that could support this species. No plants were found in recent surveys. Protection measures include: Streamside buffers on all streams, seeps, and ponds within project area.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 159 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants

Conclusion Based on available information, a loss of species viability for wrinkled jelly lichen or trend towards listing this species under the Endangered Species Act will not occur.

Appendix A of Biological Evaluation Summary of the Biological Evaluation Process for Species on the Region 6 Sensitive Plant List (July 2004) suspected or documented as occurring on the Fremont National Forest

Habitat Species Risk Species Present Present? Determination Pumice grape-fern; Botrychium pumicola No Long-bearded mariposa lily; Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus No Green-tinged paintbrush; Castilleja chlorotica No Leather lichen: Could impact Dermatocarpon luridum Yes No individuals Prostrate buckwheat; Eriogonum prociduum No Shockley's ivesia; Ivesia shockleyi No Warner bedstraw Gallium serpenticum var. warnerense No Bakers globe mallow Could impact Iliamna bakeri Yes No individuals Three-colored monkeyflower; Mimulus tricolor No Wrinkled jelly lichen; Could impact Leptogium burnetiae var. hirsutum Yes No individuals Blue-leaved penstemon; Penstemon glaucinus No Oregon semaphore grass; Pleuropogon oregonus No

Mimulus evanescens No Short-fruited thelypody; Thelypodium brachycarpum No

Chapter 3 - 160 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Range

Range

Introduction The Grassy Fire is located within the Klamath Ecological Province (Anderson, 1998). Soils in this area were formed primarily from lacustrine sediment consisting of tuffaceous and basaltic materials and are represented by many soil associations. The vegetation was primarily covered by pine trees and, at elevations above 7,000 feet, by some true fir, while only 1 percent was covered in juniper stands. This 1 percent did not include the area of the Grassy Fire. Bitterbrush, big sagebrush, and a variety of bunchgrasses grow in the understory.

Background A total of approximately 850 sheep were permitted to graze from 7/1 to 9/15 on the Honey Creek Allotment from 1937 to 1958, after which time the allotment changed over to grazing 250 cattle from 7/1 to 9/30. In 1968, the allotment increased by 50 pairs. From 1968 to present, 300 cow calf pairs have grazed the Honey Creek Allotment from 7/1 to 9/30. Heavy use by sheep was observed for several years on sedges and bluegrass at Blue Spring Meadow and Second Swale Creek during the mid 1940s. Notes from range personnel at this time discussed problems of high gopher populations near the creeks, trespass cattle, a band of 23 horses grazing the area, and poor feed years (i.e. drought).

Current Use Today, the Honey Creek Allotment includes two pastures grazed in a deferred rotation system. This allotment is comprised of 8,796 acres of suitable National Forest System lands. The same family has been grazing the area since the early 1900s, originally with sheep and then with cattle. The grazing permit allows for 300 cow calf pairs to graze from 7/1 to 9/30.

Range Vegetation (Upland) Existing Condition Two Parker condition and trend transects were established in sagebrush community types during 1965 and have not been re-read. Vegetation and soil conditions for cluster 2 were good. This cluster may be located within the Grassy Fire area, and, if so, today the transect vegetation condition would read poor due to early seral vegetative species. In 1965, cluster 4 was located in a previously burned area and gave a poor condition rating for vegetation due to many early seral plant species. This cluster is located outside the burn and if reread it would most likely have a higher forage condition rating due to the time allowed for later seral plants to establish.

Utilization and stubble height standards for the Honey Creek Allotment have been satisfactory since 1995. The two monitoring spots were not burned due to their locations in meadows.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 161 Range

Riparian Forage Existing Condition The vast majority of riparian types are in fair or good forage condition and display mid to late seral ecological status with the exception of those heavily impacted by roads (USDA Forest Service, 1998). Most of riparian area that burned was not integral primary foraging area for livestock.

Proposed Actions No range projects or actions are being proposed in the Grassy Fire Salvage Project. The range resource is considered to be in satisfactory condition and current conditions are being met. A range analysis was performed on the Honey Creek Allotment in 1998 and the permit was reissued upon completion and final decision in 1999 (USDA Forest Service, 1998). The EA did not propose any improvements or changes to grazing management in the Honey Creek Allotment. Some fences were burned in the fire. Allotment boundary fences that burned will be replaced by the adjoining landowners and reconstructed needed on pasture division fences will be covered under a different decision.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives Livestock grazing activity will continue under Forest Management Guidelines and it is beyond the scope of this proposal to determine the effects of livestock grazing to the range resource in its early seral stages due to the disturbance of fire. According to the District Rangeland Management Specialist, grass and forb species are likely to become more abundant with the elimination of canopy shading.

Alternative 1 Not removing fire-killed timber would provide a large source of woody material available to create downfall. Some downfall could provide small niches of soil with adequate temperature and moisture to promote seed germination in early spring. Downfall would also protect newly emerging plants from predators during early establishment. A large accumulation of downfall would, over time, increase ground cover and decrease establishment of range plants, ultimately lowering plant production. Downfall can restrict livestock movement in an allotment, creating uneven distribution of animals, creating areas of heavy use, and resulting in negative impacts to vegetation.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Proposed salvage activities would decrease the risk of accumulating down fall over time. Fewer down fall occurrences would provide open, fire-burned areas for establishment of grasses and forbs. Increased production of understory vegetation is likely to occur after a fire. Livestock should be managed temporarily to avoid the burned area to promote establishment of vegetation. As vegetation becomes established and salvage efforts are completed, livestock distribution would increase and promote a relief of grazing pressure on the rest of the allotment.

Chapter 3 - 162 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Range

Cumulative Effects Continued activities occurring on the Forest, such as recreational use, firewood collection, hunting, and camping would not have a compounded effect on the range resource.

The past activities of logging, thinning, burning, fire suppression, and subsequent reseeding have promoted understory vegetation, enhancing the forage resource. However, past seeding activities have also promoted many perennial nonnative grasses to grow in the area, including intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium) and timothy (Phleum pretense), which may contribute to a decline of native vegetation in the area. With regard to grazing, both the known introduced grasses are beneficial in providing forage for grazing livestock and possible some wildlife.

Current and future timber management activities, combined with prescribe/wildfire burning, would, in the long term, provide for nutrient cycling and increased light availability, ease of plant tillering, ease of seed germination, ease of plant establishment, and new growth. The percentage or pounds per acre of increased vegetation is unknown and not quantifiable. Any increase in available forage due to these activities would not alter permitted grazing activity.

Regardless of the alternative chosen, an increase in transitory range is expected as a result of a decrease in canopy cover and early seral conditions in forested plant communities, post-fire. This availability would be a combination of existing graminoid plants becoming more palatable post-fire and new plants becoming established. The temporary increase in forage is expected to decline in approximately 10 to 20 years, as young trees become established and shade out the ground vegetation (FSM 2200). In the long term, stream restoration projects and road obliterations would provide for healthier riparian systems and more foraging areas as roads and forest openings revegetate.

Tree replanting has caused shading, competition for resources, and decreased understory vegetation.

Mitigations In 2005, grazing in the area of the Grassy burn will be minimized with the use of an allotment rider. Permitted number of livestock and season of use will remain the same. Livestock will be deferred from the burn area until late September when livestock will move through the south end of Grassy to return to private land. Vegetation at the end of September should have flowered, set seed, and be impacted only slightly.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 163 Cultural Resources

Cultural Resources

Introduction Cultural resources include structures, sites, roads, trails, and objects of scientific, historic or social value. They are irreplaceable, nonrenewable features documenting the past human use of our nation. Within the National Forests, these sites document the prehistoric and historic life-ways of the American Indian, the routes and actions of the early explorers, trappers, and settlers, the industrial activities of logging, mining, and stock grazing, community resources use, the history of forest recreation, and National Forest administration. The proposed action or its alternatives has the potential to damage the significant data, features, historic qualities, and natural settings of these sites unless adequate protections or mitigations are undertaken.

Regulatory Framework The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (amended in 1976, 1980, and 1992) is the primary legislation governing modern heritage resource management on the National Forests, as well as on activities of all other federal agencies. Section 106 of the Act states, “The head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or federally assisted undertaking in any State and the head of any Federal department or independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case may be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The head of any such Federal agency shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation established under Title II of this Act a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertaking.”

Section 110 of the Act states, “The heads of all Federal agencies shall assume responsibility of the preservation of historic properties which are owned or controlled by such agency.” It further states, “Each Federal agency shall establish…a preservation program for the identification, evaluation, and nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, and protection of historic properties.” Section 110 also states that actions will be carried out, “in consultation with other Federal, State, and local agencies, Indian tribes, native Hawaiian organizations carrying out historic preservation planning activities and with the private sector.” All other cultural resource management laws and regulations support, clarify, or expand on the National Historic Preservation Act. Under these statutes, the Forest Services is required to consider the effects of agency actions on heritage resources that are determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or on heritage resources not yet evaluated for eligibility.

Federal Regulations 36 CFR 800 (Protection of Historic Properties), 36 CFR 63 (Determination of Eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places), 36 CFR 296 (Protection of Archaeological Resources), and Forest Service Manual 2360 (FSM 2360) provide the basis of specific Forest Service heritage resource management practices.

Chapter 3 - 164 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Cultural Resources

These laws and regulations guide the Forest Service in identifying, evaluating, and protecting heritage resources on National Forest System lands. Federal agencies are also mandated to manage heritage resources under the guidelines of, and in cooperation with, the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) mandates that federal agencies consider the effects of activities on the natural and cultural landscapes. Under NEPA, agencies are directed to perform project planning such that the nation will, “…preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintains, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice,” (Section 101(b) (4) of National Environmental Policy Act of 1969).

Several laws describe the role of Tribes in the federal decision-making process, including heritage management. The Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA) requires Tribal notification regarding permitted removal of artifacts from federal lands. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) recognizes Tribal control of human remains and certain cultural objectives on public lands and requires consultation prior to their removal. Under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA) the Forest Service considered impacts of actions on traditional Tribal cultural sites. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) also specifically calls for Tribal participation in the NHPA Section 106 consultation process.

Cultural resources management on the Fremont-Winema National Forests is also guided by agreements made between Region 6 of the Forest Service and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. Section 110 of NHPA outlines the requirements for consultation and agreements with other local, state, and federal agencies. In 1994, a new agreement with the Oregon SHPO was signed, implementing requirements covering public and Tribal participation, project review, and Forest heritage preservation programs. The Oregon SHPO provides the guidelines for adequate survey and reporting standards. Other agreements with the Oregon SHPO cover the management of specific site types such as lithic scatters, railroad grades, historic mining ditches, culturally modified trees, and depression-era Forest Service administrative buildings.

The Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) tiers to the laws discussed above. Forest-wide Standards for Cultural Resource Management include:

General Significant cultural resources will be managed using a combination of Inventory, Evaluation, Protection, and Enhancement Activities.

Inventory A Cultural Resource Inventory will be conducted on all National Forest System lands, in addition to specific ground-disturbing areas, prior to the commencement of the project.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 165 Cultural Resources

These inventories will follow the guidelines set forth in the Forest Inventory Plan and will be supervised by a professional archeologist.

Protection Known cultural resources will be protected from adverse effects until they have been evaluated to determine whether they are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

Ground-disturbing activities will be designed to ensure that there should be no effect on inventoried cultural properties that have been determined eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (36CFR60.4). When protection is not possible, treatment of the site will be conducted in order to negate or mitigate adverse effects.

Results of project-level cultural resource inventories, evaluations, and mitigations will be documented in project environmental assessments.

Analysis Area The area analyzed for heritage resources for the Grassy Fire Salvage Project includes all National Forest System lands that may be affected by project activities associated with any of the alternatives under consideration, as well as any private lands that may be directly or indirectly impacted by project implementation, (such as constructed roads on private lands to access National Forest System lands). The geographic area (inclusive of National Forest System Lands only) encompasses approximately 1,436 acres. Treatment units are located on National Forest System lands within the Grassy Fire on the Fremont- Winema National Forests. The area of potential effect includes all areas where direct impacts will occur, such as those resulting from timber harvest, slash burning, temporary road construction, or erosion due to vegetative cover lost in the fire.

Analysis Methods When a project is proposed on the Fremont-Winema National Forests, heritage program specialists participate in its planning and in the analysis of potential project effects. This participation consists of:

• Review of historical materials, archival documents, and overviews relevant to the project area; • Analysis of the nature of the project and its potential to affect cultural resources; • Review of public concerns regarding the project and its potential effect; • Consultation with interested Tribes, heritage interests groups, and the Oregon State Preservation Office.

In the process, the heritage specialist determines the project’s effect based on the geographic area in which a project may alter the character or use of any existing historic properties.

Chapter 3 - 166 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Cultural Resources

Based on this information, heritage specialists determine whether existing cultural resource data is adequate to complete the environmental analysis and disclose potential effects on cultural resources. If the information is insufficient, additional research, inventory, or both, will be undertaken. Where additional inventory is needed, heritage personnel design a survey strategy to locate all historic properties within the area of potential effect. This strategy is designed in accordance with the criteria defined in Fremont National Forest, A Cultural Resource Inventory Plan, (Kaiser, 1984).

If a survey discovers previously unknown cultural resources, those resources are recorded and their National register eligibility status determined in consultation with the Oregon SHPO. Both background research and fieldwork are documented in a report submitted to the Oregon SHPO. The heritage program manager consults with Oregon SHPO to determine the nature of the project’s effects on significant properties. If needed, the heritage program manager and Oregon SHPO work together to determine appropriate project redesign, restrictions, designation of sensitive areas, or mitigation measures. The heritage program manager coordinates recommendations, actions, and monitoring with the project leader, Oregon SHPO, and interested Tribal preservation officials.

A project is determined to affect an historic property when project activities alter the characteristics that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (see 36CFR800.9). Alteration to features of the property’s location, setting, or use may be relevant, depending on the property’s significant characteristics. An adverse effect results when the project may diminish the integrity of an historic property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse effects include, but are not limited to:

• Physical destruction, damage, or alteration of all or part of the property. • Isolation of the property from its setting. • Alteration of the setting’s character when that character contributes to the property’s National Register eligibility. • Introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements out of character with the property or its setting. • Neglect of a property resulting in its deterioration or destruction, (National Park Service, 1995).

The Forest Service Heritage Resource Program is responsible for managing cultural resources to prevent loss or damage before they can be evaluated for scientific study, interpretive efforts, or other appropriate uses. This requires projects to be implemented in a manner that avoids adverse effects on historic properties. Where a proposed project would result in impacts to historic properties, project design should anticipate that treatment of the property would conform to sound preservation practice and be consistent with all applicable preservation standards. Project design should ensure that the essential form and integrity of historic properties is not impaired. If the potential for adverse effects cannot be avoided, appropriate mitigation treatments are determined in accordance with 36 CFR 800.5. As an example, mitigation of impacts for timber harvest may include establishment of buffer zones, directional falling, alteration of harvest unit

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 167 Cultural Resources

boundaries, changes in road locations, location of skid trails away from historic properties, limiting the harvest methods in certain areas, seasonal limitations, and restrictions on slash disposal or tree planting activities. Where a project has the potential to impact a property of Tribal concern, the Forest Service will consult with Tribal representatives to develop appropriate mitigation measures.

Where cultural resources or human remains are encountered during project implementation, the Forest has the authority to modify or halt project activities. The standard heritage resource protection provision, B (T) 6.24, would be included in all timber sale contracts. Other contracts would have appropriate cultural resources protection provisions. These provisions require that contractors and Forest Service representatives work together to protect historic properties. Failure of the contractor to identify cultural resources encountered during project activities may constitute a breach of contract. The provision specifically requires the contractor to notify the Forest of such discoveries.

In evaluating alternatives, the specialist provides the project with information on all of the historic properties within the area of potential effect, their location, character, the nature of potential effects, and the mitigation possibilities for those effects.

Due to the topography of the project area, very little is considered high-probability for cultural resource occurrence as per the Fremont National Forest Cultural Resource Inventory Plan.

All previously located and new significant cultural resource sites will be protected through avoidance or other project design methods.

Existing Condition The Fremont-Winema National Forests have conducted resource inventories of National Forest System lands since 1978. The project area is stratified into areas of greater or lesser likelihood for the existence of historic or prehistoric activity areas and associated artifacts or sites. These probability zones are stratified based on topography, occurrence of basic resources such as water, food, or locations of raw materials, areas of activity known from histories, maps, records, or oral traditions, areas of known or suspected travel routes, and areas with known or suspected spiritual significance. This strategy was developed on the Fremont National Forest and approved by the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (Kaiser, 1984).

The present research objective on the Lakeview Ranger District is data collection and refinement, specifically, the identification, location, and documentation of sites, with an ultimate goal of meaningful contribution to a Forest-level evaluation effort of prehistoric and historic cultural resource systems. Data collected from cultural resource reconnaissance will eventually aid in the interpretation of prehistoric and historic settlement and use patterns and help build a database useful for archaeological studies of increasing sophistication. In order to attain this goal, a predictive model based on cultural ecological data approach has been proposed and is being tested.

Chapter 3 - 168 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Cultural Resources

Inventory Method An inventory is conducted in two phases. Phase I involves a research study of existing literature and previous surveys found in cultural resource files. Previous surveys located in the Lakeview Ranger District’s Cultural Resource files were evaluated. Adequate surveys were previously conducted within the project area. Previous surveys include: Honey Timber Sale (1982), Tin Can Timber Sale (1984), Blue Spring Timber Sale (1989), and McDowell Timber Sale (1991). Other literatures, such as Cultural Resource Overviews of the area, were also consulted. The information gathered aided field survey planning within the project area. This aided identification of areas that would be defined as high, medium, and low in cultural resource probability according to the probability strata definitions. Three sites were found previously documented for the project area. One other site was found to be just outside the project area.

Phase II research involved an actual on the ground survey. The survey strategy employed was a complete survey of high cultural resource site probability areas, and a less than complete survey of medium and low cultural resource site probability areas. High, medium, and low cultural resource site probability areas were delineated based on the number of positive environmental factors found within the survey area. The Fremont National Forest Inventory Plan outlines this stratification process in more detail.

Field survey in high probability areas is intensive and provides 85 to 100 percent coverage. High cultural resource site probability areas are surveyed using transects no farther than 20 meters apart. Emphasis is placed on examining those environmental features that determine the area to be high probability (flat terrain, ecotonal environments, and areas within 300 meters of water). The survey transects are not intended to be walked as straight compass-oriented lines. Most of the Freemont National Forest is not conducive to a rigid survey method. Therefore, meandering transects, which follow in the field opportunistic situations (non-forested areas, exposed soils, road cuts, stream cuts, and ecotonal lines) are preferred.

Medium cultural resource site probability areas are surveyed using transects that are spaced 20 to 100 meters apart. Emphasis is placed on examining environmental features that represent areas where human activity would have occurred at less frequency and intensity than in the high probability areas (isolated ridges, rock outcroppings, moderately sloping terrain, and areas not within 300 meters of a water source). Field survey in the medium probability areas is less intensive and provides 45 to 55 percent coverage.

Low cultural resource site probability areas are defined as areas of dense forestation and steep terrain. These areas are surveyed randomly at approximately 20 percent intensity. Such coverage of low probability areas includes random survey routes and random spot-checking.

Transects were conducted in a way that would be easily replicated. The visibility for most of the area surveyed was extremely good to good. Most of the areas to be surveyed were treated as high probability areas for cultural resources due to the relative size and

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 169 Cultural Resources

small amount of area needing surveyed. Larger-than-needed areas were surveyed in the eventuality a tower needs to be placed in an alternate spot around the area of the originally projected site.

A complete inventory locates and accurately describes 100 percent of the visible cultural resources. This inventory will satisfy management requirements for cultural resource laws.

Four new sites were discovered during this phase of the inventory. These sites consist mainly of cultural materials with historic significance and are located in the vicinity of the Ft. Warner area.

Environmental Consequences

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 – No Action The No Action alternative would not have any direct effect on cultural resources because no activities would occur.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Under the auspices of a memorandum of agreement with the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Forest Archaeologist has certified that the project will have no effect on listed or eligible cultural resources. No direct, indirect, cumulative, irreversible, or irretrievable effects are expected on any cultural sites. The previously located and recorded sites will be protected through avoidance.

Mitigation and Monitoring Sites located in or near impact areas will be identified and avoided. Whenever possible, harvest unit boundaries will be drawn or redrawn to exclude and avoid sites. Road reconstruction should also avoid site boundaries. Activities in Harvest Unit #1 and Harvest Unit #12 will be monitored by the assigned Archaeologist due to their close proximity to historic Fort Warner. There will be pre-operations coordination between the assigned Archeologist and the Sale Administrator to insure that all information pertaining to cultural resource protection, including known site locations, protocol by which sites have been identified on the ground and how sites have been identified on working copies of the sale area map.

The possibility of undiscovered or sub-surface cultural materials is probable, and ongoing monitoring would continue throughout the duration of the project. If sites are discovered during on-the-ground preparation of sale units or at any time during harvest or any ground-disturbing activity, the assigned Archaeologist will be notified. The site will be reviewed on the ground and protection measures will be developed. Project activity will

Chapter 3 - 170 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Cultural Resources stop in the immediate area while a plan to mitigate the effects is formulated. Once the mitigation work is completed and resources are protected, project activity may proceed.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 171 Treaty Rights

Treaty Rights

The Klamath Tribes treaty rights depend upon resources such as mule deer, fish, other animals, and plants. These treaty right resources depend upon specific habitat. The Grassy Fire Salvage project area is outside the boundaries of the former Reservation lands; however, consideration has been given to potential effects on treaty right resources.

The potential effects on mule deer, an important treaty right resource, are discussed in detail in the Wildlife section. The potential effects on redband trout and other aquatic species are discussed in detail in the Fisheries / Watershed section. The potential effects on cultural and heritage resources are discussed in the Cultural Resource section.

The Klamath Tribes was initially made aware of the proposal through written requests on September 24, 2004 to Elwood Miller Jr., The Klamath Tribes Natural Resources Director and Gerald Skelton, The Klamath Tribes Culture and Heritage Director, to proceed with expedited public scoping. The request included a brief description of the draft Proposed Action and a map of the project area. The process for expedited scoping in the event of unplanned factors (such as fire) is outlined in a 1999 “Memorandum of Agreement between The Klamath Tribes and the U.S. Forest Service” (U.S. Forest Service and Klamath Tribes, 1999). The Klamath Tribes Forester, Will Hatcher provided notification that the Natural Resource Department concurred with the expedited public scoping.

At the beginning of the internal Forest Service review of the draft version of the EA (beginning December 15, 2004), complete copies of the draft document were provided for Klamath Tribal review, concurrent with internal Forest Service review.

Regulatory Framework Treaty of 1864 The Klamath Tribes entered into a treaty with the United States in 1864, reserving, among other things, the right of Tribal members to hunt, fish, trap, and gather on their reservation lands for their livelihood in perpetuity. These rights include interest in off- reservation areas. Federal courts have held that these rights have survived the transfer of ownership to the Federal government. The United States has a trust responsibility to protect the Klamath Tribes’ Treaty Rights.

Memorandum of Agreement, The Klamath Tribes and U.S. Forest Service (February 19, 1999) The intent of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is to establish policies and procedures that implement a government-to-government consultation process between the two parties. The objective of the parties is to clarify, define, and implement the government-to-government consultation process between and USDA Forest Service, on

Chapter 3 - 172 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Treaty Rights

behalf of the United States, and the Klamath Tribes, regarding the resources, which Tribal members have utilized and provided stewardship for since time immemorial.

The agreement:

1) Establishes a formal consultation process for agency and Tribal officials and their staffs.

2) Details a working protocol for initial contact with The Tribes at the Forest and Districts levels.

3) Establishes quarterly meetings for communicating natural resource information.

4) Creates a process for the Forest Service to receive and review proposals brought forward by The Tribes.

5) Provides a process for gathering firewood to be administered by The Tribes and coordinated with the Forest Service.

6) Provides a system for maintaining cultural camps that are used for youth education and to perpetuate Tribal cultural activities.

7) Creates timelines for Tribal involvement in agency planning efforts.

8) Provides a mechanism for developing educational materials about treaty rights and Tribal priorities.

9) Provides for policy issues to be elevated to the Regional Forester for discussion, if questions are unresolved at the Forest level, or where agency policy is directed from sources in Washington, D.C.

10) Maintains that the actions are consistent with existing laws and regulations.

Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1989) The Forest Plan (LRMP) incorporated concerns regarding fish and wildlife to meet the subsistence needs of the Klamath Tribes. For example, The LRMP directed that MA 1 (Mule Deer Winter Range) be “managed to provide the habitat needed to meet ODF&W and Klamath Tribe herd management objectives” (LRMP; 132).

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (PL 95-341), dated August 11, 1978 This Act establishes policy to protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise the traditional religions of the American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiians, including, but not limited to, access to sites, use or possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites. In addition, this Act requires specific sections in environmental impact statements addressing the involvement of traditional Indian lands.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 173 Treaty Rights

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-601) This act provides for the protection of Native American graves and establishes ownership, claim, museum, inventory, repatriation regulations, and policy.

Analysis Area Though the Grassy Fire Salvage project area is outside the boundaries of the former Reservation lands, potential effects on treaty right resources are considered, regardless of their location.

Environmental Consequences Overall, none of the actions in any of the alternatives are expected to have an adverse effect on Treaty Rights or treaty right resources. All project activity was designed to avoid any direct negative impacts on cultural and heritage resources, though inadvertent negative impacts are possible anytime ground-disturbing activities occur. A short term delay or slowed rate of response for some mule deer forage plants may occur in the areas salvaged; however, forage production in the form of grasses, forbs, and shrubs is expected to increase rapidly following salvage. The Fisheries / Watershed section earlier in this chapter concludes that implementation of Grassy Fire Salvage Alternative 2 and/or Alternative 3 is not expected to adversely affect inland fish nor would it prevent attainment of INFISH RMOs.

Consistency with Fremont Forest Plan, MOA, and other Regulations All of the alternatives described in this analysis would meet Forest Plan standards and meet the direction contained in other regulations and laws including the MOA.

Chapter 3 - 174 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Recreation and Scenic Resources

Recreation and Scenic Resources

Introduction Within the Grassy Fire Salvage project area, recreation activities are focused on the Fremont National Recreation Trail #160, part of the Warner Mountains Trail System. This segment of the trail was opened to the public in 1986 and, when completed, will run the full length of the Fremont National Forest, approximately 175 miles. It will eventually connect the Desert Scenic Trail to the Pacific Crest Trail. The trail offers opportunities to pass through every kind of environment this diverse National Forest has to offer, from high desert juniper and sage-covered slopes with brightly colored lichen- splashed rock outcrops to park-like, open stands of mature ponderosa pine. Distant panoramic vistas from lofty vantage points are found throughout this scenic route and seasonal wildflowers abound. The trail is open to hikers, pack stock, and mountain bikes (Fremont National Forest Trails Website, 2004)

Existing Condition Recreation Resources Two trailheads (Vee Lake and Swale) and approximately 4.5 miles of NRT #160 exist within and adjacent to the Grassy project area. The Grassy Fire caused minor impacts adjacent to the Swale trailhead, resulting in an underburn effect. Along the trail north from Swale trailhead, the trail is totally unaffected by fire for the first 0.8 mile. Past that point, the next 3.7 miles were affected by the fire.

Effects from the fire range from total hot burn over, with areas of no vegetation left alive to a mosaic where vegetation remains adjacent to the trail. In some cases, the trail actually stopped the fire, and the other side of the trail from where the fire stopped shows no effects from the fire. Although a considerable amount of vegetation was lost in that section, the trail tread was not affected by the fire.

Fire suppression efforts had very little negative effect to the trail. Areas in which dozer lines crossed the trail created only minor effects. A portion of the trail on the northwest side of Honey Creek follows an existing old roadbed for much of the rest of its length up to Vee Lake, approximately 2 miles. Part of this section was opened up for use during fire suppression. When this portion is no longer needed for Grassy Fire Salvage activities, it would be closed to vehicle traffic and rehabilitated for use as a non- motorized trail again.

The fire destroyed one bridge over a small ephemeral stream. This bridge will not be rebuilt; however, it will be replaced with a hardened trail crossing of that intermittent stream.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 175 Recreation and Scenic Resources

The entire length of the trail within the project area is still usable and well marked with NRT logos, directional signs, and heavy duty flagging to define the route for protection during post-fire salvage and related activities.

Scenic Resources The Lakeview Ranger District scenic resource is managed by direction provided in the Forest Plan. In the Forest Plan, Visual Quality is assessed and evaluated under direction found in National Forest Landscape Management Handbook that was in effect when the Forest Plan was published. For the purposes of this scenery analysis, the existing Forest Plan direction, based on Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) will be used despite handbook issuance that uses newer terminology.

Scenic travel routes within the Grassy Fire Salvage Project include approximately 2 miles of the Fremont National Recreation Trail (NRT) #160 (part of the Warner Mountains Trail System) which is allocated to MA 6B. While allowing for timber management, the overall objective in MA 6B is to provide an attractive, natural appearing forest visual character. Forest Plan direction includes “tak(ing) extra care in the clean-up of logging slash, root wads, and logging debris; smooth(ing) earth over skid and tire tracks; paint(ing) or mark(ing) trees on the side of the tree facing away from the road and adjust(ing) cutting boundaries to blend into the natural indigenous landscape (Forest Plan, page114). For the entire project area, which includes areas variously allocated to MA 1, MA 5, MA 6B, MA14 and MA15, the Forest Plan establishes Visual Quality Objectives of Modification and Maximum Modification. Exceptions to this would be areas within 300 feet of fisheries riparian areas, which are to be managed to maintain a Partial Retention VQO and guidelines to ensure visual integrity along the Fremont NRT, as discussed above.

The Honey Creek drainage, with its steep basalt canyon walls and the mixed conifer forest vistas are the focal point of the scenic foreground for the project area. The Grassy Fire considerably altered the scenic aspects in the Honey Creek drainage because the canyon area burned very hot. Distant (middleground) vistas have changed somewhat, particularly along the northwest top of the rim of Honey Creek canyon. The background vistas were not affected by the fire.

Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 – No Action Recreation Resources Under Alternative 1, none of the activities included in the Proposed Action would occur. Because burned timber would not be salvage harvested, there would be a drastic increase of windthrow and debris on the trail on an annual basis for the next 10 to15 years. Without reforestation, the lack of shading would lead to brush (ceanothus, etc.)

Chapter 3 - 176 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Recreation and Scenic Resources

encroachment on the trail. The increased windthrow, debris, and brush encroachment would result in a need for increased trail maintenance.

Scenic Resources Under the No Action alternative, the scenic aspects of the trail would experience very little change. Gradually, snags would fall down and no longer be visible in the foreground and middleground vistas. If the portion of the trail that was opened for fire suppression efforts were not blocked and rehabilitated to non-motorized use, continued use by 4-wheel drive and off-highway vehicles would have a negative effect.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Recreation Resources Re-closing the portion of the trail opened during fire suppression efforts would have a positive effect to the trail. Salvage harvest would reduce windthrow and debris on the trail if trees are directionally felled away from trail. In the long term, the large trees that are left for snag retention purposes would fall down for the next 15 to 20 years, and would result in a need for increased trail maintenance.

Scenic Resources Current scenic qualities would continue to exist, with the exception that there would be a reduced number of snags for both foreground and middleground retention. By harvesting the fire-killed trees, rehabilitation occurs in a way that the fire-scarred area begins to blend back in with the visually dominating features (the mixed conifer forest and the scenic Honey Creek canyon). Implementing the action alternatives would speed up the process to restore the scenic quality in the project area while new vegetation grows.

Several mitigation or resource protection measures have been incorporated into the action alternatives that pertain to both recreation and scenic resources. These are listed in Chapter 2 under the heading “Mitigation and Resource Protection Measures.” In addition, the action alternatives are designed so that no salvage activity would occur within 300 feet of Honey Creek. With these measures in effect, the overall impact from the action alternatives on scenic resources is expected to be short term and minimal.

Cumulative Effects Recreation and Scenic Resources Past harvest activities within the project area have had no effect to the recreation and scenic aspects of the trail. Past wildfires that occurred in the area actually had a beneficial effect because they opened more scenic vistas. Past planting activities have created plantations that now consist of widely spaced 20 to 40 foot trees that contribute to the scenic quality of the pine forest.

If the portion of trail from Vee Lake that was opened for fire suppression were used as a haul road for salvage harvest, vegetative manipulation would be required to turn the road back into a trail.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 177 Recreation and Scenic Resources

Cattle grazing has occurred for several decades and will continue to occur in the area of the trail. Grazing has very little detrimental effect to the trail and, in some cases, actually helps maintain the trail. There are not enough watering areas along the trail to keep the cattle from lingering and impacting any one place.

Under all alternatives, the trail would remain open and functioning and would, at some point, return to its desired condition. However, recovery would occur more quickly under the action alternatives.

Consistency with Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan The activities associated with the action alternatives would be consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines pertaining to Visual Quality Objectives for all Management Areas that occur within the project, and in regard to the specific visuals consideration that the Forest Plan directs for management of the NRT.

Chapter 3 - 178 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Air Quality

Air Quality

Regulatory Framework The Clean Air Act: The basic framework for controlling air pollutants in the United States is the 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended in 1990 and 1999 (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.). The CAA was designed to protect and enhance the quality of the nation’s air resources. The CAA encourages reasonable federal, state, and local government actions for pollution prevention. State Implementation Plans (SIPs) are developed to implement the provisions of the Clean Air Act (The State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan (OAR 340-200-0040)).

The Clean Air Act establishes as a national goal, “…the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing impairment of, visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution” (42 U.S.C. § 7491 et seq.).

Visibility impairment is a basic indicator of air pollution. The EPA has determined that regional variation in visibility needs to be addressed. As a result, the EPA promulgated Regional Haze Regulations for Protection of Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas in 1997. These regulations are intended to improve visibility, or visual air quality, in more than 150 Class I Areas across the country.

Non-Attainment Areas: If a community does not meet or “attain” the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the EPA designates it as a non-attainment area. The state must then demonstrate to the public and EPA how that area will meet the ambient air quality standards in the future based upon controlling emission sources, through a control plan that is part of the SIP. The emissions from prescribed fire (including pile burning) may be considered as part of the demonstration. The nearest PM-10 non- attainment area is Lakeview, Oregon (DEQ Air Quality).

Conformity: The general conformity provisions of the CAA (Section 176(c)), prohibit federal agencies from taking any action within a non-attainment area that causes or contributes to a new violation of the standards, increases the frequency or severity of an existing violation, or delays the timely attainment of a standard as defined in the area plan. Federal agencies are required to ensure their actions conform to applicable State Implementation Plans. The Grassy Fire Salvage Project is not subject to the Conformity process since it does not occur within a non-attainment area boundary.

Policies and Programs

Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires: The “Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires” (EPA, 1998) addresses public health and welfare impacts caused by wildland fires managed to meet resource objectives and prescribed fires. This policy complements the Natural Events Policy, which addresses public health impacts caused by wildland fires. The Interim Air Quality Policy urges

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 179 Air Quality

states and tribal managers to collaborate with wildland owners and managers to mitigate the air quality impacts that could be caused by the increase of prescribed fires and wildland fires managed to meet resource objectives.

The Interim Policy, “…urges wildland owners/managers to: (1) notify air quality managers of plans to significantly increase their future use of fire for resource management, (2) consider the air quality impacts of fires and take appropriate steps to mitigate those impacts, (3) consider appropriate alternative treatments, (4) and participate in the development and implementation of State and Tribal Smoke Management Plans.” The Grassy project meets the intent of the Interim Policy through the NEPA analysis process and the practices of the Forest Plan.

Emissions from Wildland fire and Prescribed Fire: Roger Ottmar and others (1996) developed a methodology to assess emissions from wildland fire and prescribed fire. The amount of smoke produced can be derived simply by determining the total fuel load (tons/acre) and modeling fuel consumption (tons/acre). Fuel loading is the amount of fuel present quantitatively in terms of dry weight of fuel per unit area and is a critical variable required for the calculation of fuel consumption and the resulting smoke produced. Since the fuel loading variation across the landscapes often is very large, this variable is the largest error contributor (up to 80 percent) in predicting emissions production. (Ottmar 2000, Peterson 1987)

Fuel consumption is that amount of fuel consumed during a fire (both flaming and smoldering stages). As with fuel loading, extreme variations can be associated with this variable resulting in an error contribution of 30 percent when estimating emissions production from wildland fires (figure 1). Estimating fuel consumption can be accomplished using one of several fuel consumption software packages including First Order Fire Effects (FOFEM.) (Reinhardt and others 1997) This analysis used FOFEM to estimate emissions from some recent wildland fires that impacted Central Oregon.

Using 2002 as an example, over 115,000 acres of Fremont National Forest, State of Oregon (Lakeview District), and private lands burned during the wildland fires of 2002. Assuming a PM-10 emission factor of 242.6 pounds per acre, these fires produced an estimated 14,000 tons of PM-10. Other smoke that impacted North Lake County originated from the Rogue/Siskiyou (150 miles west). About 500,000 acres burned, which produced approximately 60,000 tons of PM-10, assuming a PM-10 emission factor of 242.6 pounds per acre. High smoke concentrations occur periodically in Lake County throughout an average summer due to fires that burn to the South, Southwest.

Chapter 3 - 180 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Air Quality

“Average” emission factors have been calculated for the following; (PM=Particulate Matter)

Grass- PM = 15 lbs per ton of fuel consumed Sage - PM = 30 lbs per ton of fuel consumed Pine/Fir-PM = 25 lbs per ton of fuel consumed Piles - PM = 28.4 lbs per ton of fuel consumed

These averages are used as a simple approach to estimate emissions production (Reference Smoke Management Guide 420-1 NFES 1279 and Colin Hardy’s publication of estimating volume, biomass and smoke production for piled slash)

Existing Air Quality Concentrations: Air quality in Lake County is considered good- to-excellent during most of the year. There are no non-attainment areas for PM-10 or PM-2.5 within 100 miles. Lakeview and Klamath Falls periodically fall below the NAAQS levels set by the EPA.

Analysis Methods Air quality is temporarily affected by several activities associated with forest management. Prescribed burning produces smoke. Harvesting activities can produce dust as well as vehicle emissions. Dust and vehicle emissions can temporarily reduce air quality in the immediate vicinity of machinery operations. All alternatives involving commercial removal would require the application of dust abatement to roads. Impacts from dust and vehicle emissions would be short-term and temporary in nature.

The main air quality concern associated with this project is the amount and duration of PM produced by prescribed burning of landing piles. Prescribed burning produces very little to none of the other regulated pollutants. Additionally, smoke from prescribed fire must meet the ambient air quality standards for PM-10 and PM-2.5. The focus of this portion of the analysis is on prescribed burning smoke as it pertains to landing piles associated with Alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative 1 (no action) would produce no emissions from prescribed burning.

The First Order Fire Effects Model (FOFEM), version 4.0 Regionalized fuels methodology was used to estimate smoke emissions from prescribed burning because site-specific fuel treatment data is available.

Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Effects Prescribed burning associated with the Grassy Fire Salvage Project will be limited to machine piles/landing piles. Pile burning is done during late fall when 1hr, 10 hr, and 100 hr. fuel moistures are high to reduce the potential for creeping ground fire. Atmospheric conditions may vary between stable and unstable; however; due to the limited amount of predicted emissions, no intrusions are expected.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 181 Air Quality

Landing Pile Emissions The average landing pile size used in this analysis was 12’ high by 14’ wide. A nomogram out of the Colin Hardy publication determined the volume (cubic feet) of an average landing pile is 924 cu. ft.

Wood-to-pile volume ratio = 20% (.20) Proportion of mass consumed = 90% (.90)

Emission factor for piled slash = 28.4 lbs per ton of fuel consumed 924 cu. ft. x .20 = 185 cu. ft. Average density of piled slash is 30 lbs/cubic foot.

185 cubic foot wood x 30 lb/cubic foot 5550 pounds of wood

5,550 pounds of wood x .90 (90% consumed) 4,995 pounds of wood consumed

4,995 pounds of wood consumed divided by 2000 pounds (1 ton) = 2.5 tons

28.4 lb/ton of emissions x 2.5 tons of wood consumed 71 lbs of emissions per average landing pile

Effects Common to All Alternatives In the absence of fuel reduction, and in the event of future wildland fire occurring, varying levels of smoke could persist in South Lake County for several weeks, depending on local climatic conditions, level of dispersion (poor, good, etc.) and amount of smoke/emissions produced. Health and visibility could be adversely affected. Alternative 1 does not propose to conduct any harvest activities or fuel reduction treatments to mitigate current and future heavy fuel loadings. Therefore, it is the least effective in reducing potential smoke emissions and associated pollutants from future wildland fires. Alternative 1 does not propose to conduct any prescribed fire; therefore, in the short-term, no smoke would occur from this activity. Alternatives 2 and 3 would be the most effective in reducing potential smoke emissions and associated pollutants in the long term.

Alternative 1 No treatment or activities described in this alternative. Alternative 1 (no action) produces no smoke from prescribed burns (of landing piles). Smoke from wildland fires would occur with all alternatives, dependent upon climate and weather. Wildland fires would continue to produce smoke, primarily during the summer months. Forest Plan standards for meeting EPA and State air quality standards for PM-10 and PM-2.5 would be met with all alternatives, including Alternative 1.

Chapter 3 - 182 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Air Quality

Alternatives 2 and 3 Prescribed burning of landing piles is proposed in these alternatives. Excess slash produced by treatment activities would be piled and burned. Smoke emissions vary with combustion efficiency and quantity of fuel burned. Machine piles and hand piles tend to produce more smoke (per ton of fuel consumed) than other burns because much of the consumption occurs during the inefficient smoldering phase of combustion. The overall factor in the amount of emissions produced lies solely in the amount of fuels consumed. The alternatives differ only minimally in the amount of slash treated therefore the quantity of smoke that would be produced is essentially the same. Specialist input has determined harvest methods within commercial salvage areas will create approximately 14 to 20 landing piles in these alternatives.

71 lbs of emissions per pile x 14 piles = 994 lbs of emissions. 71 lbs of emissions per pile x 20 piles = 1,420 lbs of emissions

14 Piles With approximately 90% consumption rate, an estimated 35 tons of slash will be consumed. 25 lbs of emissions per ton of fuel consumed = 875 lbs of emissions.

20 Piles With approximately 90% consumption rate, an estimated 50 tons of slash will be consumed. 25 lbs of emissions per ton of fuel consumed = 1,250 lbs of emissions.

Cumulative Effects The past activity or event in the area, in terms of air quality, was the Grassy Fire itself. However, there is no overlap between the fire and future activities. Although the Fremont-Winema National Forests tries to conduct prescribed burning during periods of good or better smoke dispersion, there may still be some cumulative smoke impacts from concurrent private and forestry burning common to Alternatives 2 and 3. However, since the salvage logging on private lands would have occurred at least 9 months before the salvage on National Forest System lands, this is unlikely. The modeling for this analysis assumed that all the pile burning is likely to occur over a brief period of time, thus reducing the cumulative effects of smoke.

Consistency with Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan All pile burning would be implemented in full compliance with Oregon DEQ air programs through cooperation with the Oregon State Implementation Plan (SIP). The Forest Plan includes air quality goals, standards, and management direction that are to “maintain existing air quality.” The Forest cooperates with the Oregon air quality regulators through the State Implementation Plan. Further, the Forest participates in the state of Oregon smoke management program to meet National and State air quality standards for PM-10 and PM-2.5. This project meets all criteria to protect air quality.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 183 Roads / Transportation

Roads / Transportation

Introduction The Grassy Fire Salvage Project area is located 16 air miles from Lakeview, Oregon. The legal description for the Middle and Upper Honey Creek subshed that lies within the fire area includes: T36S, R22E, Sections 29, 30, 31, 32 and, T37S, R22E, Sections 5 and 6. This analysis does not include the roads within the area that are located on private land.

Historically, the Fremont National Forest emphasized timber management. A large road system resulted in order to gain access to timber and other forest resources. Timber sale revenue paid for the majority of the road construction and maintenance. Today, however, timber harvest is declining, with the shift towards ecosystem management. This change in forest management has seriously reduced the operating budget and the ability to maintain an extensive roads system. Some roads will be removed from the system, others closed until future access is needed, and others kept at the lowest possible maintenance level.

The North Warner Access and Travel Management Plan (ATM) was completed and signed July 2001. The area of the Grassy Fire Salvage Project lies within this plan. The Travel Management Plan has identified 83 miles that need blocked and 71 miles that need decommissioned. The Fremont National Forest Best Management Practices (BMPs), included in Appendix B of this EA, would be used in decommissioning the roads. Adherence to the identified mitigation measures would result in 172 acres of roadbed being restored to vegetative productivity. The approximate cost of maintaining these 154 miles of decommissioned and blocked roads, by blading every other year, would be $30,000/year using present day values.

Regulatory Framework The Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP or Forest Plan) (USDA, 1989) provides direction regarding resource management activities and establishes management standards and guidelines. The following Forest Plan direction pertains to road management:

• The Forest Plan sets as a goal, “a safe and economical transportation system providing efficient access for the movement of people and materials” (p.51).

• The transportation system will serve long-term multiple resources … (with)… the minimum system necessary to provide access for the activities authorized under management area direction (p. 116).

• Overall density for roaded areas of the Forest will not exceed 2.5 miles per square mile (p.116).

Chapter 3 - 184 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Roads / Transportation

• All system roads will be operated and maintained to protect the resources, perpetuate the intended road management objective, and promote safety (p.116).

In addition, Forest Service Manual 7700 – Transportation Analysis (7712.1 – Roads Analysis) provides further direction. If road management activities are planned, decisions are required to be informed by an interdisciplinary science-based roads analysis, if those activities would result in new road construction, changes in access, such as changes in current use, traffic patterns, and road standards, or where there may be adverse effects on soil and water resources, ecological processes, or biological communities.

Existing Condition There is a total of 13.5 miles of road within the analysis area, consisting of 5 miles of maintenance level 1, 3.7 miles of maintenance level 3, and 4.8 miles of maintenance level 2. The total area within the analysis is 2.3 square miles. The Fremont National Forest Land Management Plan recommends an open road density of 2.5 miles of road per square mile of land. The current road density is 3.5 miles per square mile.

Maintenance Levels Maintenance levels are used to describe, in a general way, the intensity of maintenance effort needed on a road to allow the road to function as it is intended. Five different levels are used by the Forest Service to describe this intensity level, with level 1 being the lowest and level 5 being the highest.

A brief summary of what each level signifies is described below:

LEVEL 1 – Roads that have been closed or blocked to vehicle use (other than bike trails) for one year or longer.

LEVEL 2 – Roads that are open to traffic but are normally not suitable for all types of vehicles or users. Typically, a level 2 road would be appropriate for high clearance vehicles, but would require skillful operation to permit use by passenger vehicles.

LEVEL 3 – Roads that are suitable for all types of vehicles, but on which speed and convenience are not critical factors.

LEVEL 4 – Roads that are suitable for all types of traffic, and on which moderate speed (up to 35MPH) and convenience of the user are important considerations.

LEVEL 5 – Roads that carry heavy volumes of traffic, and on which high speed (over 35 MPH) and user convenience are controlling factors.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 185 Roads / Transportation

Existing Water Sources Existing water sources that can be used for maintenance (including dust abatement) and road reconstruction within the project area are as follows:

• Vee Lake: T36S, R22E, Section 30 • Swale Creek: T37S, R22E, Section 6 • Pond: T36S, R21E, Section 36

Existing Rock Quarries Vee Lake Quarry: is located at T36S, R22E, SW SE Section 30 and Can Springs Quarry is located at T37S, R21E, Section 24, SWNW. Both quarries have existing stockpiles of surfacing that may be used as needed for maintenance or reconstruction.

Analysis Method A field review of the area was conducted in 2004 to determine the condition of the roads. Information from past timber sales was also used in the analysis.

Chapter 3 - 186 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Roads / Transportation

Table 3-39: Roads within Analysis Area (Bold Indicates Different Condition Than Planned in ATM Plan) Would Length Length Remain Inside Outside Open Inside Open in Road Maint. Total Project Project Project Existing Proposed Project Number Level Length Area Area Area ATM Plan Condition Condition Area

3616000 4.7 0 4.7 open open open

3616012 1 0.315 0.315 0 close open oblit

3616013 2 4.5 1.579 0.274 1.579 open open open/close 1.58

3615033 2 3.48 0.8 2.68 0.8 Open/oblit open open 0.8

3616113 1 0.8 0.1 0.7 oblit open oblit

3616117 0.65 0 0.65 open open open

3616119 1 0.65 0.65 0 close open close

3616123 1 0.55 0.55 0 oblit oblit

3615352 2 3.069 0.913 2.156 oblit open open 0.91

3615353 0.6 0 0.6 close close oblit

3616356 0.64 0 0.64 oblit open close this is 3616360 0 0 open 013 road

3720000 6.2 0 6.2 open open open

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 187 Roads / Transportation

Table 3-39: Roads within Analysis Area (Bold Indicates Different Condition Than Planned in ATM Plan) (continued) Would Length Length Remain Inside Outside Open Inside Open in Road Maint. Total Project Project Project Existing Proposed Project Number Level Length Area Area Area ATM Plan Condition Condition Area

3720012 3 3.694 3.694 0 3.694 open open open 3.69

3720124 1 1.1 1.1 0 close closed close

3720125 1 0.13 0.13 0 close closed oblit

3720126 2 0.95 0.95 0 0.95 open closed close

3720128 1 0.75 0.75 0 close closed close

3720129 2 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 open open oblit open to waterhole/o 3720131 2 0.58 0 0.58 oblit open blit

3720132 0.4 0 0.4 open/oblit open open/oblit

3720133 1 1.05 1.05 0 0.4 open/close close

3720134 1 0.15 0.15 0 oblit close

3720135 0.92 oblit close

3720136 2 1 0.4 0.6 0.4 open open open 0.4

Chapter 3 - 188 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Roads / Transportation

3720137 2 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.1 open grown in close Total Length 37.678 13.331 20.78 8.023 7.38 Road Density mi./sq. mi. 5.8 mi 3.5 mi 3.22 mi

Densities based on project area size = 2.3 square miles

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 189 Roads / Transportation

Assessing Benefits, Problems, and Risks: The desired condition is to provide a transportation system, with fewer miles that are of a higher quality that is safe for hauling timber products and suitable for use by the public. It is also desirable to meet the Fremont National Forest Land Management Plan objective of 2.5 miles of open road per square mile.

There will be ongoing road maintenance activities on some roads in the area. These activities will include blading and watering, reconditioning of ditches, and installing, cleaning, and repairing of culverts and cattleguards. Some roadside brush may be removed to provide intervisible turnouts with sufficient site distance. The Fremont Road Damage Policy will apply to all National Forest users, with the objective of preventing road damage. Any logging activity creating road damage will be dealt with under the enforcement provisions of the policy that applies to all commercial forest users.

Roads that are not needed, not used, or cause unacceptable environmental degradation, or are poorly located, may be decommissioned using sub soiling or placed in storage by blocking with earthen berms.

Describing Opportunities and Setting Priorities: Current planned maintenance includes blading 24.4 miles of level 3 roads every year, patching the 14.75 miles of bituminous surface treated roads every year, and blading 40 miles of level 2 roads every other year would cost approximately $32,000 per year.

Of the 75.8 miles of road in the area, the ATM Plan has identified 39.9 miles that need blocked and 35.6 miles that need decommissioned. The Fremont National Forest Best Management Practices, included in Appendix B of this EA, would be used in decommissioning the roads. Adherence to the identified mitigation measures would result in 68 acres of roadbed being restored to vegetative productivity. The approximate cost of maintaining these 75.8 miles of decommissioned and blocked roads, by blading every other year, would be $14,000/year using present day values.

Earthen berms would be used to block road entrances that have been identified as possibly needed in the future. The road user would be responsible for opening, maintaining, and closing these roads when their use is needed.

After decommissioning and blocking the roads, there would be 7.38 miles of open roads within the analysis area. This would decrease the road density to 3.22 miles of open road per square mile. Roads that accessed private property throughout the analysis area would be left open.

Chapter 3 - 190 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Roads / Transportation

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects of Roads Management Actions Alternative 1 – No Action There will be no known adverse short-term or long-term effects from not implementing road reconstruction.

Alternatives 2 and 3 These alternatives would maintain approximately 29.25 miles of road, including the haul routes outside the planning area. No new specified road construction is proposed in association with any of the management activities included in this alternative. Reconstruction of 4.83 miles would consist of adding spot “padding “(using dirt or rock) in several locations to facilitate haul. Additional drainage may be installed as needed and would consist of drain dips, water bars, or culverts. These drainage improvements have been planned and authorized under existing fire suppression rehabilitation plans, but are listed in Table 3-41 for information purposes. Road reconstruction would increase the level of safety when using these roads during timber sale haul.

Approximately 300 feet of temporary road would be used for access into one timber sale unit that would be on the existing roadbed of an unclassified road. Approximately 250 feet of temporary road would be constructed within harvest unit 5. Temporary roads would be sub-soiled upon completion of the planned activities.

The level of road use, closure, and decommissioning proposed under these alternatives would generate short-term pulses of sediment, especially at roads near streams. However, the long-term savings of sedimentation and decreased effects on ecological processes or biological communities outweighs the initial losses expected during the active closure and decommissioning.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 191 Roads / Transportation

Table 3-40: Roads Proposed for Use in Alternatives 2 and 3 Road Roads to be Roads to be Roads to be Unit Number Decommissioned (mi.) Blocked (mi.) Left Open (mi.) tributary 3615012 0.3 6 3615013 1.58 6,7,13 3615352 0.91 13 3720012 3.55 1,2,3,5,9h,11 3720124 1.1 1 3720125 0.13 #? 3720126 0.95 1 3720128 0.75 1,2,3 3720132 0.39 1,4,12 3720133 1.03 1,12 3720134 0.15 1 3720135 0.42 4 3720136 0.65 4

Haul Routes 3615 14.75 all 3616 2.26 6,7,13 1,2,3,4,5,9, 3720 5.1 11,12

Total 0.45 4.40 24.40

The following table displays the reconstruction included in the action alternatives

Table 3-41: Road Reconstruction – Alternatives 2 and 3 Road Total Reconstruction Number Length Miles Proposed Road Action 3615352 3.069 0.2 1 drain dip, relay cmp Drain dips-3, reshape ditch, install 3720012 3.694 3.4 rock ford, reshape ditchouts 3615013 0.4 Pad over boulders, drainage 3720125 0.13 0.13 Brush, cmp in irrigation ditch Subgrade re-enforcement, creek 3720132 0.1 crossing 3720136 0.6 Brushed, scatter Total 4.83 cmp = corrugated metal pipe (culvert)

Chapter 3 - 192 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Environmental Justice

Environmental Justice

Environmental justice is defined as the pursuit of equal justice and equal protection under the law for all environmental statutes and regulations, without discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) required integrated use of the natural and social sciences in all planning and decision-making that affect the human environment. The human environment includes the natural and physical environment and the relationship to the environment (40 CFR 1508.14). Forest Service land management planning regulations require the integration of social science knowledge into Forest and Regional planning processes (36 CFR 219.5).

Executive Order 12898 (1994) ordered federal agencies to identify and address the issue of environmental justice (i.e., adverse human health and environmental effects of agency programs that disproportionately impact minority and low income populations).

According to the 2000 Census, the median household income in Lake County ($29,506) was the lowest of any county in central and south central Oregon (Crook County - $35,186; Deschutes County - $41,847; Jefferson County - $35,853; Klamath County - $31,357). This compares to the median household income in Oregon, as a whole, of $40,916. Thus, actions that tend to increase jobs and associated income can be seen as benefiting Lake County and its low-income residents disproportionately. Actions that do not lead to increased jobs adversely affect the same people.

This project is within the Lakeview Federal Sustained Yield Unit. All timber sold from the Unit, with some exceptions, is required to be processed within the Lakeview or Paisley communities. This ensures that the economic benefit of the timber harvest accrues directly to these low-income communities and helps to improve the low household incomes in this area. Both of the action alternatives will provide an economic benefit to these communities. With the implementation of any of the alternatives, there would be no disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 193 Other Disclosures

Other Disclosures

Long-Term Site Productivity Long-term site productivity would be maintained and potentially enhanced by both action alternatives. One risk to long-term site productivity is the future effect of a hot surface fire burning in concentrations of down wood. This could have a negative effect on soil productivity. This effect could result from increases in fuel loading, especially large down logs, as the trees killed by the 2004 fire begin to fall. Both action alternatives would remove some of these dead trees. Both alternatives would retain some portion of the existing and future down wood. As the years go by, tree mortality would be expected to continue, although at a much lesser rate. As these trees fall, they would contribute to future soil organic matter. Sites directly beneath and immediately adjacent to areas where landing piles are burned (both action alternatives) could be affected. Localized reductions in organic matter, temporary loss of soil productivity in the immediate area, and reduced water infiltration could also result. The localized detrimental effects to soils in association with landing pile burning is a desirable trade-off when compared to the potential negative soil impact of uncharacteristically severe fire behavior, excessive fuel loadings across large portions of the project area. Such would be the case with the No Action alternative, where many parts of the project area could develop fuel loadings of 20 to 100 tons per acre.

Sampling of burn and salvage effects on productivity began in 1993-1994 as a master’s thesis project in the 1992 Lone Pine fire, a 30,000-acre stand-replacing fire located just east of Chiloquin, Oregon (Sexton, 1998). Plots were monitored again in 1999 as a Forest botany project (Malaby, 2002) and again in 2003 as a zone ecology project.

Sexton (1998) found that, during the first 2 years after the fire, salvage logging resulted in a large decrease in understory biomass, species richness, species diversity, growth of ponderosa pine, and survival of bitterbrush. In addition, plant community composition was shifted from forb dominance to grass dominance. His observations are consistent with burn area assessments where native vegetation recovery is often limited in the initial 2 or 3 years, unless there is sufficient pre-fire ground cover. A flush of forbs such as lupine or mallow is common in semiarid rangelands and forests prior to ground cover succession to grasses, which is why grass seeding is an established recovery practice. However, Sexton concluded that the effects of salvage logging resulted primarily from reduced canopy cover, which caused greater surface temperature extremes, wind desiccation, and evaporation, and reduced early season soil moisture. Five and nine years later, data collected in the study plots indicated that the effects of salvage logging had lessened since 1994. Sexton’s plots were re-measured in 1999 and 2003. Malaby’s and Riegel’s re-measurements of Sexton’s plots indicated that the effects to productivity differences following fire salvage are short term. The analysis of the 1999 re-measurement showed that the differences between the salvaged and non-salvaged plots were becoming less both in terms of abundance and species richness (see following table).

Chapter 3 - 194 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Other Disclosures

Table 3-42: Fire and Salvage Effects in Logged Units and Control Units (Lone Pine)

Time (interval) 1994 (2 year) 1999 (5year) Biomass graminoid reduced by 43 percent reduced by 30 percent forb reduced by 83 percent not significant Relative abundance forb reduced by 38 percent not significant graminoid increased by 75 percent not significant western needlegrass increased by 74 percent increased by 35 percent Biodiversity species richness reduced by 30 percent not significant species evenness reduced by 15 percent reduced by 3 percent Shannon Diversity Index reduced by 24 percent reduced by 7 percent tree height reduced 12 percent reduced by 15 percent tree density not significant not significant bitterbrush height not significant not significant bitterbrush density reduced by 50 percent reduced by 35 percent bitterbrush line intercept not measured not significant

Now, more than a decade following the fire, the burn is characterized by extensive needlegrass and progress in the shrub habitat component. Across the Lone Pine burn and salvage area there are extensive willow and sedge islands, which were not accounted for in the prior soil survey within the pine forest. In sum, considering the Sexton 2-year data and the updated 10-year data, the time period under consideration is a minimal amount of time in the realm of vegetative development. Based on the above findings and observations, it is expected that long-term site productivity would be maintained by the action alternative (portions of the preceding discussion are in response to a public comment received during the 30 day comment period for this project).

Unavoidable Adverse Effects Several expected localized or short term adverse impacts on several specific resources are expected to occur as a result of implementation of the action alternatives. The potential size and scope of those impacts and potential measures to mitigate or eliminate them are discussed in Chapter 2. See Table 2-8 for a brief description of these adverse effects, with additional information in the appropriate section of Chapter 3.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of a species or the removal of mined ore. It relates to the permanent loss of future options and applies primarily to nonrenewable resources. For both action alternatives there would be an irreversible commitment of resources involving the use of rock materials fro road maintenance or reconstruction. Alternatives 2 and 3 would

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 195 Other Disclosures require approximately 600 cubic yards of material from either of two existing rock quarries: • Vee Lake Quarry - located at T36S, R22E, Section 30, SWSE.

• Can Springs Quarry - located at T37S, R21E, Section 24, SWNW.

Alternative 1 would not result in any irreversible commitments of resources. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of time, for example the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as a power line right-of-way or road. Under active management, irretrievable resource commitments are often unavoidable, because managing resources for any given purpose often precludes the opportunity to use those resources for other purposes. With the implementation of any of the alternatives (including No Action), a variable portion of one primary resource (standing dead trees) would be irretrievably lost to use as either: a.) a natural resource for the production of commercial forest products or, b.) a component of wildlife habitat, particularly cavity dependent species. These tradeoffs, as they relate to each of the alternatives, are explored earlier in Chapter 3 in discussions of the ‘Key Issue’:

Commercial salvage can adversely impact snag and down wood habitat through the removal of snags.

Additional information on this tradeoff is explored in discussion of two of the project ‘Needs’:

Commercially valuable timber from the project area and

Wildlife habitat within the project area, including snags and down wood, and live forest

See “Economics” and “Wildlife - Snag and Down Wood Dependent Species” elsewhere in Chapter 3 of this document. The Chapter 3 section on “Inventoried Roadless Areas and Other Unroaded Areas” discloses some effects on natural appearance (primarily from logging activity) within a 1,258-acre unroaded area identified by ONRC during initial scoping, that may be considered irretrievable. Specifically, about 7 percent of the area (with Alternative 2) and 6 percent of the area (with Alternative 3) would be impacted by salvage or thinning activity. The same effects attributable to logging activity would occur within other portions of the project area, but those that occur within unroaded areas are sometimes considered to have greater significance. The irretrievable nature of the effects is due to

Chapter 3 - 196 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Other Disclosures the fact that during the period of years the effects of activity are visually apparent, they can contribute to a diminished sense of solitude. The primary feature that would cause this diminished sense of solitude and natural appearance would be the presence of stumps several decades into the future. The actual logging activity is likely to occur for only a few weeks or months, so any loss of solitude would be very short term. The effect in regard to stump presence would not be significant, but instead minor and localized, owing both to the current condition of the areas (burned forest) and to the small area of proposed activity (88 acres with Alternative 2 and 66 acres with alternative 3). Considering their current appearance and the relatively small amount of logging activity proposed by the Grassy Salvage Project it is expected that the irretrievable loss of solitude would be minor and that the proposed activity would not significantly change the degree of naturalness the area currently exhibits. The analysis revealed no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources associated with implementing the alternatives that are not already identified in the Forest Plan EIS or the Regional FEIS for Managing Competing and Unwanted Vegetation.

Other Consumers, Civil Rights, Minority Groups, or Women See the Chapter 3 sections titled “Environmental Justice,” “Economics,” and “Treaty Rights” for a consideration of these subjects. Based on experience with projects of a similar nature on the Fremont-Winema National Forests, none of the alternatives would adversely affect consumers, minority or low-income individuals, women, or civil rights, and neither internal nor external scoping comments indicated otherwise. The actions would occur in a remote area and nearby communities would mainly be affected by economic impacts as related to timber harvest or contractors implementing reforestation or other activities. The implementation of this project is expected to provide job opportunities in some local or regional communities. Contracts for timber sales and other activities include non-discrimination requirements. The proposed alternatives would not have a disproportionately high or adverse human health affect on any identifiable low- income or minority population.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 3 - 197

Chapter 4

Consultation and Coordination

Grassy Fire Salvage Project Interdisciplinary Team ...... 4-2 Parties Contacted During Scoping or Consultation...... 4-2 Scoping Responses Received ...... 4-3 Comments Received During 30-Day Comment Period ...... 4-3 Content Analysis Summary...... 4-4 Literature Cited...... 4-19 Literature Cited in Comment Letters...... 4-29

Chapter 4

CHAPTER 4 – CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Grassy Fire Salvage Project Interdisciplinary Team (all from Fremont-Winema National Forests) Terry Sodorff Lakeview RD (District Ranger) Rick Elston Silver Lake RD Environmental Coordinator (IDT Leader) Bill Patla Certified Silviculturist (Forest Vegetation) Mike Ramsey Eastside South Zone Wildlife Biologist (Wildlife) Terry Spivey Lakeview RD and South Zone Timber (Timber, Botany) Jim Leal Eastside South Zone Fisheries Biologist (Fisheries) Rhonda Hancock Fremont-Winema NF, Lakeview RD (Geographic Information Systems) Jill Ralston Eastside South Zone Hydrologist (Watershed, Soils) Phil Harkins Engineering (Roads Analysis / Transportation) Pete Eldridge Lakeview RD Archaeology (Cultural Resources) Larry Hills Recreation (Recreation and Scenic Resources) Lori Crumley Eastside South Zone Range Management (Range and Noxious Weeds) Desi Zamudio Staff Soil Scientist, Lakeview Interagency Office (FS and BLM) (Soils) Mary Pierce Silver Lake RD (Writer-Editor)

Parties Contacted During Scoping or Consultation The Klamath Tribes Allen Foreman, The Klamath Tribes, Tribal Chairman Gerald Skelton, The Klamath Tribes, Heritage Director Vivian Kimball, The Klamath Tribes, Planning Dept. Will Hatcher, The Klamath Tribes, Natural Resources Dept. Forester

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rollie White, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Habitat Conservation, EIS Coordinator Craig Foster David McAllister

Oregon Department of Forestry Oregon Dept of Forestry, Resource Planning Oregon Department of Forestry, Klamath/Lake District Office

The complete scoping mailing list is on file in the Grassy Fire Salvage Project Record at the Lakeview Ranger District, Lakeview, Oregon.

Chapter 4 - 2 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 4

Responses Received during Initial Scoping Kyle Haines, Klamath Forest Alliance Chandra LeGue, Oregon Natural Resources Council Michael Anderson, The Wilderness Society Nancy Gilbert, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rick Brown, Defenders of Wildlife

Comments Received during 30-day Comment Period Kyle Haines, Klamath Forest Alliance Doug Heiken, Oregon Natural Resources Council/KS-Wild Michael Anderson, The Wilderness Society Rick Brown, Defenders of Wildlife U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Gary Johnson, The Collins Companies

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 4 - 3 Chapter 4

Content Analysis Summary The following table summarizes the public comment received during the 30-day comment period. The six comment letters included approximately 60 coded categories and 93 scientific or commentary references as substantiation for statements included in the letters. The full evaluation of the comments and how they were used in completing the EA is documented in a 32-page tabular document entitled 2005_03_08_Grassy_comment_analysis_and_response_table. This document is in the project record and is available for review upon request. In the interest of document length, this summarized version of that table has been included in the EA. The references cited in the comment letters were also individually evaluated. A list of citations from the comment letters is included in Chapter 4 (end of “Literature Cited” section). A more complete understanding of both the comments and their use in completing the final EA can be gained from the tabular document in the project record.

Table 4.1: Content Analysis Summary KFA - ONRC/ The Collins US TWS – DOW - KSWC - Companies EPA Haines Anderson R.Brown D.Heiken How Comment Was Comment Code 1/26/05 2/3/05 2/10/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 Considered Prefer Alternative 3 (or qualified Preference for Alt. 3 is noted in support for Alt. 3) 1 X X X X the Decision Notice. Increase minimum specifications Information added to Chapter 2: for required removal. 2 X Design Elements of Alternative 2. Water Quality/Fisheries. We are Information added to EA concerned with the effects on (Chapter 2, “Mitigations and water quality and aquatic habitat. Resource Protection Measures – We recommend that the FS Fisheries”) about follow-up conduct sediment modeling to reconnaissance during and after verify the assumptions. 3 X the project. Information added to EA, page Water Temperature. The cause Ch. 3-106. Honey Creek is an of the increased stream intact, functional system with temperatures should be discussed predicted long-term more fully in the final EA. 4 X improvement. Grass seeding. There is evidence The final EA incorporates the that seeding with nonnative Fremont-Winema Native Species species can impede native plan Plan. No non-native seeding regeneration. 5 X would occur.

Chapter 4 - 4 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 4

Table 4.1: Content Analysis Summary (continued) KFA - ONRC/ The Collins US TWS – DOW - KSWC - Companies EPA Haines Anderson R.Brown D.Heiken How Comment Was Comment Code 1/26/05 2/3/05 2/10/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 Considered Reforestation. Analyze potential The comment EA and final EA for natural regeneration and that (pages Ch 1-17 and Ch 3-9) replanting be limited to areas disclose a consideration for where natural regeneration is not natural regeneration and the likely to occur. 6 X reasons why planting is proposed. Economics. Weigh the demand Both the comment EA and final for salvage logging. Are there EA (pages Ch 1-5 and Ch 3-131) communities that are dependent? 7 X disclose local economic factors. Restoration-only alternative. A Reasons why the alternative “non-commercial, restoration- suggested was considered but not only” alternative is all that is studied in detail are discussed in needed to recover fire-damaged the comment EA and the final ecosystems. 8 X EA (pages Ch 2-4 and 2-19). Fuel accumulation. The greatest Past logging on public or private threat to Forest Service lands in lands minimally contributed to terms of fuel accumulations, are the Grassy Fire. Additional plantations and adjacent private information is included in the timberlands. 9 X final EA (pages Ch 3-28 to 29) Grassy alternatives are compliant with LRMP standards, which are Snag densities. A well for 4 snags per acre; Alternative distributed average of 4 snags per 3 well exceeds minimums. Final acre is what is required. 10 X EA (pages Ch 3-40 and 3-42). Hazard trees. What is deemed a Hazards are defined by the FS hazard tree should not be left up and OSHA. See final EA (page to the contractor to decide along Ch 2-6) for information on external haul routes. 11 X hazard tree abatement.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 4 - 5 Chapter 4

Table 4.1: Content Analysis Summary (continued) KFA - ONRC/ The Collins US TWS – DOW - KSWC - Companies EPA Haines Anderson R.Brown D.Heiken How Comment Was Comment Code 1/26/05 2/3/05 2/10/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 Considered Grazing is included in the Chapter 3 assessment of cumulative effects on: forest vegetation, fuels (page Ch 3-30 of the final EA), wildlife species, fisheries/ watershed (pages Ch 3-108, 123, Grazing. Cows have definitely 127-128 of the final EA), changed the landscape, especially unroaded, range and recreation. riparian areas on the Fremont- See also Appendix A, Tables A- Winema National Forest. 12 X 7a and A-7b. Four actions to address sediment Monitoring stream crossings. (in addition to the RHCA According to your information, restrictions) are discussed in the there are over 6 miles of road EA. These include road within 300 feet of stream decommissioning, road drainage, crossings, and 1.5 miles of roads headcut repair and tree felling within 300 to 600 feet away from into First Swale Creek. The the stream channels, which expected effects of these actions should be monitored. 13 X are disclosed in EA Chapter 3. Preference is noted. Information/ maps about the ONRC identified unroaded area is in EA (pgs Ch 3- Drop 60 acres in unroaded area. 14 X 137 to 149; 3-196 to 197). Supports use of EA for salvage, Consideration for an but neither Alt. 2 nor 3 meet “environmentally conservative” “environmentally conservative” approach is noted in the Decision guidelines that fit with the use of Notice, specifically as it relates to EAs for post-fire salvage. 15 X the selection of Alternative 3.

Chapter 4 - 6 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 4

Table 4.1: Content Analysis Summary (continued) KFA - ONRC/ The Collins US TWS – DOW - KSWC - Companies EPA Haines Anderson R.Brown D.Heiken How Comment Was Comment Code 1/26/05 2/3/05 2/10/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 Considered Standards and Guidelines that This is addressed in the Decision simply address a single > 20” Notice (DN, page 18). dbh size class provide no Alternative 3, by adopting a more assurance that snags much larger conservative approach, would than 21” dbh will be retained and achieve greater retention of snags ignore the values they provide. 16 X in all larger size classes Additional maps are included in the Final EA (separate Alt. 2 and Where are the maps? EA lacks Alt. 3 maps; land allocations; maps showing land allocations 17 X activity within unroaded area). Large logs/snags will be left at Protect large snags or prepare an Forest Plan compliant levels. EIS. There is no ecological Removal of some is consistent justification for removing any with purpose and need. Large large snags. The Siskiyou dead woody fuel, especially National Forest’s Biscuit Fire containing larger diameter FEIS admits that up to 53% of decayed pieces (Brown, 2003) do small Douglas-fir snags (10-30” play a role in fire behavior (EA dbh) and up to 85% of large pgs Ch 1-4; Ch 3-23 to 3-25). Douglas-fir snags (>30” dbh) are Information pertaining to snag likely to remain standing for 50 fall rates has been added to the years or more. 18 X X EA (page Ch 3-39). Focus on small diameter thinning Fremont Sawmill in Lakeview in green stands. Glut of salvage Oregon, the only mill in LFSYU, sales may be keeping down the has not had access to the large demand for thinning. 19 X salvage sales of the past 3 years.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 4 - 7 Chapter 4

Table 4.1: Content Analysis Summary (continued) KFA - ONRC/ The Collins US TWS – DOW - KSWC - Companies EPA Haines Anderson R.Brown D.Heiken How Comment Was Comment Code 1/26/05 2/3/05 2/10/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 Considered Managing “designated old Forest Plan old growth allocation growth” has become a joke. after a fire constitutes our legal Why don’t we manage the entire direction. RF Amendment #2 has forest landscape as self- shifted the focus throughout the organizing systems that retain Forest toward promoting LOS more legacy structures and grow that includes large diameter, more rapidly than old growth. 20 X open-canopy structure. Effects on water are disclosed in Watershed Restoration. Salvage EA Chapter 3 “Fisheries/ and associated activities will Watershed” (and summary table adversely affect the LSYU page Ch. 2-37). All measurable objective to restore the land’s effect parameters pertaining to capacity to absorb, store, and water quality would be compliant distribute quality water. 21 X with Forest Plan/INFISH. See above. Road use is within LFSYU objectives, which include providing opportunity for people to realize material value Salvage logging and road use from the forest. Road use would will increase soil erosion and occur under of BMPs. See EA sedimentation and cause water Chapter 3 pages 3-119 and 191 in quality problems inconsistent final EA; Appendix B – R7, R18, with LSYU objectives. 22 X R20, T7, T8, T11, T13, T16). Salvage logging will make a bad The EA discloses that situation worse for big game unharvested areas provide some (removing cover). Salvage shade and cover (that does not logging in MA-1 will remove meet Forest Plan standards). See cover and violate Forest Plan. 23 X page Ch. 3-63 of the final EA.

Chapter 4 - 8 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 4

Table 4.1: Content Analysis Summary (continued) KFA - ONRC/ The Collins US TWS – DOW - KSWC - Companies EPA Haines Anderson R.Brown D.Heiken How Comment Was Comment Code 1/26/05 2/3/05 2/10/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 Considered Significance considers context and intensity. EA describes Protect the values of actions in unroaded area (pgs Ch uninventoried roadless. Impacts 3-137 to 149; 3-196 to 197). of logging unroaded areas are Impacts would be minor and significant and require an EIS. 24 X localized. The NEPA analysis should Landscape level information discuss whether the project will added to EA (page Ch. 3-7 and 3- push the landscape toward or 14). The ecological dynamics in away from the natural range of Wimberly study include factors variability for large-scale habitat that are nearly the opposite of patches. Comment letter cites factors in Grassy area, or area of Wimberly (2002). 25 X ponderosa pine in Fire Regime 1. The role of snags and/or down wood in wildlife habitat, erosion impediment, as a component of functional watersheds and soil Recognize the many values of health are considered in the snags, decayed wood, and Chapter 3 (see page Ch. 3-33 of associated functions and species. 26 X the EA as a starting point). The alternatives include snag retention. They promote LOS (EA page Ch. 1-3; page Ch. 3- 12). ‘Screens’ deal with forest Eastside screens. EA fails to structural stages. Snags will not recognize that large snags are an contribute to LOS structure important component of current except in a time frame well short and future LOS habitat. 27 X of that needed to develop LOS.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 4 - 9 Chapter 4

Table 4.1: Content Analysis Summary (continued) KFA - ONRC/ The Collins US TWS – DOW - KSWC - Companies EPA Haines Anderson R.Brown D.Heiken How Comment Was Comment Code 1/26/05 2/3/05 2/10/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 Considered Grassy project did not use the Tree mortality. There are Scott Guidelines for mortality problems with your claims of determination. As noted in EA confidence that trees will die Chapter 1 “Using researchers’ within 1-3 years from needle kill findings, in combination with this and cambium damage. I am local experience…. a fire- uncomfortable with the standard damaged ponderosa pine tree that assumes that any ponderosa with less than 30 percent live pine with less than 30% green green crown will be considered crown is destined to die. 28 X X X dead” (page Ch. 1-19). Eastside Screen compliance in Cutting live trees is not exempt salvage may remain unresolved. (from the Screens). The agency’s For Grassy, one alternative uses a use of the 20% (sic) green criteria of salvaging only those canopy criteria to determine trees with no green needles “dying” trees will lead to discernable from the ground, if violations of the eastside screens 28 X X X they are > 21 inches dbh. FS needs to amend Forest Plan The analysis in Chapter 3 does before relying on DecAID. not rely on DecAID. As noted in DecAID must be used with the body of the EA (pages Ch. 3- extreme caution in post-fire 34, 3-36 to 3-41 of the final EA), landscapes 29 X as well as Appendix C. Range of alternatives and Large, stand-replacing fires are decision are based on project rare but not unexpected or purpose and need and key issues unnatural. The FS cannot base (see EA, Ch. 1 and 2). The its range of alternatives, let alone alternatives range from full snag its decision, on false and retention (Alt. 1) to differing unscientific assumptions. 30 X levels of retention (Alt. 2 and 3).

Chapter 4 - 10 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 4

Table 4.1: Content Analysis Summary (continued) KFA - ONRC/ The Collins US TWS – DOW - KSWC - Companies EPA Haines Anderson R.Brown D.Heiken How Comment Was Comment Code 1/26/05 2/3/05 2/10/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 Considered The EA concludes that the area is Don’t abuse the Historic Range below HRV in stands exhibiting of Variability Concept. HRV LOS. The EA identifies this to references in the NEPA mean that “Scenario A” (Eastside document must be clarified to Screens) applies. Additional geographic and temporal scale background, including and note whether the same comparison to regional findings, parameter is within HRV at the has been added to the final EA regional scale. 31 X (page Ch. 3-7 and 3-14). The comment EA and final EA Salvage logging can increase discuss activity fuels (final EA fuel/fire hazard. EA indicates page Ch. 2-7 and Ch. 3-26). salvage logging will remove Lakeview RD salvage sales that material down to 9 inches (which have occurred in the past 2 to 3 is highly unlikely) and that post- years have included standards harvest fuel treatment will not be down to 9” diameter (EA page needed (which is very risky). 32 X Ch. 2-6.) In accordance with the Forest Plan, sufficient habitat for species viability is determined using management indicator species Species viability concerns. The (MIS). See final EA page Ch. 3- FS is degrading habitat for 33 and Ch. 3-59 to 3-84. The EA primary cavity excavators and provides an assessment of the old-growth species that benefit effects on the habitats of each of from large wood. 33 X those MIS.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 4 - 11 Chapter 4

Table 4.1: Content Analysis Summary (continued) KFA - ONRC/ The Collins US TWS – DOW - KSWC - Companies EPA Haines Anderson R.Brown D.Heiken How Comment Was Comment Code 1/26/05 2/3/05 2/10/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 Considered Future fire suppression is beyond The EA must address the the scope of connected actions. connected actions. The FS must However, information has been prepare an EIS to disclose and added to the EA that compares consider the significant impacts the Alternatives in terms of from the connections actions of potential effects from the future future fire suppression. 34 X fire suppression (page Ch. 3-30) Look at the “Snag Gap” with Information pertaining to fall open eyes. The EA analysis fails rates has been added to the final to recognize that some snags last EA (page Ch. 3-39). Information longer than 15 years. In general, pertaining to large wood and it’s the bigger the snag dbh and the contribution to ecological shorter the height, the greater the processes has been added to the probability of longevity. 35 X final EA (page Ch. 3-95) . Provide for both clumped and well-distributed snags/down Both Alternatives 2 and 3 use wood. Some functions provided dispersed clumps within salvage by snags are best provided in units coupled with larger snag clumps. Others are best provided retention or snag habitat areas in by well-dispersed snags. 36 X proximity to units. Prepare a new programmatic EIS A programmatic EIS would be a on young complex forest. The useful document to which a site- agency should not conduct any specific EA could be tiered. The more salvage logging until it has Grassy analysis took an approach fully disclosed information about in which the IDT consulted over the role of fire in forest 220 scientific references in development. 37 X preparing the document.

Chapter 4 - 12 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 4

Table 4.1: Content Analysis Summary (continued) KFA - ONRC/ The Collins US TWS – DOW - KSWC - Companies EPA Haines Anderson R.Brown D.Heiken How Comment Was Comment Code 1/26/05 2/3/05 2/10/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 Considered Vegetative development and Salvage is not restoration. fuels conditions under “no Salvage logging and replanting action” would be less effective in will convert a structurally long-term development of complex landscape into a sustainable ponderosa pine forest. simplified and biologically See Chapter 3, Forest Vegetation depraved landscape. 38 X and Fire/Fuels. A no-action alternative would provide several restoration Consider and disclose the site- projects under separate specific analysis of the many authorities (final EA page Ch. 2- reasons NOT to do a post-fire 3 to 2-5). This provides an commodity extraction (salvage analysis of a non-commodity harvest). 39 X approach (EA, page Ch 2-18). Chapter 3 includes consideration of the fire, the suppression, and the alternatives. Past and future activities (catalogued in Appendix A) are also included. There are significant differences in the climatic, plant and soil Recognize the effects of regimes in the study area and the compound disturbances such as Grassy Fire area. The study was fire and fire suppression followed conducted in NW Colorado, in by logging (as per the Rumbaitis- windblown areas of subalpine fir Del Rio and Wessman study) 40 X (spruce) forests. Consider the additive and cumulative effects of salvage logging and associated activities. 41 X See above

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 4 - 13 Chapter 4

Table 4.1: Content Analysis Summary (continued) KFA - ONRC/ The Collins US TWS – DOW - KSWC - Companies EPA Haines Anderson R.Brown D.Heiken How Comment Was Comment Code 1/26/05 2/3/05 2/10/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 Considered Contributions to the ecosystem by dead and down wood are a central part of the analysis (as per Key Issue #1). As stated in the EA, 96 species are associated Recognize that dead and down with forest snags and 86 species wood are key elements of the are associated with down wood forest ecosystem. 42 X (EA page Ch. 3-33 to 34). Snag retention design is analyzed for impact on wildlife habitats, future stand conditions, soils, fire Salvage: Let nature sort things and fuels and other resource out. Do not conduct salvage topics in Chapter 3 of the EA. logging to provide a variety of Alternative 1 provides analysis of snag densities. . 43 X a no-salvage approach. Information has been added to the final EA on the potential for live trees to be impacted by Salvage: Protect all live trees. 44 X operations (EA, page Ch. 3-14). Research that indicates that down logs retard fire is focused on western Oregon. References Salvage: Water-filled dead trees have been added to that may retard fire compared to discussion in the final EA (page resin-filled green trees. 45 X Ch. 1-5 and page Ch. 3-19).

Chapter 4 - 14 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 4

Table 4.1: Content Analysis Summary (continued) KFA - ONRC/ The Collins US TWS – DOW - KSWC - Companies EPA Haines Anderson R.Brown D.Heiken How Comment Was Comment Code 1/26/05 2/3/05 2/10/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 Considered Grazing management in 2005 is being implemented through provisions of existing permits that allow adjustments in annual Give area a long rest from plans (see EA page Ch. 2-3). See grazing. 46 X also Comment Code 12. Information about the role of Importance of mychorrizae mychorrizae has been added to formation after fire. 47 X the EA (page Ch. 3-94 to 3-95) No harvest would occur within RHCAs. RMO attainment is Salvage will retard attainment of considered in Chapter 3 (pages RMOs in violation of TM-1 of Ch. 119-120; Ch. 3-127-130); INFISH. 48 X and summarized in Table 3-30. Beschta Reports. The EA relies The comment EA and final EA on the 1995 version of the both discuss “Beschta 2004”. Beschta report and fails to See final EA pages Ch. 2-22 to consider the newer version. 49 X Ch. 2-24. The “lack of rationale” point is Rationale for retaining large not to discount the value of snags and 50% of small (in snags. The point is that the Beschta). The EA complains that Beschta prescription is presented a rationale is not provided for the without specific rationale (EA Beschta Report recommendation. 50 X page Ch. 2-22 and Ch. 3-35) Capturing commercial log value Preference expressed for such a is a questionable purpose for this course is noted, though such an project. The local timber approach would not be industry should get its raw responsive to stated purpose and materials from private lands. 51 X need.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 4 - 15 Chapter 4

Table 4.1: Content Analysis Summary (continued) KFA - ONRC/ The Collins US TWS – DOW - KSWC - Companies EPA Haines Anderson R.Brown D.Heiken How Comment Was Comment Code 1/26/05 2/3/05 2/10/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 Considered Both the comment EA and final EA disclose effects on visual and scenic values. See Ch. 3 sections Salvage logging has serious on: Unroaded and Recreation adverse impacts on scenic values. 52 X and Scenic Resources. Salvage and ICBEMP science. ICBEMP says that salvage should not focus on the removal The alternatives, in varying of large trees but rather the responses to all elements of removal of small green trees to purpose and need, address large the extent that they present a risk and small green tree thinnings in of insect outbreaks. 53 X various combinations. Significance is a function of context and intensity. Site- The significant impacts of specific analysis documented in salvage logging are a the EA explores the potential for controversial issue and require an significant effects. See the EIS. 54 X FONSI for specific discussion. Management of the future fuels profile and future sustainable forests, is a component of the project. information has been added to the EA about the Post-fire landscapes are not a expected decadal unfolding of high priority for fuel treatment. 55 X fuels conditions (page Ch. 3-25) Activity fuels and the need to treat them are disclosed in the EA Salvage increases fire hazard. 56 X (page Ch. 2-7 and Ch. 3-26).

Chapter 4 - 16 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 4

Table 4.1: Content Analysis Summary (continued) KFA - ONRC/ The Collins US TWS – DOW - KSWC - Companies EPA Haines Anderson R.Brown D.Heiken How Comment Was Comment Code 1/26/05 2/3/05 2/10/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 Considered Amaranthus et al. studies are pertinent to Douglas-fir forests of the Siskiyou NF. The Grassy Fire occurred on a much drier site (average of about 20” of annual Salvage typically removes the precipitation). Information about largest logs that act as water the role of large logs during the “reservoirs” and are least prone Grassy Fire has been to the final to drying. See Amaranthus et al., EA (page Ch. 1-5 and page Ch. 1989. 57 X 3-20) Small fuels and large fuels do contribute differently. Key phrases in Brown were omitted from the comment letter. For The FS’s own research shows example (in letter): “Large that pound-for-pound small fuels woody fuels have little influence are far more hazardous than large on spread and intensity of the fuels, and that if the agency initiating surface fire in current would remove ore small fuels fire behavior models” they could safely leave more (omitted): “however, they can large logs that are beneficial to contribute to development of wildlife. Large woody fuels have large fires and high fire severity. little influence on spread and Fire persistence, resistance-to- intensity of the initiating surface control, and burnout time (which fire in current fire behavior affects soil heating) are models. See Brown, James K.; significantly influenced by Reinhardt, Elizabeth D.; Kramer, loading, size, and decay state of Kylie A. 2003. 58 X large woody fuel.”

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 4 - 17 Chapter 4

Table 4.1: Content Analysis Summary (continued) KFA - ONRC/ The Collins US TWS – DOW - KSWC - Companies EPA Haines Anderson R.Brown D.Heiken How Comment Was Comment Code 1/26/05 2/3/05 2/10/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 2/14/05 Considered BMPs do not eliminate the persistent erosional impacts of BMPs are acknowledged in the post-fire logging (Ziemer and final EA (page Ch. 3-120) as not Lisle, 1993). Espinosa et al. being a sole solution to (1997) provided evidence from eliminating adverse effects, citing watershed case histories that BMPs combined with proper unit BMPs thoroughly failed to location and design, RHCAs, and cumulatively protect salmonid Soil Productivity Guidelines as habitats and streams from severe an effective combination. See damage from roads and logging. 59 X EA page Ch. 3-120. USFS and USBLM (p. 206, 1997a) and Kattleman (1996) Potential for activities such as state that the prevention of soil road work and logging to damage and loss of productivity contribute to erosion and is easier and more effective than sedimentation was a primary attempts to restore it after factor in project design (INFISH damage has occurred. Multiple compliant RHCAs , Soil impacts on soil productivity are Productivity Guidelines, BMPs). probably why salvage logging Details have been added to the retards post-fire vegetative final EA about the Sexton study recovery (Sexton, 1998) 60 X (page Ch. 3-194 to 3-195)

Chapter 4 - 18 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 4 Literature Cited Forest Vegetation: Agee, James K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forest. Island Press. p. 124.

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC). Potential Natural Vegetation Group: Ponderosa Pine-Pacific Northwest/GreatBasin. www.frcc.gov/docs/PNVG/West/PPIN1_Description.pdf.

Malaby, S. 2002. Summary of the 199 results from the Lone Pine Study Area Winema National Forest. A forest botany monitoring report, Fremont-Winema National Forests, Lakeview, Oregon.

Riegel, G. 2004. Personal communication.

Ryan, Kevin C. 1982. Symposium: Fire – Its Field Effects, October 19-21, 1982. Jackson, Wyoming. p. 3.

Scott, Donald W., Craig L. Schmitt, Lia H. Spiegel. 2002. Factors Affecting Survival of Fire Injured Trees: A Rating System for Determining Relative Probability of Survival of Conifers in the Blue and Wallowa Mountains. BMPMSC-03-01. USDA-FS.

Wagener, Willis W. 1961. Guidelines for Estimating the Survival of Fire-Damaged trees in California, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Berkeley, California. Misc Paper No. 60.

Fuels: Anderson, Hal E. 1982. Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. GTR-INT-122.

Belsky, A. J. and D. M. Blumenthal. 1997. Effects of Livestock Grazing on Stand Dynamics and Soils in Upland Forests of the Interior West. Oregon Natural Resources Council. Portland, OR.

Brown, James K., Elisabeth D. Reinhardt, Kylie A. Kramer. 2003. Coarse Woody Debris: Managing Benefits and Fire Hazard in the Recovering Forest. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report RMRS GTR 105

DeBano, L.F., D.G.Neary, and P.F. Folliott. 1998. Fire’s Effects on Ecosystems. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New York.

Johnson, Charles Grier Jr. 1998. Vegetation Response after Wildfires in National Forests of Northeastern Oregon.

Martinson, Erik J., Philip N. Omi. 2002. Effects of Fuels Treatment on Wildfire Severity.

Maxwell, Wayne G., Franklin R. Ward. 1980. Photo series for quantifying natural forest residues in common vegetation types of the Pacific Northwest.

NWCG Handbook 3. 1998. Fireline Handbook. PMS 410-1. NFES 0065.

Opperman, Tonja S. and Tobin Kelley. 2003. Potential Fuel Complexes, Fire Behavior, and Fire Management Implications Resulting from the Fires Of 2000 on the Bitterroot National Forest, Montana (Formerly Paper 2a.7). 2nd International Wildland Fire Ecology and Fire Management Congress. Orlando Florida. http://ams.confex.com/ams/FIRE2003/2FireEco/abstracts/66704.htm.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 4 - 19 Chapter 4 Rothermel, Richard C. 1991. Predicting Behavior and Size of Crown Fires in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Research Paper INT-438, Ogden, UT: US Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. pp 2, 6, 10.

Skovlin, J. M. 1976. Effects of Cattle Grazing Methods on Ponderosa Pine-bunchgrass Range in the Pacific Northwest. U. S. Forest Service. USDA Technical Bulletin 1531.

Wildlife: Altman, B. and a. Holmes. 2000. Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Columbia Plateau of Eastern Oregon and Washington. Version 1. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight.

Beschta, R.L. et al, 1995. Wildfire and Salvage Logging, Recommendations for Ecologically sound Post- Fire Salvage Logging and Other Post-Fire Treatments On Federal ands in the West.

Bienz, C. S., J. Inman, R. Opp, G. Silovsky, and J. Toman. 1985. Mule deer habitat effectiveness: the criteria for habitat management. The Mule Deer Technical Advisory Committee. 26 pp.

Bock, C.E. and J.H. Bock. 1974. On the geographical ecology and evolution of the three-toed woodpeckers. American Midland Naturalist 92:397-405.

Brown, P.E. 1996. Presentation to the natural history and management of bats in California and Nevada Workshop. Nov. 13-15. Sacramento, CA.

Bull, E., S.R. Peterson and J.W. Thomas. 1986. Resource partitioning among woodpeckers in Northeastern Oregon. Res. Note. PNW-444. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 19pp.

Bunting, S.C. 1998. Use of prescribed fire for habitat enhancement in woodlands and shrub-steppe ecosystems. Fire and wildlife in the Pacific Northwest research, policy, and management symposium. Spokane, WA

Cook, J.G, T.J. Hershey, L.L. Irwin. 1994. Vegetative response to burning on Wyoming mountain-shrub big game ranges. Journal of Range Management. 47:296-301.

CWHR (California Wildlife Habitat Relationship Model). 2004. Internet

Dealy, J.E. 1971. Habitat characteristics for the Silver Lake mule deer range. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture, Portland, OR.

Demarchi, M.W. and Bunnell F.L. 1993. Estimating canopy effects on summer thermal cover for Cervidae (deer family). Can. J. For. Res. Vol. 23.

Foster, Craig. 2004. ODF&W Wildlife Biologist. Personal communication.

Gay, D. 1998. A test of the south-central Oregon mule deer habitat suitability index. M.S. thesis, Univ. of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

Goggans, R., R.D. Dixon, C. Seminara. 1988. Habitat use by Three-toed and Black-backed Woodpeckers, Deschutes National Forest, Oregon. Non-game Rep. 87-3-02. Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife; Deschutes National Forest. 49p. http://www2.ucsc.edu/scpbrg/Student/prairie.htm

Chapter 4 - 20 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 4 http://www.mirror-pole.com/apif_web/pinjunip/pj1.htm

Jackman, Siri M. 1974. Woodpeckers of the Pacific Northwest: their characteristics and their role in the Forests. Masters thesis.

Johnson, D. H. and T. A. O’Neil. 2001. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Oregon, 736 p.

Marshall, D.B. 1992. Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus). In: Sensitive vertebrates of Oregon. First ed. Portland, OR: Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife.

Mclver, J.D. 2000. Environmental effects of post-fire logging: literature review and annotated bibliography. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-486. USDA Forest Service.

Mellen, Kim, Bruce G. Marcot, Janet L. Ohmann, Karen Waddell, Susan A. Livingston, Elizabeth A. Willhite, Bruce B. Hostetler, Catherine Ogden, and Tina Dreisbach. 2003. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of Washington and Oregon. Version 1.10. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest Research Station; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office; Portland, Oregon. http://wwwnotes.fs.fed.us:81/pnw/DecAID/DecAID.nsf

Neel, Larry A. 1999. Nevada Partners in Flight bird conservation plan. On file at the Silver Lake Ranger District.

Niles, Lawrence J. 1992. Protection of neotropical migrants as a major focus of wildlife management. status and management of neotropical migratory birds. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Peek, J.M., J.A. Korol, and B.C. Dennis. 1999. A review and analysis of habitat relationships and mule deer populations in south-central Oregon. Univ. of Idaho. Moscow, ID. On file at the Silver Lake Ranger District.

Peek, J.M, M.D. Scott, L.J. Nelson, and D.J. Pierce. 1982. Role of cover in habitat management for big game in northeastern United States. Contribution No. 230, Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. Presented at the 47th North America and Natural Resources Conference, Portland, Oregon.

Philpott, W. 1997. Summaries of the life histories of California bat species. Sierra National Forest, Pineridge Ranger District. Unpublished doc.

Pierson, Elizabeth, PhD, 1996a. Private Consultant. Pierson and Rainey Consultants, Berkeley CA. Presentation at the North California mine assessment for bats seminar. Shasta College, Redding CA. June 4-6, 1996.

Pierson, E.D. 1996b. Presentation to the natural history and management of bats in California and Nevada Workshop. Nov. 13-15. Sacramento, CA.

Raphael, Martin G. and Marshall White. 1984. Use of snags by cavity-nesting birds in the Sierra Nevada. Wildl. Mono. 86. 66p.

Reynolds, R.T., et. al. 1991. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. USDA For. Serv. Northern Goshawk Scientific Committee Report; USDA For. Serv. SW Region, 184 pp.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 4 - 21 Chapter 4 Rose, C.L., B.G. Marcot, T.K. Mellen, J.L. Ohmann, K.L. Waddell, D.L. Lindley and B. Schreiber. 2001. Decaying wood in Pacific Northwest forests: Concepts and tools for habitat management. In: Wildlife habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. D.H. Johnson and T.A. O’Neil, managing directors. Oregon State University Press. Pp. 580-623.

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, J.L. Lyon, W.J. Zielinski. 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the western United States. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Ft. Collins, CO. 7 pp.

Saab, V.A. and J. Dudley. 1997. Responses by cavity-nesting birds to high intensity wildfire and post-fire salvage logging in ponderosa pine/Douglas fir forests of southwestern Idaho. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station; progress report. 34pp.

Sallabanks, R. and Mclver, James D. 1998. Response of breeding bird communities to wildfire in the Oregon Blue Mountains: the first three years following the Twin Lakes Fire, 1995-1997. Fire and Wildlife in the Pacific Northwest Symposium.

Salwasser, H. 1979. The ecology and management of the Devil’s Garden interstate deer herd and its range. Univ. California (Berkley) PhD dissertation. 377pp.

Sherwin, R. 1998. Presentation to the Western Bat Working Group workshop. Feb. 9-13. Reno, Nevada.

Thomas, J.W., et. Al. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. USDA For. Serv. Agr. Handbook No. 553. 512 p.

Torgersen, Torolf R. Log resources and wildlife relationships. Unpub. Pacific Northwest Research Station. La Grande, Or.

Urness, P.J. 1990. Livestock as manipulators of mule deer winter habitats in northern Utah. Pp. 25-40 in USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-194.

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Fremont-Winema National Forests. Skunk fire Restoration and Salvage. Ch.3, p. 43. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/winema/management/analyses/skunk/index.shtml

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Pacific Northwest Region. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Animal List.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Birds of conservation concern 2002. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99 pp. [Online version available at http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/bcc2002.pdf]

Wall, T., M. Vavra, R. Miller. 1999. Aspen Ecology and Rehabilitation in Eastern Oregon. Annual Report, Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center.

Wisdom, M.J., R.S. Hothausen, D.C. Lee, B.C. Wales, W.J. Murphy, M.R. Earnes, C.D. Hargis, V.A. Saab, T.D. Rich, F.B. Samson, D.A. Newhouse and N. Warren. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-scale trends and management implications. U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Serv., Pacific Northwest Res. Stat. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW- GTR-485, Portland, OR. In: Altman, B. 2000. Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the east- slope of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington. Version 1. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight.

Chapter 4 - 22 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 4

Witmer, Gary W.; Martin, Sandra K.; Sayler, Rodney D. 1998. Forest carnivore conservation and management in the interior Columbia basin; issues and environmental correlates. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-420. Portland, OR; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 51p.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, M. White. 1990. California's wildlife: Volume III, Mammals. Dept. of Fish and Game. Sacramento, Ca.

Fisheries/Watershed: Benke, R.J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries. Society Monogram 6.

Beschta, R.L. et al, 1995. Wildfire and Salvage Logging, Recommendations for Ecologically sound Post- Fire Salvage Logging and Other Post-Fire Treatments On Federal ands in the West.

Beschta, R.L. et al, 2004. Postfire Management of Forested Public Lands of the Western United States. Conservation Biology, Volume 18, NO 4. 957-967.

Binkley, Dan and Thomas C. Brown. 1993. Forest Practices as Nonpoint sources of Pollution in North American Water Resources. Water Resources Bulletin, American Water Resources Association. Vol 29, NO. 5. 12 pp.

Bisson, P.A., R.E. Bilby, M.D. Bryant, C.A. Doloff, G.B. Grette, R.A. House, M.L. Murphy, K.V. Koski, and J.R. Sedell. 1987. Large woody debris in forested stream in the pacific northwest. In: Salo, E.O. and T.W. Cundy (Eds.), Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. Proceedings of a Symposium, University of Washington Institute of Forest Resources Contribution 57: 143-190.

Brooks, K.N., P.F. Folliott, J. Thames, H. M. Gregersen. 1991. Hydrology and the Management of Watersheds. Iowa State University Press.

Burroughs, E.R. Jr., and J.G. King. 1989. Reduction of soil erosion on forest roads. General Technical Report INT-264. Intermountain Research Station. 21 p.

Chamberlin, T.W., R.D. Harr, F.H. Everest. 1991. Timber Harvesting, Silviculture, and Watershed Processes, Chapter 6 of Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitat, American Fisheries Society Special Publication, William R. Meehan (Editor) 19:181-205.

Cunjak, R.A. and J.M. Green. 1986. Influence of water temperature on behavioral interactions between juvenile brook char, Salvelinus fontinalis, and rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri. Canadian Journal of Zoology 64:1288-1291.

Currens, K.P., C.B. Schreck, and H.W. Li. 2000. The role of large rivers in the evolution and conservation of redband trout. Pages 99-104 in: D. Schill, S. Moore, P. Byorth, and B. Hamre, editors; Wild trout VII (proceedings). Beyond Words, location unknown.

Fremont National Forest. 1998. Best Management Practices for Roads. Internal Report. Lakeview, Oregon.

Fremont National Forest. 2001. North Warner access and travel management plan. Internal Report. Lakeview Ranger District. Lakeview, Oregon.

Fremont-Winema National Forest. 2004. Grassy Fire Burned Area Report. Internal Report. Lakeview, Oregon.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 4 - 23 Chapter 4 Furniss, Michael J. and Sam A. Flanagan, and Bryan McFadin. 2000. Hydrologically-Connected Roads: An indicator of the influence of Roads on Chronic Sedimentation, Surface Water Hydrology, and Exposure to Toxic Chemicals

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP). 1997. Evaluation of the EIS Alternatives by the Science Interaction Team: Volume II. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. Gen Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-406.

Kienzle, J. 1999. Soil Survey of Lake County, Oregon, Southern Part. USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Portland Oregon.

Leal, J. 2005 (draft). draft Aquatic biological assessment for Warner sucker (Catostomus warnerensis), Grassy Wildland Fire. Lakeview, Oregon.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2000. Oregon guidelines for timing of in-water work to protect fish and wildlife resources. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR.

Platts, W. S. 1991. Livestock grazing. Pages 389-424 in W. R. Meehan, editor. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Special Publication 19. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Price, James W. 2004. Statistical Analysis of Soil Compaction as a Result of Crushing Thinning Slash. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fremont-Winema National Forest. Internal Report.

Ralston, Jill A. 2004. Post-harvest Soil Compaction Monitoring, Cub Salvage. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fremont-Winema National Forest. Internal Data.

Rodnick, K.J, A.K. Gamperl, K.R. Lizars, M.T. Bennett, and E.R. Keeley. 2002. Thermal tolerance, metabolic physiology and morphological variation among redband trout populations (Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp.) in southeastern Oregon. Draft, unpublished report.

Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena, an Interdisciplinary Journal of Science- Hydrology-Geomorphology, Vol. 22, No. 3. pp. 169-198.

Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology.

Sigler, W.S. and J.W. Sigler. 1987. Fishes of the Great Basin, A Natural History. University of Nevada Press. 425 pp.

Smith, Roger. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, District Fisheries Biologist. October, 2004. Personal Communication.

Sonski, A.J. 1985. Culture of redband trout at a warm-water hatchery. Proceedings 1983 fish farming conference and annual convention. Fish farmers of Texas. Texas Agric. Exp. St., Texas A&M University.

Strahler, A.N. 1964. Part II Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks, In: Ed. Ven Te Chow) Handbook of Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill Book Co. New York, N.Y.

Swanson, F.J., and G.W. Lienkaemper. 1978. Physical consequences of large organic debris in pacific northwest streams. Gen Tech. Rep. PNW-69. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 12 p.

Chapter 4 - 24 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 4

Swanson, D.N. 1991. Natural Processes. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 139-179.

Troendle, C.A. and C.F. Leaf. 1980. Effects of Timber Harvesting in the Snow Zone on Volume and Timing of Water Yield. Proceedings, Interior West Watershed Symposium (D.A. Baumgartner, editor and compiler), April 8-10, 1980, Spokane, Wash., Cooperative Extension Services, Pullman, Wash. p. 231-243.

Troendle, Charles A. 1983. The Effects of Small Clearcuts on Water Yield from the Deadhorse Watershed; Fraser, Colorado. Proceedings of the 50th Annual meeting of the Western Snow Conference. Colorado State University, Fort Collins Colorado. 9 pp.

USDA. 1988. General water quality best management practices. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Land and resource management plan. Fremont National Forest. Lakeview, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 1996. Upper Thomas Creek Watershed; Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale. Fremont National Forest. Lakeview, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Upper Chewaucan Watershed Assessment – A Guide for Sustaining a Healthy Watershed for Future Generations, pp. 13-43.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fremont National Forest. 2000. Fremont National Forest Soil Productivity Guide for Ground Disturbing Activities. Revised July 24, 2000. 11 pp.

USDA Forest Service and UDSI Bureau of Land Management. 1998. Deep Creek Watershed Analysis – Ecosystem Analysis at a Watershed Scale. 145 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior. 1995. Interim strategies for Managing fish- producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, western Montana and portions of Nevada (INFISH).

USFWS. 1998. Recovery plan for the threatened and rare native fishes of the Warner basin and alkali sub- basin. Portland, Oregon.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000a. Status Review for Great Basin redband trout.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000b. Biological opinion and conference report for the implementation of land and resource management plans, as amended, on endangered Lost River and shortnose suckers and proposed critical habitat by Fremont and Winema National Forests, U.S. Forest Service, Region 6. Klamath Falls, Oregon.

Wenzel, D.L. 1979. Soil Resource Inventory, Fremont National Forest. USDA Forest Service.

WEPP Version 2001.10.10. 2001. Water Erosion Prediction Project, Disturbed WEPP Results based on WEPP Version 2000.100. http://fsweb.moscow.rmrs.fs.fed.us/fswepp USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Moscow Forest Science Laboratory, Moscow, Idaho.

Ziemer, R.R., and Lisle, T.E., 1993. Evaluating sediment production by activities related to forest uses--A Northwest Perspective. Proceedings: Technical Workshop on Sediments, Feb., 1992, Corvallis, Oregon. pp. 71-74

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 4 - 25 Chapter 4

Economics: Fahey, et al. circa 1990. Evaluation of Fire-Killed Ponderosa Pine for Volume and Value Loss. Timber Quality Research Unit PNW Research Station.

Lowell, E., et al. 1992. Deterioration of Fire-Killed and Fire Damaged Timber in the Western United States. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-292. Oregon employment Department. 2004. Labor Force Data. Civilian Labor Force. http://www.qualityinfo.org/olmisj/.

Oregon employment Department. 2004. Labor Force Data. Unemployed Level. http://www.qualityinfo.org/olmisj/.

Oregon employment Department. 2004. Labor Force Data. Unemployment Rates. http://www.qualityinfo.org/olmisj/AllRates.

Willets, Susan, et al. 1990. Lumber Recovery from Dead Ponderosa Pine in the Colorado Front Range. Research Paper PNW-RP-428

Inventoried Roadless Areas/Other Unroaded Areas: USDA. 2000. Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation FEIS. Volume I. Glossary, G-12

Noxious Weeds: Oregon Department of Agriculture. 1998. Noxious Weed Policy and Classification System.

Pimental, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 1999. Environmental and economic costs of non- indigenous species in the United States. Bioscience. 50:53-65.

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Lakeview, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Environmental Assessment for the Management of Noxious Weeds. Fremont National Forest. Lakeview, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Forest Service Manual Series 2000- National Forest Resource Management 2080.5 – Definitions.

Wenzel, D. L. 1979. Soil Resource Inventory. Fremont National Forest. Lakeview, OR.

Sensitive Plants: Abrams, L. 1940-1960. An Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States. 4 vol. Stanford University Press. Palo Alto, California.

Cronquist, A., A. H. Holmgren, N. H. Holmgren, J. L. Reveal, and P. K. Holmgren. 1977-1986. Intermountain Flora, Vascular Plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Volumes 1-6. Columbia University Press, New York.

Eastman, D. C. 1990. Rare and endangered Plants of Oregon. Beautiful America Publishing Co., Wilsonville, Oregon.

Hickman, J. C. (ed). 1993. The Jepson Manual; Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Chapter 4 - 26 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 4

Hitchcock, C. E. and A. Cronquist. 1974. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Volumes 1-5. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.

Hopkins, W. E. and S. Garrett. 1990. Sensitive Plant, Animal and Noxious Weed Guide, USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. R6-DES-tp-017-90.

Mienke, B. 1980. Threatened and Endangered Vascular Plants of Oregon: An Illustrated Guide. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

Munz, P. A. and D. D. Keck. 1973. A California Flora, with Supplement. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Range: Anderson, E.W., M.M. Boreman, and W.C. Kruger. 1998. The Ecological Provinces of Oregon. A treatise on the Basic Ecological Geography of the State. Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station.

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Environmental Assessment for the Warner Mountain Livestock Grazing Analysis. Fremont National Forest. Lakeview, OR.

Cultural Resources: USDI National Park Service. 1966 (amended in 1976, 1980, and 1992). The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

USDI National Park Service. 1995). National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Treaty Rights: USDA Forest Service. 1989. Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Lakeview, OR.

USDA Forest Service and Klamath Tribes. 1999. Memorandum of Agreement between The Klamath Tribes and the U.S. Forest Service.

Recreation and Scenic Resources: USDA Forest Service. 2004. Region 6. Fremont National Forest Website, Fremont National Forest Trails Systems. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/fremont/trails/wmtrails.html.

Roads/Transportation: USDA Forest Service. 2001. Fremont National Forest. North Warner Access and Travel Management Plan.

Other Literature Cited: Amaranthus, M. P., D. S. Parrish, and D. A. Perry. 1989. Decaying Logs as Moisture Reservoirs After Drought and Wildfire. In: Proceedings of Watershed ’89: A Conference on the Stewardship of Soil, Air, and Water Resources. USDA Forest Service. Alaska Region. R10-MB-77. pp. 191-194.

Brown, James K., Elizabeth D. Reinhardt, and Kylie A. Kramer. 2003. Coarse Woody Debris: Managing Benefits and Fire Hazard in the Recovering Forest. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-105.

Eglitis, A. 2003. Personal Communication.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 4 - 27 Chapter 4 Sexton, Tim. 1998. Ecological Effects of Salvage Logging and Grass Seeding Following the Lone Pine Fire, Winema National forest. USDI National Park Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, CO.

USDA Forest Service and USDA Bureau of Land Management. 1997. An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins Volume II. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405.

Ziel, Steve, Al Stover, and Charley Martin. 2004. Grassy Fire Suppression Reports. Grassy Fire – Fire Behavior and Fire Weather Narrative. August 13, 2004 – August 21, 2004. Grassy Incident Action Plan. August 15, 2004.

Chapter 4 - 28 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 4

Literature Cited in Comment Letters The six comment letters included approximately 93 scientific or commentary references as substantiation for statements included in the letters. The references cited in the comment letters were systematically searched out and evaluated. Some of these references had been cited amongst the sources used to prepare the EA. Additionally, in other cases, similar materials or finding from the same authors were already cited in the EA. Some of the references did not pertain to the Grassy project area because of topographical or climatic differences from the area discussed. In some instances, information from cited references was added to the EA. In other instances, the differing scientific conclusions were noted. The evaluation of the literature cited is a 29-page document entitled 2005_03_04_Grassy_comment_letter_citations_table. This document is in the project record and is available for review upon request. A list of citations from the comment letters is included here.

Amaranthus et al. 1987 Johnson et al. 2003 Reinhardt and Ryan. 1989 Amaranthus et al. 1989 Karr et al. 2004 Rhodes et al. 1994 Beschta et al. 1995 Kattelman. 1996 Roni et al. 2003 Beschta et al. 2004 Ketcheson and Megahan. Rose et al. 2001 Borchers and Perry. 1996 Rumbaitis-DelRio and Boxall. 2004 Kizzia. (no date given) Wessman. 2001 Brown et al. 2003 Korol et al. 2002 Saab and Dudley. 1998 CCEM Comm. #2. 1995 Laudenslayer et al. 2002 Scott and Speigel. 2002 Centers for Water and Lawrence and Minshall. Sexton. 1998 Wildland Resources 1996 1994 Shelby and Speaker. 1990 Crist et al. In Review LeClair. (no date given) Smith et al. 1993a, b Davis. 2003 Lindenmayer and Franklin. Sonner. 1997 Dellasala et al. 2004 2002 Spittler. In Press DeVelice and Martin. 2001 Lindenmayer et al. 2004 Stout et al. 1993 Espinosa et al. 1997 Loucks et al. 2003 Stittholt and DellaSala. 2001 Everett et al. 1999 Lyon. 1984 Umpqua Watersheds, Inc. Fisher. 2005 Marcot et al. 2002 1997 Fowler and Sieg. 2004 Mason et al. 2003 USDA Forest Service. 2000 Franklin et al. 1981 McIver and Starr. 2000 USDA Forest Service. 1996 Franklin et al. 2000 McNabb and Swanson. 1990 USDA Forest Service (FEIS Franklin and Agee. 2003 Megahan et al. 1992 database) (2) Franklin. 2004 Megahan. 1983 USDA Forest Service. Greenlee et al. 2000 Mellen et al. 1998 Bitterroot NF Grifantini. 1990/91 Minshall et al. 1989 USDA Forest Service. Grifantini et al. 1992 Minshall et al. 1995, 2001b Willamette NF H.J. Andrews Experimental Minshall. 2003 USDA Forest Service. Forest. 2005 Odion et al. 2004 Siskiyou NF (2) Harma and Morrison. 2002 Ohmann. 2003 USDA Forest Service. 1999 Harmon. 2002 Ohmann and Wadell. 2002 USDA and USDI. 2000 Harvey et al. 1980 Pannkuk and Robishaud. USDA Forest Service. 2000a Henjum et al. 1994 2003 USDA FS and USDI BLM. Hemstrom et al. 1998 Quigley. 1996 1997a Hungerford. 1991 Reid and Dunne. 1984

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Chapter 4 - 29 Chapter 4

USDA FS and USDI BLM. 1997b USDA FS and USDI BLM. 1997c USDA FS and USDI BLM. 2000 vonAhlefeldt and Speas. 1996 Wimberly. 2002 Ziemer and Lisle. 1993

Chapter 4 - 30 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA

Appendix A

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities Within the Cumulative Effects Analysis Area

Appendix A

Appendix A Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities Within the Cumulative Effects Analysis Area

Cumulative effects are the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of any action (in the case of this analysis, that action consists of the Grassy Fire Salvage Project) when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. In other words, cumulative effects are the total effect of direct and indirect effects of the action plus past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on a given resource. For most resources, the area of cumulative effects analysis for this project is defined by the Middle Honey and Upper Honey subwatersheds, regardless of ownership. The cumulative effects analysis area encompasses 40,824 acres.

This Appendix provides a tabular display of activities and natural events that already have occurred, are currently occurring, or are likely to occur in the two-subwatershed area of potential cumulative effect. For most resource consideration, this 40,824-acre area provides sufficient analysis because any potential cumulative effect beyond that involving a combination of the direct and indirect effects of the Grassy Fire Salvage Project, added to the activities displayed in the following tables, would not be of an intensity or duration to be significant or more likely to even be discernable.

There were three other large fires on the Lakeview Ranger District in the five years preceding the Grassy Fire. These include Thomas (1999), South Warner (2001), and Grizzly (2002). These fires ranged in size from about 1,700 acres to 5,800 acres. Post-fire salvage activities occurred on between 500 acres and 1,600 acres following these fires. These past fires are 20 to 25 miles apart, in three separate areas, in three different watersheds. None of them occurred in the Honey Creek Watershed. Since these past fires and post-fire salvage occurred within distinct and separate watersheds from the Grassy Fire, they do not present a potential for cumulative effects when considered in conjunction with effects from the Grassy Fire or from proposed post-fire management activity in the Grassy area.

The catalogue of the activities in the following tables does not in itself amount to a disclosure of cumulative effects. The information in the tables is supported with cumulative effects discussions in the environmental consequences sections of Chapter 3. This Appendix contains the following tables:

Grassy Fire Salvage Project – Past Activities (through 2004) Table A-1 – Fire History and Suppression – All Ownerships Table A-2 – Prescribed Fire – National Forest Table A-3 – Vegetation Treatments – National Forest Table A-4– Timber Salvage Harvest – Private Lands Table A-5 – Wildlife Habitat and Watershed Improvement Projects – National Forest

Grassy Fire Salvage Project – Past and Present Activities (through 2004) Table A-6 - Diversions, Ditches, and Other Uses – All Ownerships Table A-7a- Livestock Grazing Allotments – National Forest Table A-7b - Livestock Grazing Allotments - Honey Creek Allotment Utilization Levels – 1991 - 2004

Appendix A - 2 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix A

Grassy Fire Salvage Project – Past, Present, and Future Activities Table A-8 – Personal Use Firewood – National Forest Table A-9 – Noxious Weed Management Activities – National Forest

Source documentation that was used to prepare the following tables is displayed as Appendix A Bibliography at the end of this section. In addition, GIS layers were prepared to document spatial aspects of the information presented in the following tables. All of this source documentation is available in the Grassy Fire Salvage Project file or in GIS files at the Lakeview Ranger District.

Disclaimer: In some cases inconsistencies on the order of an acre or several acres are apparent in the following tables. These are inevitable in an undertaking of this scope. They are of a small enough magnitude as to be insignificant.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix A - 3 Appendix A

Grassy Fire Salvage Project – Past Activities – Through 2004

Table A-1 – Fire History and Suppression – All Ownerships Subwatershed (or other location designation) Past Activity or Event Ownership Date(s) Upper Honey (acres) Middle Honey (acres) Wildfires All 1949-1984 1,450.6 acres (total of both subsheds) Wildfire NFS 07/31/1985 0.1 Wildfire NFS 06/28/1987 1.0 acres Wildfire Non-NFS 07/27/1988 0.1 acres Wildfire NFS 07/18/1990 0.2 Wildfire NFS 07/30/1990 0.1 acres Wildfire Non-NFS 08/08/1990 0.5 acres Wildfire NFS 07/29/1995 0.1 acres Wildfire NFS 08/14/1996 0.1 acres Wildfire NFS 06/28/2001 0.1 acres Wildfire NFS 07/23/2002 1.0 acres 4,202* acres 2,988* acres (all ownerships) total. 1,146* acres (all ownerships) Grassy Fire 1,436 acres Fire started 420 acres (FS) 2004 - NFS, 8/13/2004 1,016 acres (FS) (lightning- 136 acres - * there are 198 acres in the Grassy fire, on caused) BLM, non-FS lands, that are outside the two 2,630 - subwatersheds that comprise the cumulative Private effects analysis area Grassy Fire Dozer All mid-August 2004 18.9 Miles (all outside of RHCAs) Fireline Grassy Fire Hand All mid-August 2004 9 Miles (1 mile within RHCAs) Fireline

Appendix A - 4 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix A

Grassy Fire Salvage Project – Past Activities – Through 2004

Table A-1 – Fire History and Suppression – All Ownerships (continued) Subwatershed (or other location designation) Past Activity or Event Ownership Date(s) Upper Honey (acres) Middle Honey (acres) Grassy Fire Existing Road Used All mid-August 2004 1.3 miles for Fireline Grassy Fire National Retardant Forest mid-August 2004 2,550 Gallons of FireTrol LCA-R Liquid Concentrate – Along west ridge of Honey Drops Creek and 300 feet of Honey Creek. Grassy Fire Roads Bladed to Facilitate All mid-August 2004 5 Miles Travel to and within Fire Area Grassy Fire Streams All mid-August 2004 Very low degree of impact as a result of burn. Low severity burn (in regard to soils). Background erosion – 0.01 to 0.05 tons/acre. Grassy Fire All mid-August 2004 Runoff – 0.00 to 0.02 inches. Post-fire erosion – 0.09 tons/acre. Post-fire runoff – Soils 0.04 inches overall.

Notes:

A P3 Heavy Air Tanker made a 2,550-gallon drop along the west ridge above Honey Creek. The drop missed low and a portion of the drop hit Honey Creek itself.

Approximately 300 feet of Honey Creek at the upstream end of the fire, was hit with FireTrol LCA-R Liquid Concentrate fire retardant. Live fish were observed in the area of the drop. Dead fish began to show up approximately 500 feet downstream of the retardant drop. It appeared that all of the fish in Honey Creek were killed in an approximately 2,000-foot long reach. At this time, abundant live fish again

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix A - 5 Appendix A

began to be apparent at the downstream end of the affected reach, approximately 2,500 feet downstream of the drop. In all, 216 dead fish (all trout) were counted, 100 of which were identified as redband trout and 65 of which were identified as brook trout; 51 fish were not identified to species due to their location at the bottom of deep pools, under logs, etc. Investigation of areas further downstream found no additional dead fish.

The two primary stream channels that burned in the Grassy Fire were Honey Creek and First Swale Creek. The Honey Creek stream channel showed a very low degree of impact as a result of the Grassy Fire.

The grassy fire resulted in 100 percent low severity burn (in regards to soils) and 0 acres of water-repellant (hydrophobic) soils. Erosion and sediment transport was estimated using Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) technology for the for the map units on the upper canyon slopes and plateau. Background erosion in this area is 0.01 to 0.05 ton/acre and runoff is 0.00 to 0.02. Post fire erosion is 0.09 ton/acre and runoff is 0.04 inches overall. These estimated rates are well below accelerated erosion rates, which would be on the order of 1.00 ton/acre.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project – Past Activities

Table A-2 – Prescribed Fire – National Forest Subwatershed (or other location designation) Past Activity or Event Ownership Upper and Middle Honey Prescribed Fire for Activities NFS Prescribed fire for activities fuels treatment was conducted on a few scattered clearcuts. All clearcuts Fuels were scheduled to be burned but very few were accomplished due to the cost/benefit ratio at the time.

Appendix A - 6 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix A

Grassy Fire Salvage Project – Past Activities – through 1994 Table A-3 – Vegetation Treatments – National Forest

Subwatershed

Year Timber Sale Activity Upper Honey (acres) Middle Honey (acres) 1977 John Can Clearcut 227.43 1977 John Can Planting 123.75 1980 Crooked B Clearcut 85.00 1980 Swale Overstory Removal 20.33 1980 Swale Clearcut 50.54 1982 Honey Overstory Removal 5.89 1982 Swale Clearcut 31.60 1982 Swale Planting 50.54 1983 Honey Clearcut 16.57 1983 Swale Planting 31.60 1984 Crooked B Planting 85.00 1984 Honey Planting 23.93 1984 Honey Overstory Removal 360.08 1984 Honey Clearcut 214.55 1984 John Can Planting 103.68 1984 Swale Clearcut 7.71 1985 Honey Planting 52.94 1985 Honey Timber Stand Improvement 355.88 1985 Swale Planting 7.71 1986 Honey Planting 154.25 1987 Military Overstory Removal 73.42 1987 Military Clearcut 289.68 1987 Military Planting 44.84 1989 Abert Overstory Removal 126.17 1989 Abert Clearcut 45.47 1989 Military Planting 144.05 1989 Tin Can Overstory Removal 127.05

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix A - 7 Appendix A

Grassy Fire Salvage Project – Past Activities – through 1994

Table A-3 – Vegetation Treatments – National Forest (continued)

Subwatershed

Year Timber Sale Activity Upper Honey (acres) Middle Honey (acres) 1989 Tin Can Overstory Removal 554.40 1989 Tin Can Clearcut 124.20 1990 Abert Timber Stand Improvement 156.35 1990 Blue Springs Timber Stand Improvement 38.40 1990 Military Planting 100.79 1990 Tary Overstory Removal 27.73 1990 Tary Clearcut 304.36 1990 Tin Can Planting 78.46 1991 Abert Planting 6.96 1991 Abert Timber Stand Improvement 38.84 1991 Abert Overstory Removal 26.82 1991 Tary Planting 304.36 1991 Tin Can Planting 62.24 1992 Abert Overstory Removal 357.83 1992 Abert Clearcut 160.12 1992 Blue Springs Overstory Removal 266.64 1992 Tary Timber Stand Improvement 27.73 1993 Abert Planting 198.63 1993 Abert Timber Stand Improvement 43.38 1993 Blue Springs Timber Stand Improvement 103.52 1994 Abert Timber Stand Improvement 190.94 1994 Tin Can Planting 11.54 1994 Tin Can Timber Stand Improvement 30.92 1994 Tin Can Timber Stand Improvement 211.61

Appendix A - 8 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix A

Grassy Fire Salvage Project – Past Activities

Table A-4– Timber Salvage Harvest – Private Lands Past Subwatershed (or other location designation) Activity Ownership Date(s) Middle Honey Salvage Harvest Private 2004 Approximately 450 acres.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project – Past Activities

Table A-5– Wildlife Habitat and Watershed Improvement Projects – National Forest Past Subwatershed (or other location designation) Activity Ownership Date(s) Upper Honey and Middle Honey Willow National Planting Forest early 1990s Along Swale Creek (mostly Upper Honey) Snag National Creation Forest early 1990s Within and near Grassy Fire area

Notes:

1. Willow Planting – Willow planting along stream channels in the early 1990s (Swale Creek and other areas). No exact legal descriptions available. 2. Snag Creation – Created spike tops and topped snags within and around Grassy Fire area. No exact legal descriptions available.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix A - 9 Appendix A

Grassy Fire Salvage Project – Past and Present Activities

Table A-6- Diversions, Ditches, and Other Uses – All Ownerships Subwatershed (or other location designation)

Type of Facility Date(s) Upper Honey and Middle Honey Taylor Ranches, Inc. - Honey Creek Diversion and Conveyance Ditch – both subwatersheds - Sections Diversion and 5 and 6, T. 37 S., R. 22 E., W.M., Section 32, T. 36 S., R.22 E., W.M. (Point of diversion: T37S, R22E, Conveyance Ditch 12/4/1963 S6, NW ¼ NW ¼). Agriculture Irrigation and Taylor Ranches, Inc. - 20-foot right of way for Honey Creek Diversion and Conveyance Ditch – both Livestock subwatersheds - T. 36 S., R. 22 E., W.M. Sec. 32, N1/2NE1/4, E1/2NW1/4, N1/2SW1/4 and Watering System SW1/4SW1/4. T. 37 S., R. 22 E., W.M. Easement 12/1/2000 Sec. 5, lot 2; Sec. 6, lots 1, 2, 3 and 6, S1/2NE1/4, SE1/4NW1/4 and NE1/4SW1/4. 10/10/1992 (originally established USDA Soil Conservation Service (now NRCS) – Sherman Valley – Upper Honey (not within project Snow Survey Site in 1954) boundary) - T. 37 S., R. 21 E., WM., sec. 15, NW1/4SE1/4,

Notes:

1. Honey Creek Diversion and Conveyance Ditch On December 4, 1963 a Special Use Permit was issued to Taylor Ranches, Inc. for the purpose of: “Constructing, maintaining, and using water diversion structures and a water transmission ditch.”

On December 1, 2000 an Agriculture Irrigation and Livestock Watering System Easement was granted to Taylor Ranches, Inc. for a 20 foot right of way for “occupancy with water conveyance system facilities” located on the following National Forest System lands: This easement terminated and supersedes the special use permit issued to Taylor Ranches, Inc. on 12/4/1963.

2. Snow Survey Site On October 10, 1992 a Special Use Permit was issued to USDA Soil Conservation Service (now known as Natural Resources Conservation Service) for the purpose of: “making snow surveys and related measurements pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement

Appendix A - 10 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix A

effective October 1, 1988, between the USDA – Soil Conservation Service (Washington and Oregon State Offices) and USDA – Forest Service (Region 6).” The Sherman Valley site was established in 1954, with a 400’ buffer surrounding the site.

Land Status All land within the Fremont National Forest boundary (within the Upper and Middle Honey Creek Watersheds) is National Forest System land; there are no private lands within this area.

Access Forest Service Roads 3615, 3616 and 3720 provide access to the general Grassy Fire Salvage planning area. Local arterial Forest Service roads provide access to specific proposed management areas.

A consent agreement needs to be authorized by Taylor Ranches, Inc., prior to the District’s planned construction of two temporary roads across the Honey Creek Ditch (planned location: T.36S., R.22E., WM., section 32, SW1/4).

Boundary Line A portion of the Forest boundary between sections 32 and 33, T.36S., R.22E., WM., and between sections 4 and 5, T. 37S., R.22E., WM., will be re-established in Spring, 2005.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix A - 11 Appendix A

Grassy Fire Salvage Project – Past, Present, and Future Activities

Table A-7a- Livestock Grazing Allotments – National Forest Allotment and Subwatershed (or other location designation) Period Covered Upper Honey and Middle Honey Honey Creek – (1937-1958) 850 Sheep Open Season July 1 – Sept 15 Honey Creek - (1958-1968) 250 Cow/Calf Pairs Open Season July 1 – Sept 30 Honey Creek – (1968-2004) 300 Cow/Calf Pairs Open Season July 1 – Sept 30

Notes:

For several years during the 1940s, heavy use by sheep was observed on sedges and bluegrass at Blue Spring Meadow and Second Swale Creek Notes from range personnel at this time discussed problems of high gopher populations near the creeks, trespass cattle, a band of 23 horses grazing the area, and poor feed years (i.e. drought).

Appendix A - 12 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix A

Grassy Fire Salvage Project – Past, Present, and Future Activities Table A-7b - Livestock Grazing Allotments Honey Creek Allotment Utilization Levels – 1991 - 2004 Blue Springs Riparian Pasture Burn Pasture Big Honey Pasture Locationa FP DM Green FP DM Green FP DM Green -----%----- inches -----%----- inches -----%----- inches Standard 45 50 4 45 50 4 45 50 4 2004 41 27 2003 11 4 2002b 65 5 59 3 45 2001 27 3.5/4 2000 39 4 21 4 45 4 1999 22 5 1998 39 31 5 1997 22 0 1996 5 35 1995 8 16 8 42 5 1994 41 4 29 39 4 1993 34 6 40 6 28 5 1992 1991 40 50 7 Grazing System: Deferred Rotation, alternating every 2 years, changing the pasture they come in first a Location of measurement taken on FP = floodplain, DM = dry meadow, Green = Greenline b In 2002, data was collected using ocular measurements by a landscape appearance method. However, the range specialist at the time felt grazing was in compliance no letters of reprimand were sent.

At present, the Honey Creek allotment includes two pastures grazed in a deferred rotation system on 8,796 acres of suitable National Forest System lands.

2005 Season: Range Management Specialist proposes to graze the pastures as scheduled starting July 1 after seed set for many species has occurred. The permittee will discourage livestock from entering the burn area daily during the season through the use of a range rider. The livestock will move through the burn at the end of the season to travel home.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix A - 13 Appendix A

Grassy Fire Salvage Project – Past, Present, and Future Activities

Table A-8 – Personal Use Firewood – National Forest Subwatershed (Or other location designation) Activity Upper Honey and Middle Honey The Upper and Middle Honey Creek subwatersheds have been lightly used in the past as a source of firewood (pers. comm. Gary Warburton and Tina Sazama).

The Lakeview Ranger District averages somewhat less personal use firewood permits per year than its neighboring districts to the north (Paisley and Silver Lake). For instance, Silver Lake RD has averaged 300 personal use firewood permits, for an average of 1,200 cords per year over a 20-year period. In 2004 the Lakeview Ranger Past Firewood District sold 135 personal use firewood permits, which contained a total of 609 cords, or 300 thousand board feet Cutting (mbf). The 2004 figure is somewhat below that of previous years. This is most likely because a good free-use firewood area was available in the Lower Cottonwood area, in the western part of the district (pers. comm. Kathy Knowles). The lower level of personal use firewood cutting on Lakeview RD, compared to neighboring districts to the north, is likely due to the fact that there is considerably less lodgepole pine on the Lakeview District. Additionally, Lakeview (unlike Silver Lake) is a long distance from any significant population center, so most of the firewood cutting is generated solely by Lakeview and south Lake County residents.

The Grassy Fire area and areas in the surrounding Honey Creek watershed, including the Upper and Middle Honey Creek subwatersheds, are currently being lightly used as a source of firewood in comparison to some other parts of Present the Ranger District. The North Warners have a shorter snow-free access season and they are further from town Firewood than the more favored Cottonwood and Dog Lake areas. The limited amount of firewood cutting that occurs in the Cutting Grassy Fire and Honey Creek area is dead ponderosa pine (pers. comm. Gary Warburton and Tina Sazama).

Some woodcutters do not mind cutting charred, dead trees. As a result, in the near future, firewood cutting in the Grassy area could increase slightly, as salvage operations end and the remaining dead trees become available to the Future public. However, any increase would be minimal. There are three other fires that have occurred over the past 4 1/2 Firewood years in the vicinity of Lakeview (Thomas, 2000, South Warner, 2001, and Grizzly, 2002). All three fires are Cutting closer to Lakeview than the Grassy Fire. All three fires were larger than the Grassy Fire. All three fires had equal to or greater acreages outside of commercial salvage units than would the Grassy Fire (in either action alternative).

Appendix A - 14 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix A

Grassy Fire Salvage Project – Past, Present, and Future Activities

Table A-9 – Noxious Weed Management Activities – National Forest Subwatershed (Or other location designation) Activity Upper Honey and Middle Honey

Weed Surveys 1998 and 2004 Past Weed Possible undocumented efforts to control weeds found in 1998 survey, as some of those sites do not exist at this Treatment time. Future Weed Herbicide application on sites found in 2004 survey, followed by seeding of (native) grass species (in localized Treatment areas surrounding the four noxious weed sites) to promote a more desirable species out-competing weeds.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix A - 15 Appendix A

Appendix A Bibliography

Anderson, E.W., M.M. Boreman, and W.C. Kruger. 1998. The Ecological Provinces of Oregon. A Treatise on the Basic Ecological Geography of the State. Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station.

Callaghan, C. 2004. Lands Existing Condition Report. USDA, Forest Service. Grassy Fire Salvage Project.

Elston, R. 2004. Grassy Fire – Firewood Activities with Potential Cumulative Effects. USDA, Forest Service. Grassy Fire Salvage Project.

Leal, J. 2004. Grassy fire Suppression. USDA, Forest Service. Grassy Fire Salvage Project.

Ramsey, M. 2004. Grassy Fire – Past Wildlife Projects with Potential Cumulative Effects. USDA, Forest Service. Grassy Fire Salvage Project.

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Environmental Assessment for the Warner Mountain Livestock Grazing Analysis. Fremont National Forest. 18049 Hwy 140 Lakeview, OR 97630

Warburton, G. and T. Sazama. 2004. Personal Communication. USDA Forest Service.

16 –Appendix A Grassy Fire Salvage Project

Appendix B

Mitigation Details

Appendix B

Appendix B – Mitigation Details

This appendix includes details of the mitigation measures first described in Chapter 2. These include:

• Best Management Practices – Roads • Best Management Practices – Timber Sale • Fremont National Forest Soil Productivity Guide

Best Management Practices (Fremont N.F. Supplement) Best management practices (BMPs) are the primary mechanisms to enable the achievement of water quality standards (Environmental Protection Agency, 1987). The following BMPs have been selected and tailored for site-specific conditions. The BMPs are a supplement to the General Water Quality Best Management Practices, Pacific Northwest Region, 1988. The Practices apply to road management activities implemented through timber sale contracts, public works contracts, and forest accounts.

The interdisciplinary team (soil/water/fish) specialists are responsible for including the BMPs in the Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for purposes of implementation on the ground. The interdisciplinary team should review the marking guide and contract documents to ensure inclusion of the BMPs.

Mitigation measures shown in the following BMPs shall be incorporated into the timber sale marking guide and the timber sale contract, as appropriate. Completion of environmental analyses and project implementation is the responsibility of the District Ranger. The Silviculturist should ensure inclusion of the BMPs in the marking guide and the Timber Management Assistant (TMA) should ensure they are included in the timber sale contract. The Sale Administrator is responsible for following through with implementation of the BMPs and Environmental Assessments (EA) as incorporated into the timber sale contract. It is the responsibility of the pre-construction engineer to ensure inclusion of BMPs into the road survey and design package. The Engineering Representative (ER) is responsible for following through with implementation on the ground.

In both timber sale contracts and public works contracts, mitigations found in the following BMPs should be included in the contract provisions and special project specifications. It is the responsibility of the pre-construction engineer to ensure inclusion of BMPs in the public works package. The Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) is responsible for following through with implementation on the ground.

Appendix B - 2 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix B

Roads R-1. Title: General Guidelines for the Location and Design of Roads. There are several general considerations, which must be incorporated into the planning of road locations and designs. These measures are preventive and indirectly protect water quality and associated aquatic resources. The following apply to all transportation activities:

a) A basic requirement for transportation facility development and operation is the formulation and evaluation of alternatives, and the selection of an alternative that best meets resource management objectives (safety, cost, and resource impacts are considered equally) with the least adverse affect on environmental values.

b) In the location, design, and construction of roads, an interdisciplinary team will be used to determine road layout and to evaluate the effects of transportation development and operations to minimize adverse economic, environmental, and social impacts.

c) Roads should be located to facilitate completion of the area transportation system, fit the terrain, and minimize damage to improvements and resources. Fragile and special areas that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level of resource damage should be avoided. The goal of transportation planning is to develop a transportation system with the minimum amount of roads needed to access forest resources.

d) Road design standards and design criteria are based on a transportation plan for the area, an economic analysis, road management objectives, which identify traffic requirements during and following the timber sale, safety requirements, resource objectives to be met or mitigated, and special resource concerns.

e) Stream crossing structures shall be designed to provide the most efficient drainage structure with resource protection, safety, and cost. The design will involve a hydrological analysis to determine runoff volumes, flood conditions, velocities, scour, and open channel shapes. Every attempt should be made to maintain the function of the floodplain or, if a single structure is used, will be designed to accommodate a 100-year flood event in accordance with standards set forth in the Inland Fish Strategy or other appropriate Regional Direction.

f) Road construction and maintenance activities shall follow the Forest Service Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges (EM-7720-100, 1995).

R-2. Title: Erosion Control Plan. There are specific contract provisions in the Timber Sale Contract (TSC) that provide for the operation plan. The Purchaser/Contractor must provide a written schedule for erosion control work. This will include all erosion control items identified in the contract. The corresponding public works contract clause is USDA 452.236-74. All phases of the project will be considered. The schedule for erosion control work must be approved by the Contracting Officer prior to implementation.

R-3. Title: Timing of Construction Activities. Minimize erosion by allowing road construction- related activities to operate only during low runoff periods. Soil erosion and sedimentation are directly related to runoff. Furthermore, equipment should not be allowed to operate when ground conditions

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix B - 3 Appendix B are such that detrimental puddling occurs and ruts from vehicle tracks reach four inches or more in 500 feet.

Timing of construction activities are subject to approval by the Engineering Representative (ER)/Contracting Officer's Representative (COR). The following are guidelines for timing of construction activities:

• Erosion control (e.g. placement of straw bales) will be kept current throughout the contract period. Specific items will be identified in the contract package.

• Construction of road drainage and other erosion control measures will be carried out as soon as possible after earthwork is completed. If drainage and erosion control cannot be completed prior to the fall wet season, then, construction should be delayed until the following year. When construction activities are carried out, erosion control measures will be completed prior to fall shutdown or outside the normal operating season.

Timing of instream construction is addressed in BMP R-13.

These guidelines should be incorporated into the contract and subsequently into the Erosion Control Plan that is prepared by the Purchaser/Contractor.

The timber sale contract has specific provisions that provide for the plan of operation and the Public Works contract provision is Schedules of Construction Contracts, reference FAR 52.236-15.

R-7. Title: Control of Surface Road Drainage Associated with Roads. Ditching, outsloping, insloping, and rolling the grade are used on roads to control surface erosion. On high clearance roads, diversion of water off road surfaces should be accomplished by rolling the grade of the road. Rolling of the grade is identified as part of the road location and carried through in pioneering and construction of the road (versus installing dips after the finished grade is complete). Standards for dip design on roads are found in the Transportation Engineering Handbook (FSH 7709.56). The recommended spacing of rolling dips is 400'/%Slope +150' (for example: a grade of 4 percent would have a spacing equal to 400'/4 + 150' = 250'). Rolling dips should be designed with an adverse grade on the downhill side and, where economically possible, should be armored with aggregate to prevent traffic from cutting through the structure.

Ditched roads should have culverts and/or dips installed periodically to carry this water across the road. Maximum spacing of culvert and/or road drainage structures should be determined by soil erosion classes and road grade as described in the Road Design Handbook (Lecklider and Lund, 1971). Water should not be released onto fill slopes. Culverts and dips should have outlets, which are protected by rock or other types of splash basins to reduce the energy of emerging water.

Because surface erosion on fill and cut slopes is also highest the first year after disturbance (Burroughs and King, 1989), it is necessary to have slope stabilization work completed while soil on cut and fill slopes are still in a roughened condition and prior to the first winter season after construction activities have started. This should be accomplished by applying a rapid growing, short-lived nurse crop such as

Appendix B - 4 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix B cereal rye/winter wheat or fast growing native species. Long-term establishment of native species should be pursued whenever possible.

Outsloping of the roadway is preferred, except in cases where outsloping would increase sediment delivery to streams or where outsloping is infeasible or unsafe.

Cross drains should be placed upslope from the stream crossings for a distance of at least 100 feet on roads with drainage dips and 300 feet on roads with culverts.

Where streams (perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral channels/draws) are crossed, fords or culverts should be used. An adverse grade should be provided in both directions from the stream crossing so that high water does not flow down the road surface prism during high flow events.

Construction activities within RHCAs should use straw bales and/or filter fabric where appropriate to control sediment input to the stream system. The typical locations for this material are below construction activities where an adequate natural buffer does not exist that would help to prevent sediment input during normal spring runoff. These filters should normally be placed higher than the 50-year floodplain, to prevent them from washing out during high runoff events.

Temporary roads should meet the following erosion control standards and mitigations:

a) Temporary roads shall not be constructed in RHCAs, as defined in BMP T-7. The exception to this is where the transportation system does not provide access to the area and a skid trail is necessary to cross the RHCA and to serve as access to the area. In this case a temporary road would be allowed, as an alternative to a skid trail. This should be evaluated and determined in the EA.

b) The maximum grade should be 10 percent on temporary roads that will be used for more than one season. Broad based dips or rolling of the road grade should be used for cross drainage. See BMP R-7 for details of broad based dips.

c) Temporary roads that are used for only one season should have waterbars installed at the spacing recommended in BMP T-16 for skid trails. Generally, temporary roads are removed prior to winter.

d) Temporary roads should be removed by obliteration (obliteration implies recontouring the road to the slope that matches the contour or sub-soiling and shattering a minimum of 80 percent of the compacted soil). Entrances of obliterated roads should be closed with large water bars/or other barriers that would prevent access to the area. Sub-soiled roads should have water bars and broad based dips along the length of the road to provide cross drainage. Cross drain spacing should be as recommended below.

e) All drainage structures should be installed according to BMP T-16 or R-7 and shall be in place, prior to fall/winter wet season. Alternatively, they should be removed as discussed above, if no longer needed.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix B - 5 Appendix B

R-8. Title: Constraints Related to Pioneer Road Construction. The following practices will reduce impacts associated with pioneering roads.

a) Construction of pioneer roads should be confined to the roadway construction limits unless approved by the ER/COR. Excavation shall be conducted to prevent undercutting the final cut slope and to minimize depositing materials outside the designated roadway limits.

b) Erosion control work will be completed prior to periods of fall/winter precipitation.

c) Live streams crossed by pioneer roads will be protected with temporary culverts or log structures unless timing of instream work is completed during the period that is allowed by the Fremont National Forest, Guidelines for Timing of Instream Construction. Temporary structures shall be removed prior to the fall/winter precipitation period.

R-11. Title: Control of Sidecast Material. To minimize impacts from uncompacted material, all fill material within RHCAs should be compacted (versus side casting of material). These mitigations should be included in the contract road package.

R-12. Title: Control of Construction in RHCAs.

a) Roads, fills, sidecast, and end-hauled material should be kept outside RHCAs except where necessary for stream crossings. Compaction of fill material is required, per BMP R-11.

b) Trees that are located adjacent to the channel with roots that provide channel stabilization and shade shall be left wherever possible (generally removal of trees is only required if they pose a public safety threat. Also, minimize damage to roots and stems of trees that are to be left.

c) Stream channel crossings will generally be at right angles to the stream channel. The purpose of right angle crossings is to achieve an adverse grade in both directions from the stream crossing. This will prevent water from running down the road surface during high flow events.

d) Maintain the water table within the floodplain by not cutting through the soil and developing a ditch that will drain the area.

e) Floodplains will remain intact and water will be allowed to flow over the entire width of the floodplain without being constricted by the road, (i.e. do not elevate the roadbed above the floodplain without additional outlets through the fill area; do not constrict the channel). Additional outlets may consist of culverts or low water fords that are placed throughout the entire length of the fill (if feasible) to maintain floodplain function.

R-13. Title: Diversion of Flows Around Construction Sites. The Oregon State Guidelines for Timing of In-water Work to protect fish and wildlife will be followed (attached). Waivers may be sought from time to time in emergency situations (such as catastrophic floods that wash roads out that require immediate replacement) or other factors affecting the timing of the project. In such cases, coordinate with Zone Fisheries Biologist and local State biologist to obtain a waiver. If threatened, endangered, or proposed species occur in or downstream of the project area, contact the Level I Team

Appendix B - 6 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix B member on the Forest for coordination with Fish and Wildlife Service. When diversion of flows around a construction site is not feasible, document rationale in appropriate NEPA documents.

The LRMP Standard and Guidelines, pg 200, identifies that project activities will be conducted in a manner to ensure that turbidity levels do not exceed ten percent of the pre-activity levels on perennial streams. Short-term violations for required in-stream construction work (i.e., restoration measures, bridges, etc.) are acceptable. Thus, projects that would result in long-term violations should use methods such as diverting water around the work area to reduce turbidity.

R-14. Title: Bridge and Culvert Installation and Protection of Fisheries.

a) BMP, R-13 provides guidelines for timing of instream construction. The preconstruction engineer shall design culverts on fish bearing streams that will provide fish passage. This will require coordination with the fisheries biologist to determine the species, maximum velocities, and other features that are necessary to obtain fish passage.

b) Excavated materials shall be kept out of live streams unless it is designed to be placed there (i.e. riprap, etc.).

c) Sediment-producing materials will not be left within the 100-year floodplain any longer than necessary to construct the facility. Once the construction is complete, fill material will be removed and properly disposed of in upland areas. If a flood is anticipated during the construction period, the fill shall not be placed within the 100-year floodplain.

d) Traffic will not be allowed to cross the stream during construction, except for short-term duration projects that meet the instream guidelines in the Fremont National Forest, Guidelines for Timing of Instream Construction. Otherwise, bypass and access roads shall be suitably located including plans for their subsequent obliteration.

e) As defined in the LRMP through inclusion of the Inland Native Fish Strategy, culverts, bridges, and other stream crossings shall be designed to accommodate the 100-year flood.

R-15. Title: Disposal of Right-of-Way and Roadside Debris. This practice is used to keep debris and slash generated during road construction and reconstruction out of watercourses. Slash shall not be disposed of within RHCAs unless specifically identified in the EA as mitigation to enhance large woody debris in the stream channel. Piling and burning, chipping, scattering, windrowing, and disposal into cutting units would be acceptable options depending upon site-specific conditions in roaded areas.

R-17: Title: Water Source Development Consistent With Water Quality Protection. The purpose of this practice is to provide water for road construction, maintenance, livestock, wildlife, and fire protection while maintaining the integrity of the water source. Timing and amount of withdrawal shall be directed towards maintaining instream flows and fish habitat. When flows are too low to allow withdrawal, water should be obtained from another approved source.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix B - 7 Appendix B

The Fremont National Forest Water Use Plan should be followed in water source development. The following are general guidelines from the Water Use Plan. More specific guidelines are found in the Plan.

Streams

1. Pumping, damming, or other activities that dewater a stream will not be allowed, except as described under R-13 for dewatering of construction site.

2. Recommended discharge rates listed in Table 23 of the Forest Plan will be considered minimums.

3. Discharge rates in all perennial streams not listed in Table 23 will be maintained as follows:

a. Flows will not be reduced more than 50 percent of the flow occurring at the time of withdrawal.

b. In no case will flows be reduced to less than 1.0 CFS.

Be cautious that downstream appropriated water rights may necessitate maintenance of flows higher than these minimums.

Springs and Seeps

Pond sources developed from springs and seeps will have a minimum of 25 percent of the water present at the time of withdrawal reserved in place.

These sources should not be used for road construction or reconstruction or dust abatement.

R-18. Title: Maintenance of Roads. Maintenance of roads associated with the timber sale should be commensurate with the Purchaser's use to prevent erosion damage to the road and adjacent lands. Minimum road maintenance requirements are:

a) Blading and shaping of the road surface and ditches shall be accomplished to maintain the original cross sections. Banks will not be undercut. Minimize the amount of gravel or other road surfacing material should bladed off the road surface.

b) Ditches, culverts, and other drainage features shall be kept clear of earth, slash, and other debris to maintain their efficient functioning.

c) Purchaser shall repair all damage to the road surface, drainage system, and associated structures resulting from the Purchaser's operations.

d) Road fills, which wash or settle, shall be restored.

Appendix B - 8 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix B

e) Snow will be removed during Purchaser operations by plowing it from the roadway so the road surface, road drainage, and adjacent resources are protected. This is further addressed under the BMP, R-21.

f) Preventative maintenance will be performed before fall/winter periods of precipitation. This should include water barring, insloping, outsloping, and closing roads.

R-20. Title: Traffic Control During Wet Periods. Roads that are used for all weather use will have a stable surface and sufficient drainage to allow use during moderate runoff events. Roads could be temporarily closed when soil conditions would result in road damage as defined in the Fremont N.F. Road Damage Policy FSM 7770.3 Supplement. The authority for this action is under the Forest Supervisor, to be recommended by the District Ranger and Forest Engineer.

R-21. Title: Snow Removal Controls to Avoid Resource Damage. This BMP should be used to prevent damage to watershed quality and minimize the impact on road surfaces and embankments as the result of snow removal operations and/or melt water drainage. Forest Snow Removal Policy should be used when snow removal is performed. This policy includes the following:

a) Banks shall not be undercut nor shall gravel or other surfacing material be bladed off the road.

b) Roadbed drainage ditches and culverts shall be functional during operations and upon completion of operations. Snow will not be plowed into ditches and culvert inlets, nor will the existing snow in those locations be packed down.

c) Snow removal shall be controlled to identify the usable travel way having roadbed support. Over-width plowing shall be reshaped as necessary to define the usable width. Snow will be removed from the total width of the travel way, including all turnouts. Snow will be plowed away from ditches and brought across the travel way. Snow shall be cast over the edge of fill slopes and off the shoulders whenever practical to do so, with the exception that snow shall not be deposited in stream channels.

d) Drain holes shall be constructed and maintained in the dike of snow or berm after each snow removal operation. Drain holes shall be placed to obtain surface drainage without discharging on erodable fills. The Purchaser shall be responsible for periodic inspections and maintenance to ensure that the drainholes, ditches, and culvert facilities remain open and functioning properly. Changes in this responsibility may occur if other use occurs and is agreed to in writing by both parties.

e) Roads shall be effectively closed, after operations, to wheeled vehicles at times and in the manner specified on the operation plan.

f) Remove snow for either public access or project use as established in the parent contract or permit.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix B - 9 Appendix B

R-23. Title: Decommissioning of Temporary Roads and Landings/Road Closures. This practice is expanded to include any road that is designated for decommissioning.

a) Block the road to vehicles using gates, earth mounds, or other types of barriers that have proven effectiveness in deterring vehicular use.

b) Obliterated roads and skid trails should have compacted surfaces subsoiled. Subsoiling implies the shattering of the compacted roadbed to restore soil condition. Subsoiling should be performed across the entire width of the surface with a minimum of 80 percent of the soil in a shattered condition. The pattern of subsoiling should be a J-hook that results in a waterbar and allows water to drain off the road and back to an undisturbed soil surface. Spacing of J-hooks should be those recommended below for drainage structures. On obliterated roads that are not J-hooked, waterbars shall be constructed at the same spacing as recommended for J-hooks. Also utilize blocking, erosion seeding, and logging slash where feasible in order to control access and minimize erosion.

c) Alternatively, obliteration could also include pulling fill back and re-contouring the road/trail prism to the original (natural) slope.

d) Obliterated roads shall be permanently closed with large water bars/or other barriers that would prevent access to the area.

e) Blocked roads

Provide the appropriate number and spacing of cross drains on blocked roads to assure proper drainage. The following table is a guide for cross drain spacing:

Table B-1: Cross Drain Spacing Guide Gradient (%) Cross Drain Spacing (feet) 0–5 200–160 6–10 160–120 11–15 120–100 16–20 100–60 21–30 60–40 31–45 40–25 46 + 25

Roads that will have continued use for administrative purposes should have broad based dips constructed. Dips should be installed on a spacing recommended in the Fremont National Forest - Guide to Erosion Control on Forest Roads and Trails. Spacing = 400 feet/% Slope +100 feet. Broad based dips should be designed with an adverse grade on the downhill side and, where possible, should be armored with aggregate to prevent traffic from cutting through the structure.

Appendix B - 10 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix B

Closed roads not needed for administrative purposes should have the culverts pulled and the floodplain reestablished.

Reason: Providing the appropriate cross drain spacing on roads and skid trails will help to keep water and eroded soil in the uplands. This will improve water quality by reducing unnaturally high levels of sediment and by keeping water in the uplands where it can be used by vegetation and where it is available for stream flow later in the season. The pulling of culverts or routine inventory and maintenance on closed roads will eliminate or reduce the likelihood of culverts and associated road fill failing releasing large quantities of sediment into the waterway.

R-24. Title: Landscape and Hazardous Material (Fremont National Forest Supplement).

a) Mechanical Equipment shall not be operated in live streams without written approval by the Contracting Officer.

b) All petroleum products or other hazardous substances (as defined in 29 CFR 1910.120) shall not be released on or into land, rivers, streams, and impoundments, or natural or manmade channels leading thereto. Whenever equipment is required to work in or around water, protective devices, as required by State and Federal Regulations, will be on site. Servicing of all equipment shall be done in areas approved by the Contracting Officer or their designated representative. The Operator/Contractor shall dispose of waste oil, vehicle filters (drained or free flowing oil), and oily rags in accordance with applicable State and Federal regulations and such material shall be transported off government property in accordance with State and Federal regulations.

c) If the total oil or oil products storage exceeds 1,320 gallons, or if any single container exceeds a capacity of 660 gallons, the Operator/Contractor shall prepare and submit a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan. Such plan shall meet applicable EPA requirements (40 CFR 112) including certification by a registered professional engineer. This plan shall include notification of appropriate state and federal officials, the Contracting Officer, and other appropriate agencies.

d) The Operator/Contractor shall immediately take action to notify the appropriate agencies (including the Contracting Officer, or designated representative), contain, and clean up, without expense to the Government, all petroleum products or other hazardous substances releases which are in the vicinity of the project and which are caused by the Contractor's employees, directly or indirectly, as a result of the construction operations. In the event the Government determines that additional resources beyond those of the Contractor's are required, the Contractor may be held liable for all damages and costs of the additional labor, subsistence, equipment, supplies, and transportation deemed necessary by the Government for the containment and clean up of petroleum products or other hazardous substances releases caused by Contractor's employees or resulting from construction operations.

e) The Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer, or designated representative, of any hazardous materials (as defined in 29 CFR 1910.120) to be used on the job and shall have

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix B - 11 Appendix B

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for those materials available on the job. All such materials shall be labeled in accordance with federal and state regulations.

Timber Sale Best Management Practices (BMPs) are the primary mechanisms to enable the achievement of water quality standards (Environmental Protection Agency, 1987). The following BMPs have been selected and tailored for site-specific conditions to arrive at the project level BMPs for the protection of water quality. The BMPs are a supplement to the General Water Quality Best Management Practices, Pacific Northwest Region, 1988.

The interdisciplinary team (soil/water/fish/timber) specialists are responsible for including the BMPs in the Environmental Assessment (EA) for purposes of implementation on the ground. The interdisciplinary team should review the marking guide and contract documents to ensure inclusion of the BMPS.

Mitigation measures shown in the following BMPs shall be incorporated into the timber sale marking guide and the timber sale contract, as appropriate. Completion of an environmental assessment and project implementation is the responsibility of the District Ranger. The Timber Management Assistant (TMA) should ensure inclusion of the BMPs in the marking guide and the timber sale contract. The Sale Administrator is responsible for following through with implementation of the BMPs and EA, as incorporated into the timber sale contract.

T-1. Title: Timber Sale Planning Process. Water quality, fisheries, and hydrologic considerations will be included in the timber sale planning process during development of the EA or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Mitigation measures shall be provided by soil/water/fisheries specialists, which may include these BMPs, amended as necessary for the specific project.

T-2 Title: Timber Harvest Unit Design. Timber units will be identified during the EA process and will be designed to meet the Purpose and Need identified. They should be designed in such a manner that they result in favorable conditions (or move toward favorable conditions) of water flow, water quality, soil productivity, and fish habitat. Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs), as defined by the Inland Native Fisheries Strategy (INFISH), are generally excluded from timber harvest, unless it is determined through the Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process that silvicultural practices are needed to enhance riparian vegetation characteristics or to promote large wood (INFISH, TM-1, pg E-7). In these cases, RHCAs may be entered; however, the following BMPs should be closely followed to protect the riparian resources.

T-4 Title: Use of Sale Area Maps for Designating Water Quality Protection Needs. In addition to what is already required on the Sale Area Maps, the following features must be located on the Sale Area map or a supplemental vicinity map. These areas should be flagged on the ground as determined necessary by the presale forester. This will provide information in addition to the required information that is required to be in the Sale Area Map. The purpose is to identify sensitive watershed features and provide for protection of these areas.

Appendix B - 12 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix B

• Category 1 through 4 Streamside Management Designation areas and associated RHCA widths (see BMP T7):

• Location of features to be protected, including scabrock flats and meadows and other features identified by the ID team.

• Unstable areas where no harvesting or mechanized equipment is to operate.

This map is prepared from input provided by the ID team and logging system specialists. As part of sale layout, the presale forester will mark the timber with the assistance of the hydrologist/fisheries biologist as requested. The Sale Administrator and Purchaser should review the mapped features and flagged areas on the ground prior to harvesting.

T-7 Title: Streamside Management Unit Designation. For these BMPs, the Streamside Management Units (SMUs) identified in the Forest Plan are replaced with RHCAs as defined in INFISH. The category of stream and RHCA width will be shown on the Sale Area map or supplemental vicinity map.

Category 1, Fish-bearing streams. Interim RHCAs consist of the stream and the area on either side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream channel to the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of two site-potential trees, or 300 feet slope distance (600 feet, including both sides of the stream channel), whichever is greatest.

Category 2, Permanently flowing, non-fish-bearing streams. Interim RHCAs consist of the stream and the area on either side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream channel to the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 150 feet slope distance (300 feet, including both sides of the stream channel), whichever is greatest.

Category 3, Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater than 1 acre. Interim RHCAs consist of the body of water or wetland and the area to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, or to the extent of the seasonally saturated soil, or to the extent of moderately and highly unstable areas, or to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 150 feet slope distance from the edge of the maximum pool elevation of constructed ponds and reservoirs or from the edge of the wetlands pond or lake, whichever is greatest.

Category 4, Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, wetlands less than 1 acre, landslides, and landslide-prone areas. This category includes features with high variability in size and site-specific characteristics. At a minimum the interim RHCAs must include: a) The extent of landslides and landslide-prone areas.

b) The intermittent stream channel and the area to the top of the inner gorge.

c) The intermittent stream channel or wetland and the area to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix B - 13 Appendix B

d) For Priority Watersheds, the area from the edges of the stream channel, wetland, landslide, or landslide-prone area to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 100 feet slope distance, whichever is greatest. No priority watersheds are located within this project area.

e) For watersheds not identified as Priority Watersheds, the area from the edges of the stream channel, wetland, landslide, or landslide-prone area to a distance equal to one-half the height of a site potential tree, or 50 feet slope distance, whichever is greatest.

Other Streamside Management Units. Ephemeral stream channels/draws shall have protection as required in the Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, LRMP Page 204. This requires that the bottoms of ephemeral channels/draws will not be used for skid trails, landing sites, or as road locations. There is no RHCA width associated with ephemeral stream channels. Equipment disturbance of duff and soil should be minimized. Timber Sale Contract B(T) provisions B(T) 6.422 and B(T) 6.5 apply.

T-8 Title: Stream course Protection Implementation and Enforcement. The objective of this BMP is to:

1. Protect the natural flow of streams,

2. Provide unobstructed passage of storm water, and

3. Prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering streams.

The following practices apply: a. Purchaser shall repair damage to banks and channels, to the extent practicable. b. Project debris shall not be left within the high water mark along stream channels, unless it would add to the objective of large wood recruitment. Wood that is 12-inch diameter (small end) and 8 or more feet in length should be left and smaller logging slash should be removed. The proportionality of the large wood may be adjusted by the ID team, considering such things as the size of the stream, amount of large wood that is naturally available in the dominant forest type adjacent to the riparian area.

RHCAs are areas that receive special protection. Normally timber harvest will not occur within RHCAs, except as noted under BMP T2. Every effort should be made to plan skid trails and the logging transportation system so that equipment does not need to enter RHCAs. When it is not possible to exclude RHCAs from operations, equipment should operate within guidelines provided below.

Crossing RHCAs. Equipment is permitted to enter RHCAs only at locations agreed to by the Sale Administrator and the Purchaser. Temporary roads and skid trails in RHCAs should be kept to as few as possible, and generally only be where it is not possible to move logs to the landing without crossing the stream channel. These should be designated following the guidance in BMP T11.

Appendix B - 14 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix B

Skidding across Category 1 and 2 streams is not permitted unless a temporary culvert or bridge is used that would keep all skidding activities out of the stream channel. Skidding across Category 1 and 2 should only be done at designated right angle crossings. Logs placed in the channel, parallel to flow, are acceptable, providing there is adequate space left for fish passage. Structures are temporary and shall be removed when not needed any more, at the end of the season or prior to seasonal rains, which ever occurs first. Damaged stream banks and crossings shall be reshaped to stable conditions and have a seed mix applied as designated in BMP T14.

Skidding across Category 4 streams and ephemeral channels/draws should only be done at designated right angle crossings. Damaged stream banks and crossings shall be reshaped to stable conditions and have a seed mix applied as designated in BMP T14.

No skidding is permitted across Category 3 ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands or across wetlands springs. Scabrock flats and meadows identified by the ID team (see BMP T4) should not be skidded across. If there is a question during skid trail layout, seek the advice of the hydrologist.

Timber Harvest Within RHCAs. In general, skid trails will not be allowed in RHCAs for purposes of logging the RHCA, unless it is determined necessary for riparian benefit (see BMP T2). When it is determined that logging will occur within RHCAs, skid trails will not be allowed within 100 feet of stream channels, except where crossings are required as provided in 1 through 3 above. Any material removed from within 100 feet of stream channels should be endlined or removed with low PSI equipment (approximately less than 7.5 psi) to designated skid trails. Winter logging, as defined in BMP T13, may allow skid trails and dispersed operations within the entire width of the RHCAs, by written agreement, if winter logging requirements are met. This exception does not apply to wetlands and scab rock flats.

Generally, it is unacceptable to utilize existing landings, skid trails, temporary roads, etc. within RHCAS, except for right angle crossings, as provided in 1 through 3 above. In some exceptions, the Sale Administrator may utilize these areas when the operator would rehabilitate these areas, and there would be a net ecological gain from doing so. This will be left up to the discretion of the Sale Administrator, who should seek advice from the hydrologist or fisheries biologist.

Water bars and other erosion control structures will be located in a manner that will prevent water and sediment from being channeled into streams, and to dissipate concentrated flows.

T-9. Title: Determining Tractor Loggable Ground. Areas requiring special skidding requirements (i.e. bull lining) shall be shown on the Sale Area Map, as identified by the ID team. The maximum slopes suitable for ground based skidding equipment are identified in the Fremont National Forest - Soil Resource Inventory (SRI). Where short steep pitches exceed those in the SRI, special mitigations such as endlining logs from the steep slopes to ground based skidding equipment working on more gentle slopes is allowed. Unless approved by the sale officer, hand felling will be required, as well as hand water barring, in the steep slope areas.

The equipment restrictions discussed above also apply to post harvest slash treatment and site prep operations where ground based equipment is used, these considerations should be identified in the EA or EIS.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix B - 15 Appendix B

T-10. Title: Log Landing Location (Fremont - N.F. Supplement). The Sale Administrator and Purchaser, prior to construction or opening existing landings, must agree to the location and clearing limits for all landings. The following criteria will be used for landing location and design. 1. The cleared or excavated site shall be no larger than needed for safe and efficient logging.

2. Where a choice exists, sites are selected for the least amount of excavation and erosion potential.

3. No landings will be allowed in critical watershed or soil areas, RHCAs, or protected streams. Existing landings will not be used within RHCAs, except as provided under BMP T8.

4. Landings are located where the least number of skid roads are needed.

5. Where practical, landings are positioned for level skid road approach.

6. Landings will be shaped to drain in a planned direction and manner to minimize erosion and sediment delivery to streams, roads and road ditch lines.

7. Seed landings per BMP T14 (none).

8. The specific contract provision, which provides for constructed landings, is C (T) 6.422.

T-11. Title: Tractor Skid Trail Location and Design. All skid trails shall be flagged on the ground by the Purchaser or agreed to by description between the sale administrator and the Purchaser prior to use or construction.

On lands with prior entry, spacing between skid trails should be approximately 100-150 feet. Existing skid trail systems should be used to the extent practicable to achieve the 100 to 150-foot spacing. Those skid trails between the 100 to 150-foot spaced skid trails should generally not be used, unless otherwise identified in the EA.

On those lands with no prior entry, dedicated skid trails should be used. Spacing of skid trails should average approximately 100 to 120 feet in width and should average not more than 12 feet wide. The contract has specific contract provisions that provide for skid trail location and special skidding and yarding methods.

The following apply to logging methods and equipment:

Conventional Logging Methods

1. All harvest units will utilize designated skidtrails.

2. Spacing of skidtrails should average 100 to 150 feet apart and average not more than 12 feet wide.

Appendix B - 16 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix B

Mechanized Logging Equipment

1. Conventional skidding equipment should be confined to designated skid trails.

2. Go-to machines, i.e., those feller bunchers that drive up to each individual tree, will generally not be permitted unless the soil is frozen or snow covered, as discussed in the Fremont National Forest Soil Productivity Guide.

3. Mechanized cut-to-length systems and forwarders with ground pressure (approximately less than 7.5 psi) that drive over a continuous 4 to 6-inch layer of slash are acceptable for dispersed operations.

4. Feller buncher equipment with psi ratings of approximately 7.5 psi or less can operate off of main skid trails during the dry period of the year (July 1 through October 31). Outside of this period, soil moisture must be less than 15 percent to operate off of the main skid trails (except for winter exception BMP T13). Cutting lanes should be used that are spaced approximately 40 feet apart.

T-13. Title: Erosion Prevention and Control Measures During Timber Sale Operations. Restrict winter logging to conditions that protect the soil. Soil should be frozen to a minimum of 4 inches and/or have a snow cover of a minimum of 18 inches. Snow must be firm, i.e., cold conditions, and not soft from an extended or daily warming period. Tires and/or tracks breaking through the snowpack to an unfrozen soil surface are unacceptable operating conditions.

Erosion control work, road maintenance, and other contractual agreements must be completed in a timely manner as specified in the timber sale contract.

Logs will normally be fully, or one end partially, suspended in harvesting operations.

The operating period will be limited to restrict the Purchaser's activities to specified periods of the year or as agreed to in writing, when necessary to protect a resource (see BMP T11 for period of operation for feller bunchers). The Timber Sale Contract provides for the Operating period.

T-14. Revegetation of Areas Disturbed by Harvest. Seed should be applied on areas of bare mineral soil that are over 1000 square feet in area. This typically includes temporary roads, landings, stream crossings, etc. (see explanation below).

Seed shall meet the requirement that the seed does not contain noxious weed seed in excess of established state limitations as listed in the current “State Noxious Weed Requirements Recognized in the Administration of the Federal Seed Act” publication (commonly referred to as the “all states” noxious weed seed list). Provision CT 6.6# shall be applied. The seed shall be a sterile wheat grass applied at a rate of 25 pounds per acre, unless otherwise identified in the EA, or native seed when available and specified by the ID team. If this seed cannot be obtained, the Sale Administrator may allow another seed mix, subject to review with the hydrologist or fisheries biologist. The specific contract provision which provides for the seed mixture is C (T) 6.6#.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix B - 17 Appendix B

Note: The Fremont-Winema Native Species Plan will guide all future applications of seed associated with this project. For this project, any seeding would occur only after post-sale activity monitoring determined the need for seeding. Application of seed would be by the Forest Service. It is expected that monitoring will indicate that natural revegetation is sufficient and that no seeding is needed. At any rate, the timber sale contract for the Grassy Salvage project will not include requirements to seed.

T-15. Title: Log Landing Erosion Prevention and Control. Contract provisions will require that landings associated with the timber sale will be ditched and/or sloped to permit drainage and dispersion of water. The contract provides for landing post-sale work. After landings have served the Purchaser's purpose, the Purchaser shall ditch or slope the landings to permit the drainage and dispersion of water. All skid trails and temporary road waterbars in the vicinity of the landing will be drained so that all water is turned and will not enter the landing.

T-16. Title: Erosion Control on Skid Trails (and Cable Corridors). Skid Trails The location of all erosion control measures shall be agreed to on the ground by the Purchaser and Sale Administrator. Waterbars constructed on skid trails must be located, and properly constructed, to provide adequate cross drainage that reduces erosion, dissipates sediment and helps to keep water/sediment within upland areas.

The water bar should be cut into the native soil to a minimum depth of 6 inches and should have an 18- inch rise between the low point and high point. Alternatively, when skid trails are not entrenched, slash barriers can be used. Slash barriers should be constructed of slash that is a minimum of 3 inches in diameter and larger material, and should run perpendicular or slightly skewed to the trail. The barrier should extend outside of the trail area to direct sediment and water onto the uplands.

Waterbars and slash barriers should have outlets that are open and will allow free flow of water and sediment onto the uplands.

Provide the appropriate number and spacing of cross drains on skid trails and skid roads. The following table is a guide for cross drain spacing:

Table B-2: Cross Drain Spacing Guide - Timber Spacing Non-pumice soil Pumice soil Gradient (%) Cross drain (feet) Cross drain (feet) 0–5 200–160 200–300 6–10 160–120 200–160 11–15 120–100 160–120 16–20 100–60 120–100 21–30 60–40 100–60 31–45 40–25 60–40 46 + 25 25

Appendix B - 18 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix B

Cable Corridors A minimum of one slash barrier should be placed every 100 feet along the length of cable logging corridors. Slash barriers should be constructed as discussed above. The sale administrator will designate hand placed water bars on areas of the corridors that show potential to channel water due to cable logging activities, using the above distance guide.

T-17. Title: Meadow Protection During Timber Harvesting. Tractor harvest is excluded year round from wetlands, bogs, wet meadows and scabrock flats. The wet meadow areas shall be identified on the timber sale vicinity map. The specific contract provision, which provides for exclusion of these areas from tractor and other equipment activity, is B (T) 1.0 and B (T) 6.61. The specific contract provision which provides for wetlands protection is C (T) 6.61#

Additions to Best Management Practices (from INFISH - General Riparian Area Management) RA-2. Trees may be felled in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas when they pose a safety risk. Keep felled trees on site when needed to meet INFISH woody debris objectives.

RA-4. Prohibit storage of fuels and other toxicants within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas. Prohibit refueling within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas unless there are no other alternatives. Refueling sites within a Riparian Habitat Conservation Area must be approved by the Forest Service and have an approved spill containment plan.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix B - 19 Appendix B

Appendix B - 20 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix B

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix B - 21 Appendix B

Appendix B - 22 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix B

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix B - 23 Appendix B

Appendix B - 24 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix B

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix B - 25 Appendix B

Appendix B - 26 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix B

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix B - 27 Appendix B

Appendix B - 28 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix B

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix B - 29 Appendix B

Appendix B - 30 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA

Appendix C

DecAID Background Information Appendix C

Appendix C – DecAID Background Information

The data in DecAID was considered for use in designing snag retention guidelines for this project. DecAID is an advisory tool developed to help wildlife managers evaluate the effects of forest conditions (existing conditions or conditions that would result from proposed activities) on wildlife that use snags and down wood. It is a summary, synthesis, and integration of current scientific knowledge about the sizes and amounts of snags and down wood used by cavity nesting birds in specific vegetation types in the West.

The information contained in DecAID is based on published scientific literature, research data, expert judgment, and professional experience. It is primarily a statistical summary of published research data for wildlife presence (mainly cavity-nesting birds) and inventoried forest conditions (Mellen et al., 2003). DecAID presents information on the range of “natural conditions” (as represented by unharvested plots within the plots sampled) “current conditions” (all plots sampled, including both unharvested and harvested plots) and wildlife use, with respect to:

• Densities (abundance) of snags and down wood • Sizes of snags and down wood DecAID can help managers decide how much snag and down wood of different sizes should be retained to meet wildlife management objectives for a particular project or area (Mellen et al., 2003).

Three types of data sets provided in DecAID were used to consider potential snag and down wood percent cover recommendations for this project. They include:

• Wildlife data • Vegetative inventory data • Distribution data (this data set summarizes information from the vegetative inventory data to display the abundance and distribution of different elements, for example, snags larger than 30 inches dbh, across the acreage of the vegetative inventory data plot samples). DecAID uses several terms in a very specific and somewhat complex way. They are defined here for the reader’s convenience and understanding. Throughout this document, the three data sets—wildlife data, vegetative inventory data, and distribution data— appear in boldface type to remind the reader to reference this section on specific terminology and to aid in understanding the DecAID tool.

Definition of “Tolerance Level,” as Used in DecAID, for Wildlife Data “Tolerance level” is the number of individual birds within a given population that will nest in forest stands characterized by a certain number and size range of snags. For

Appendix C - 2 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix C

example, black-backed woodpeckers show a 30 percent tolerance level for stands that contain 62 snags of 10 to 20 inch dbh. This means that 30 percent of all the black-backed woodpecker nests in that area were found in that kind of stand.

In burned areas, black-backed woodpeckers prefer to nest in areas with many relatively small (10 to 20 inches dbh) snags. Thus, for black-backed woodpeckers, stands with more of these snags support a higher tolerance level. For instance, when stands are characterized by as many as 88 snags in the 10+ inches dbh size, they support a 50 percent tolerance level, that is, half of the black-backed woodpecker nests in a given population are found in stands that provide this range of snag size and abundance. Thus, tolerance level for wildlife data can be interpreted as an assurance that stands characterized by a given range of numbers and sizes of snags will be used for nesting by a given percentage of a particular bird population. DecAID provides data for use of nesting sites at three different tolerance levels: 30 percent, 50 percent, and 80 percent (Mellen et al., 2003).

Definition of “Wildlife Data” as Used in DecAID “Wildlife data,” as used in DecAID, refers to the data collected in a variety of wildlife studies conducted in specific vegetation types found in the West. Most of the data was collected for bird species, primarily cavity-nesters such as woodpeckers. The wildlife data in DecAID is provided in the form of tolerance levels of 30 percent, 50 percent, or 80 percent. In other words, for a given study location, data was collected that correlated certain stand conditions (size and abundance of snags and down wood) with nesting use by 30 percent, 50 percent or 80 percent of the population of a particular species in that area.

One of these wildlife studies looked specifically at post-fire habitats in the State of Idaho. That study, which collected data on 35 black-backed woodpecker nests, found that 30 percent of the nests occurred in stands that had a minimum of 62.2 snags of 10+ inches dbh, per acre. Fifty percent of the nest sites were found in stands that had a minimum of 88.3 snags of 10+ inches dbh, per acre, and 80 percent of the nests were located in stands that had a minimum of 126.1 snags of 10+ inches dbh, per acre (Mellen et al., 2003). Referring to the array of wildlife data collected (not just that for post-wildfire habitats) DecAID notes:

“The wildlife studies, on which the wildlife portion of DecAID is based, were conducted in a variety of landscapes and site conditions. Typically, the studies (a) did not report how the general study areas and specific study sites were chosen relative to others, and (b) did not describe how the vegetation conditions within the general study areas and specific study sites differed from conditions within a broader area, especially within the wildlife habitat and vegetation condition classes used in DecAID. There is no way to know to what degree the study areas and sites varied from conditions generally present, and, thus, no way to gauge the bias in study area and site selection. In turn, this means there is no way to estimate the degree of bias in the wildlife data summarized in DecAID.” (Mellen et al., 2003).

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix C - 3 Appendix C

Definition of “Down Wood Percent Cover” as Used in DecAID: DecAID includes data on down wood, a habitat component used by many wildlife species. DecAID uses “down wood percent cover” to measure the presence of down wood on a given acre. “Down wood percent cover” means, within a given area, the percentage of the ground that is covered with down wood at least 5 inches dbh on the small end and at least 10 feet long. Wood in any decay class is included in the measurement as long as it meets the size criteria.

This way of measuring down wood was used in DecAID because it best describes the abundance of down wood as it relates to wildlife use (Carey, 1995). “Down wood percent cover” is one of the most precise and efficient means of recording amounts of down wood, and is the measure most commonly used in research studies that investigate wildlife use of down wood. As an illustration of how this measure is applied, one acre exhibiting 0.9 percent down wood cover might contain:

• One 30-inch dbh ponderosa pine down tree 100-feet long • One 20-inch dbh ponderosa pine down tree 80-feet long • One 15-inch dbh ponderosa pine down tree 60-feet long • Two 10-inch dbh ponderosa pine down trees 40-feet long

Or, that same acre could also exhibit 0.9 percent down wood cover with one of the groups below:

• 4.0 - 20-inch dbh ponderosa pine down trees 80-feet long OR • 6.7 - 15-inch dbh ponderosa pine down trees 60-feet long OR • 16.7 - 10-inch dbh ponderosa pine down trees 40-feet long.

Definition of “Vegetative Inventory Data” as Used in DecAID The second set of data included in DecAID is data about vegetative conditions from around the Pacific Northwest. This data set is called the “vegetative inventory data,” sometimes shortened to “inventory data.” This data set consists of a sample of forest inventory plots, which, in addition to recording sizes, numbers, and species of live trees, also record sizes and numbers of snags and down wood, taken from:

• Current Vegetation Survey (conducted on National Forest System lands in the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region).

• Forest Inventory and Analysis (conducted on lands other than National Forest System lands, by the Pacific Northwest Research Station of the USDA Forest Service).

Appendix C - 4 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix C

• Natural Resource Inventory (conducted by the USDI Bureau of Land Management on BLM lands in Oregon) (Mellen et al., 2003).

The vegetative inventory data set summarizes the data from these various inventory plots in various categories, such as:

• The data from only those inventory plots that have not been harvested.

• The data from all inventory plots in their current condition, including those that have been harvested.

• The data from only those inventory plots that contained measurable snags.

• The data from all inventory plots, whether or not they contained measurable snags.

A map of the plot locations (both harvested and unharvested) used in DecAID can be found on the following website: http://www.notes.fs.fed.us:81/pnw/DecAID/DecAID.nsf.

Definition of “Tolerance Level,” as Used in DecAID, for Vegetative Inventory Data DecAID also uses the term “tolerance level” with respect to the dead wood conditions measured in the vegetative inventory data set. However, “tolerance level” has a different definition when used in conjunction with the vegetative inventory data set. In this context, tolerance levels describe the sizes and amounts of dead wood found to be characteristic across the landscape (that is, the area represented by the sampled plots), for a certain vegetative type (for example, ponderosa pine) in a certain condition (for example, unharvested) (Mellen et al., 2003). To more fully illustrate this definition, the following example, extracted from DecAID, is offered:

For the category: vegetative type Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir Forest, Small/Medium Trees, in the condition unharvested, and contains measurable snags, a tolerance level of 80 percent with respect to snags reflects the fact that 80 percent of the acres from the plots in this category have fewer than 7.3 snags/acre (10 inches dbh or larger) and 20 percent of the acres have more than 7.3 snags/acre (10 inches dbh or larger). In other words, for all the acres sampled in the small/medium ponderosa pine/Douglas fir category that have never been harvested and that contain some amount of snags, 80 percent of the time these acres had fewer than 7.3 snags (10 inches dbh or larger).

It is important to remember that these data represent average snag numbers for a particular vegetative type and condition at a regional level, rather than vegetative conditions and snag numbers specific to nest sites. When considering this data, wildlife managers need to adjust it in light of the vegetation conditions present in their local project area.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix C - 5 Appendix C

It is also important to recognize that the vegetative inventory data for unharvested plots represents vegetation conditions (including presence and abundance of snags and down wood) measured at a single point in time. Yet these conditions reflect events (such as fire or the suppression of fire) that have occurred over a span of time, potentially anywhere from decades to centuries (Mellen et al., 2003). For this reason, Johnson and O’Neil (2001) recommend that caution be exercised in using DecAID’s vegetative inventory data to describe the estimated historical range of conditions with respect to dead wood, because the vegetative inventory data is only a sample of current conditions and lacks information about site history.

Even assuming a “natural” forest could be found from which inventory data could be gathered, the size and abundance of snags and down wood have been altered to an unknown degree by fire suppression and other human influences. On the east side of the Cascades in particular, current levels of snags and down wood in some areas may be higher than historically existed, because of successful fire suppression and increases in mortality due to the development of overly dense stands.

Other areas on the eastside may exhibit snag and down wood numbers lower than historic levels because snags/down wood were consumed in severe fires or removed by repeated harvest and firewood cutting (Johnson and O’Neil, 2001). Mellen et al. (2003) also notes that the vegetative inventory data in DecAID does not represent recent post-fire conditions very accurately because the plots sample a wide variety of disturbances, including but not limited to fire.

Definition of “Distribution Data” as Used in DecAID The distribution data set summarizes from the vegetative inventory plot data how a particular vegetative condition (for example, the presence of snags) in a particular vegetation type (for example, ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir, small/medium trees) is distributed across the landscape (that is, the area represented by the sample plots). For example, the distribution data for plots in the category: Ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir, larger tree vegetative type, unharvested condition, shows that 54 percent of these plots contained no snags, and 46 percent contained snags bigger than 10 inches dbh.

How the Data in DecAID was Reviewed Specific to the Grassy Fire Salvage Project Based on the tree size in the project area, it was determined that the Ponderosa Pine/Douglas fir Forest, Small/Medium Trees Vegetation Condition was the appropriate summary to use. It is assumed that the unharvested inventory data provides the best picture available of “natural conditions.” However, it is recognized that the unharvested inventory data is represented as vegetation conditions from plots measured at a single point in time and the current conditions express events that have occurred over the past decades to centuries (Mellen et al., 2003). Therefore, snag levels do not provide true estimated historical conditions; however, this is the best data available to attempt at discovering an appropriate level and distribution of snags across a landscape in green stand conditions. Inventory data and distribution data were reviewed in light of existing Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.

Appendix C - 6 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix C

The proposed project area consists primarily of dry ponderosa pine communities. The average rainfall is low and the overall productivity of the area is moderate. While there are some mixed conifer stands present, these stands consist primarily of ponderosa pine with a white fir component. Due to fire exclusion, there has been significant encroachment by younger white firs into these stands. These stands are not sustainable over time, and likely never have been. These stands are ponderosa pine and white fir and whenever there is decreased rainfall the white fir component experiences insects and mortality increases. Historically, there would have been a much smaller component of white fir, and these stands may not have been considered mixed conifer. Based on this information, mixed conifer stands were not considered during analysis of DecAID information. Other areas are interspersed with grass and brush, and most of these areas have juniper growing on them as well.

As stated in DecAID, it is important to consider that the estimates of snag densities, snag diameters, and down wood percent cover represent average conditions within a vegetation condition at the regional level, rather than conditions around specific nest sites (Mellen et al., 2003). Within DecAID, snags were measured if they were over 6.6 feet tall. The inventory plots represent a range of habitat types from low elevation ponderosa pine communities with lower snag densities and overall stocking levels, to higher elevation ponderosa pine communities with higher snag densities and overall stocking levels. Table C-1, below, identifies potential snag and down wood retention levels based in part on the guidance in the draft DecAID guide, site conditions, moisture regimes, and historical fire regime of low intensity, frequent fires. Based on this information, the 80 percent tolerance level was not used for consideration.

Table C-1: Potential Snag and Down Wood Tolerance Level Application and Locations Applied for the Grassy Project Tolerance Level % Locations on Landscape

50 North and East Aspects < 20% slope

30 Remaining Areas

Snag Diameter (DBH) The 30 percent tolerance level for snags used by wildlife ranged from 5 to 26 inches. Most species were found using snags greater than 15.8 inches dbh except for foraging snags. The 50 percent tolerance level for snags used by wildlife ranged from 9 to 30 inches. Most species were found using snags between 20 and 32 inches dbh. However, black-backed woodpeckers showed a preference for using smaller snags, which are in the 15-inch dbh range.

Inventory data in DecAID show the following distribution of snag size classes and percent occurrence on unharvested plots.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix C - 7 Appendix C

Table C-2: Potential Snag Distribution by Size Class Using DecAid Data for the Grassy Project Percent of Total Percent of Snag Size Snags Measured Occurrence 10-19.7” 75 28 >19.7” 25 19 >31.5” 7 13 Note: the greater than 31.5 inches snag size is a component of the greater than 19.7 inches snag class.

Small/Medium Trees Ponderosa Pine Snag Density The 30 percent tolerance level for unharvested inventory plots that contained measurable snags is 1.3 or fewer snags/ac greater than 10”dbh. The 50 percent tolerance level for unharvested inventory plots that contained measurable snags is 2.6 or fewer snags/ac greater than 10”dbh. This is data for only those unharvested inventory plots that contained measurable snags.

Considering that 1.3 snags/acre greater than 10 inches dbh and 2.6 snags/acre greater than 10 inches dbh are for only those plots that contained measurable snags, it is likely not appropriate to manage for this level across the landscape because not all plots contained measurable snags. This is consistent with Johnson and O’Neil’s prediction that clumping of snags may be a natural pattern in the ponderosa pine communities (2001). Therefore, the distribution data was used as a guide to determine how snags were distributed under “natural condition,” what approximate percentage of the landscape provided measurable snags, and what approximate percent of the landscape did not provide measurable snags. The distribution data demonstrates that of all the unharvested inventory plots, 54 percent contained 0 snags and 46 percent had measurable snags greater than 10 inches dbh. Table C-3 summarizes snag size class by tolerance level using the information available in DecAID.

Table C-3: Potential Snag Distribution by Size Class/Tolerance Level Using DecAID Data for the Grassy Project 30% Tolerance 50% Tolerance Snag Size Level Snags/Acre Level Snags/Acre 10-19.7” 1.0 2.0 19.8-31.4” 0.2 0.4 >31.5” 0.1 0.2 Total Snags/Acre 1.3 2.6

Appendix C - 8 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix C

It must be kept in mind that the snag densities displayed in the preceding table were from unharvested plots that contained measurable snags. Fire exclusion has resulted in increased snag densities, while harvest activities have decreased snag densities where they have occurred. A potentially more realistic snag density could be derived by multiplying snag densities in the preceding table by the percentage of the land that they occurred on. In that case, the 30 percent tolerance level would be 46 percent x 0.9 = 0.60 snags/acre, and the 50 percent tolerance level would be 46 percent x 1.3 = 1.2 snags/acre. The same methodology with appropriate numbers could also be applied to percent down wood cover. While this method of calculation would appear to cancel out the affects of fire exclusion and harvest of snags, there is a lack of documentation to verify those assumptions, and those assumptions are not supported by the Regional Office at this time.

Small/Medium Trees Ponderosa Pine Percent Down Wood Cover The 30 percent tolerance level for unharvested inventory plots that contained measurable down wood is 0.9 down wood percent cover. The 50 percent tolerance level for unharvested inventory plots that contained measurable down wood is 1.4 down wood percent cover. This is data for only those unharvested inventory plots that contained measurable down wood.

Considering that 0.9 down wood percent cover and 1.4 down wood percent cover are for only those plots that contained measurable percent down wood, it is likely not appropriate to manage for this level across the landscape because not all plots contained measurable down wood. This is consistent with Johnson and O’Neil’s prediction that clumping of down wood may be a natural pattern in the ponderosa pine communities (2001). Therefore, the distribution data was used as a guide to determine how down wood was distributed under “natural conditions” and to determine what approximate percentage of the landscape provide measurable down wood and what approximate percent of the landscape did not provide measurable down wood. The distribution data demonstrates that, of all the unharvested inventory plots, 35 percent contained no down wood and 65 percent had measurable down wood.

An example that was shown above for 0.9 down wood percent cover as shown previously could be:

• 4.0 - 20-inch dbh ponderosa pine down trees 80-feet long OR • 6.7 - 15-inch dbh ponderosa pine down trees 60-feet long OR • 16.7 - 10-inch dbh ponderosa pine down trees 40-feet long.

An example of 1.4 down wood percent cover could be:

• 6.2 - 20-inch dbh ponderosa pine down trees 80-feet long OR • 10.4 - 15-inch dbh ponderosa pine down trees 60-feet long OR • 25.9 - 10-inch dbh ponderosa pine down trees 40-feet long.

Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA Appendix C - 9 Appendix C

These examples of down wood percent cover appear to be on the very high end of the down wood potential, although test plots run in other areas have found the numbers to be fairly close. As discussed above, down wood was found to occur in patches, and was not evenly distributed across the landscape. It seems likely that the patchiness of down wood could be linked to the clumping pattern observed in snags. Retention of down wood at this level would likely cause future fires to burn with at a high intensity that would be difficult to control, and would likely result in substantial mortality in the timber stand.

Conclusions Final conclusions regarding the use of DecAID to determine snag retention standards and down wood percent cover on the Grassy project are:

• The information in DecAID indicates that fewer snags exist in unharvested plots than would be required by current Forest Plan standards and guides, which were based on biological potential models that are considered no longer valid. However, this does show that even though the biological potential model is not valid, it still did a good job of providing for snags and associated wildlife habitat. Therefore, in the interest of providing greater than minimum snags for wildlife habitat it is recommended to continue to use Forest Plan standards for snags for the Grassy Project

• The amount of down wood percent cover identified in the draft guidelines for DecAID appear high for the ponderosa pine type that historically had open park- like stands with frequent, low intensity fires, and a fairly dry moisture regime. For instance, at the 30 percent tolerance level, the recommendation identified above is 0.9 percent down wood cover. This equates to over 4.5 logs 20 inches dbh, 60 feet long, or 270 linear feet. Another example would be 3 logs 30 inches dbh, 60 feet long, or 180 linear feet. It is more likely that, due to local moisture regimes, fire regimes, and historical vegetation densities, this area would have been on the lower range found in the inventory numbers observed in DecAID. It would be reasonable to assume that as pockets of trees died and fell down, this density of down wood could be created, but not across the landscape. Therefore, it is recommended to continue to use current Forest Plan standards and guidelines for down wood for the Grassy Project because it is believed that they more closely resemble historical conditions.

Appendix C - 10 Grassy Fire Salvage Project EA