Final Environmental

Assessment

United States Upper Deschutes River Wildland Urban Department of Agriculture Interface Fuel Reduction Project

Forest Service Bend-Ft. Rock Ranger District, Deschutes National Forest

July 2016 Deschutes County, Oregon Legal Description The project area is comprised of a series of treatment units stretching north from Wickiup Reservoir to the city of Bend. Treatment units are located in the following sections (Willamette Meridian): T18S R11E Section 35 T19S R11E Sections 5,16,20,21, 27, 28, and 31 T20S R11E Sections 6, 29, and 32 T20S R10E Sections 1, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 26, 27, 32, and 35 T20S R9E Section 36 T21S R9E Sections 1, 13, 24, and 36 T21S R10E Section 31 T21S R11E Section 32 T22S R9E Sections 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 T22S R11E Sections 5, 7, 8, 17 and 18

USDA Non-Discrimination Policy Statement

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

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

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

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

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected] .

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...... 4

INTRODUCTION ...... 4 CONTEXT FOR PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 6 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...... 12 PROPOSED ACTION ...... 12 PROJECT RECORD ...... 23 DECISION FRAMEWORK ...... 23 MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...... 24 OTHER GUIDING DOCUMENTS ...... 26 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...... 26 ISSUES ...... 27 CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 28

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY ...... 28 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL ...... 29 CONNECTED ACTIONS ...... 34 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES ...... 38 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 52 SALE AREA IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ...... 53 CHAPTER 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 54

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT FOR ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS ...... 54 VEGETATION ...... 58 FIRE AND FUELS ...... 94 AIR QUALITY ...... 104 WILDLIFE ...... 105 SOILS ...... 180 BOTANY THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES ...... 210 BOTANY – INVASIVE SPECIES...... 212 RECREATION ...... 218 SPECIAL USES ...... 222 HERITAGE RESOURCES ...... 226 WATERSHED AND AQUATIC RESOURCES...... 232 SCENIC RESOURCES ...... 252 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY, AIR QUALITY ...... 261 WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS ...... 262 PRIME FARMLAND, RANGELAND, AND FORESTLAND ...... 263 CIVIL RIGHTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ...... 263 CLIMATE CHANGE ...... 263 CHAPTER 4. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 266

INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEMBERS ...... 266 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED ...... 266 WORKS CITED ...... 267 APPENDIX A: DESCHUTES NATIONAL FOREST SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES LIST ...... 281 APPENDIX B: UNIT SOILS ...... 286 APPENDIX C: WILDLIFE APPLICABLE CUMULATIVE SPECIES CURVES ...... 321 APPENDIX D: RESPONSE TO COMMENT ...... 326

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Introduction The Upper Deschutes River Wildland Urban Interface HFRA project (UDR project) is located on the Bend-Fort Rock Ranger District of the Deschutes National Forest. The project is focused on hazard fuels reduction around several communities within the Deschutes River corridor between the cities of Bend and La Pine. The project treats around the following communities: Cougar Grove Pringle Falls Deschutes River Recreation Homesites River Forest Acres Deschutes River Woods River Meadows Fall River Estates Spring River Acres Haner Park Stage Stop Meadows Lazy River Sundance Newberry Estates Sunriver Oregon Water Wonderland Valley Ridge Acres Pace Estates Wild River Ponderosa Pines

Under the action alternative, the Forest Service would implement tree thinning, brush mowing and prescribed burning on approximately 4,200 acres. There are 51 proposed treatment units ranging from 1 to 1000 acres in size. See vicinity map and tables for specific location of units. Most treatment units are within the Upper Deschutes River Coalition (UDRC) Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) boundary. Proposed units also overlap the Sunriver, La Pine and Greater Bend CWPP boundaries. All treatment units are within CWPP identified Wildland Urban-Interface (WUI) areas and are within the boundaries of CWPP identified “communities at risk.” The Environmental Analysis of this project will be completed using Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) authorities, Section 104. On August 22, 2002, President Bush established the Healthy Forests Initiative, directing the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, and the Council on Environmental Quality, to improve regulatory processes to ensure more timely decisions, greater efficiency, and better results in reducing the risk of catastrophic wildland fires. All proposed HFRA actions must be consistent with the applicable resource management plans and they must be on lands managed by the USDA Forest Service or DOI BLM. This means that any proposed action that would not be consistent with a resource management plan must be: modified to make it consistent with the plan, or be covered by a plan amendment or project-specific amendment. For areas within the wildland-urban interface, but not farther than 1.5 miles from the boundary of an at-risk community, the USDA Forest Service and DOI BLM are not required to analyze more than the proposed agency action and one additional action alternative (Section 104(d)(1)). Agencies are expected to analyze the effects of failing to take action.

4

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

Figure 1 Vicinity Map

5

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

Context for Purpose and Need The purpose and need is determined, in part, by the discrepancy between existing and desired conditions. This section describes historic condition and how they led to existing conditions. Descriptions of desired future conditions outline post-project outcomes. Historic Conditions Historically, the forests of central Oregon, including stands within the UDR WUI project area, were shaped by fire. The ecological role of fire in central Oregon was recognized as early as the 1940s: “Wherever man goes in the ponderosa-pine region of the Pacific slope he sees evidence of past fires… these facts indicate clearly that periodic fires, in combination frequently with pine-beetle attacks, and occasionally with other agencies, formerly operated to control the density, age classes, and composition of the ponderosa- pine stands (Weaver 1943).” Early settlers and surveyors at the turn of the century passed through open forests with widely spaced trees, few if any down logs, and little litter and wood undergrowth. Witness trees marked by land surveyors during the late 1800s in central Oregon were predominantly ponderosa pine with diameters that exceeded 50 cm (Perry et al., 1995). The structure of these eastside forests was a seemingly uniform park-land of widely spaced medium to large and old trees, light and patchy ground fuels, and low and patchy cover of fire-tolerant shrubs and herbs (Wickman, 1992) (Agee J. K., 1994) This pattern was largely the result of repeated low intensity fires that burned some or most forest floor plants, consumed litter, and killed primarily small trees (Kilgore, 1981 and Agee, 1993).

Figure 2 Early 1930s, south of Bend

6

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

The primary brush species was bitterbrush (Purshia tridentate) and other brush species included green leaf manzanita (Arcostaphylos patula). Pathogens like dwarf mistletoe infections were present, but were confined to specific areas. Specific areas included dense patches of pine, but had limited spread potential due to the patchy/clumpy stand structure that existed. Estimated historic fire return interval was 4–11 years in central Oregon ponderosa pine stands (Bork, 1984 and Morrow, 1986). Ignitions were predominantly caused by lightning and coincided with the time of year when moisture content of fine fuels was lowest (Agee, 1993 and Rorig and Ferguson, 1999). Crown fires occurred rarely under these natural disturbance regimes. “Bordering the timberless area of eastern Oregon it forms a forest of pure growth and is the pioneer in the reclamation of the desert lands, but is assisted by the white fir, tamarack, and red fir, in the order named. Its forests are generally open, without much litter or undergrowth, and for these reasons are almost immune from fire. The mature trees average 2.5 feet in diameter and 120 feet high, with clean, straight trunks, 30 feet to the first limbs.” – Forest conditions in the Cascade Range Forest Reserve, p. 78, published in 1903

Figure 3 Prior to 1900 low elevation ponderosa pine forest burned every 4-11 years. Most fires burned only the forest floor reducing fuel and killing small trees. The produced open stands of large trees with grassy understories.

Lodgepole pine was transient coming and going depending of the when a fire disturbance visit the stand. The historical structure of lodgepole pine was often even aged due to pathogen/disturbance intervals. Lodgepole pine areas were a mix of open land recently disturbed by fire, areas of regenerating lodgepole, areas of pole sized and mature trees, as well as areas of susceptible stands undergoing mountain pine beetle attack. While small fires occurred, large fires occurred at 20 to 30 year intervals and affected 50 to 1,000 acres. These fires usually affected greater than 70 percent of the basal area.

7

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

Existing Conditions The project area encompasses more than 4100 acres of mostly ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine plant associations. The low elevation coniferous forests east of the crest of the Cascade Range in Oregon, including the UDR WUI project area, has changed substantially in the last 100 years. Wildfire exclusion through fire prevention efforts and modern suppression activities have resulted in excessive fuel accumulation and overstocked stands. Removal of the larger “yellow belly” pines has dramatically decreased clumpy open forests, replacing them with more evenly spaced and smaller “black-bark” forests. Similar to other species of conifer forest types, the suppression of fire has greatly increased the stocking levels (number of trees) and density of trees, creating ladder fuels and putting the stands at risk of attack from insects and disease.

Figure 4 Fire exclusion has produced a dense understory. The deep woody debris and duff lead to more intense fires. Many of the ponderosa pine stands in the project area have missed 8 to 10 fire rotations The history of land ownership in the area is a culmination of the US Forest Service reserving land in 1907 with the Organic Act and acquiring land from Shevlin-Hixon Co. in 1930, Deschutes County in 1942 and Sunriver Properties in 1979. Past vegetation management activities in the area included clearcutting in the 1930s that naturally regenerated to ponderosa and lodgepole pine to recent management in the early 2000s that focused on forest health and hazardous fuel treatments. The most recent management (less than fifteen years old) includes work done under the Klak EA, Dilman EA, Fall EA and Myst CE. These previously managed stands have a more open ponderosa and lodgepole pine structure with relatively even spacing. Managed stands average diameters range from 5” to 20” diameter with an average of 60-100 basal area per acre. These stands have more of a brush and grass component that established itself post management. Although overstory tree densities are lower in the recently managed stands, brush establishment and the encroachment of lodgepole seedling has led to an increasing ladder fuel issue and the potential for greater surface fire intensities. Stands that have not recently been treated vary in diameter and structure and are generally overstocked with ponderosa and lodgepole pine. Common stand exams have showed that unmanaged stands in the project area have over 700 trees per acre and have an average basal area of 100-120 basal area per acre. Mountain pine

8

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

beetle activity has been observed in these stands primarily associated with lodgepole pine. Dwarf mistletoe has been observed in both ponderosa and lodgepole pine within the project area. In addition to increased susceptibility to insects and disease, these stands have an elevated potential for crown fire initiation and propagation due to low crown base heights and high crown bulk densities. All of the project treatment units are located near or adjacent to residential areas. When residential development is exposed to extreme wildfire conditions, numerous houses can ignite and burn simultaneously, overwhelming firefighters and reducing fire protection effectiveness. The WUI on the Bend-Ft. Rock Ranger district is increasing. Deschutes County is one of the fastest growing counties in America. Estimates from Portland State University put the 2014 population at 166,400, this is a 44% increase from 2000. Within UDRC neighborhoods there are 6,395 lots ranging in size from ½ to 40 acres in size. Dispersed among those lots are 3,152 structures with a resident population of 7,880. As of 2011, Approximately half of the private lots are vacant with no structures (UDRC CWPP). With a growing population comes a growing number of human caused fires. On the Bend-Ft. Rock RD, between 2005 and 2014, close to 55% of wildfire starts were human caused. The ten year average was 74 human caused fires per year. Increasing fuel loads combined with a growing population and growing residential development into forests has put communities in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) at risk. Recent WUI fires have underscored the problem. 2014 Two Bulls Fire - The most recent WUI fire of significance on the Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District is the Two Bulls Fire. Beginning as two fires that merged into one, the Two Bulls fire travelled six miles in an afternoon and evening. The wind driven fire prompted immediate evacuations in areas west of Bend, as well as additional threats/evacuation notices. No homes or structures were damaged or lost as a result of this fire. However, equally strong winds out of the west would have likely led to several more subdivisions being impacted by the fire. The fire burned approximately 6,908 acres of public and private forestlands and cost $5.6 million to fight. The Two Bulls fire is a recent demonstration of how far and fast a fire influenced by strong winds and dry fuels can travel.

9

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

Figure 5 June 7th, 2014 Two Bulls Fire, picture taken from a subdivision in northwest Bend. (Twitter, 2014) 1996 Skeleton Fire - The 1996 Skeleton Fire burned nearly 18,000 acres on the eastern flank of Bend, and 30 structures were damaged or destroyed. This wind-driven fire accomplished most of its damage in just a few hours, but for a time kindled fears that its destructive toll would be far worse than Awbrey Hall´s. Awbrey Hall had burned from north to south and skirted the western edge of the city, whereas Skeleton started on the eastern edge and burned west, heading for the heavily populated southern half of the city.

Figure 6 Skeleton Fire, 1996 1990 Awbrey Hall Fire - The Awbrey Hall Fire, burned along the western flank of Bend starting near Shevlin Park and stopping in Deschutes River Woods subdivision. The fire moved six miles, jumped three major roadways and the Deschutes River while burning 3,500 acres in 10 hours. It cost $2 million to suppress and caused $9 million in damage. 2500 homes were evacuated and 22 were lost during the fire. Most growth and activity on the Awbrey Hall fire was during a single burning period. It started around 3 pm on August 4th and burned

10

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

through the night. All of the 22 homes burned between 9pm on the 4th and 3 am on August 5th. The unusually intense nocturnal fire behavior was likely due to a combination of dry fuels and low humidity and instability in the atmosphere (Saltenberger, 1993).

Figure 7Awbrey Hall fire Desired Conditions To achieve CWPP goals it is desired that the project units be treated to and maintained at a level that does not support surface flame lengths greater than 4’ and does not support active crown fire under dry, hot and windy fire weather conditions (these specific conditions are described in the fuels specialist report). To meet this desire, fire hazard would be rated as low for all treatment units. To meet the low fire hazard goal, in ponderosa pine stands it is desired to reduce the trees per acre and basal area to a more historic level and decrease the amount of brush within the stands. To achieve more historical fire behavior and meet the recommendations of the UDRC CWPP a reduction in the density and continuity of the brush is required. Fuels levels in these stands should be similar to historical conditions. To maintain the historic fire regime in ponderosa stands, natural or prescribed fire should be a frequent (every 5-10 years) occurrence in these stands. In scenic view management areas, the desired condition for ponderosa pine is to achieve and maintain visual diversity through variation of stand densities and size classes. Large, old-growth pine will remain an important constituent, with trees achieving 30 inches in diameter or larger and having deeply furrowed, yellowbark characteristics. Scenic view and fuel desired conditions are generally compatible. Most of the project units are mixed ponderosa and lodgepole pine. In these stands lodgepole pine should be favored for removal to reduce bark beetle mortality effects, decrease understory stocking from lodgepole seedlings and return the stands to a more historic species composition. The stocking levels left will be below the upper management zone where a suppressed class of trees develops and the stand is susceptible to bark beetle outbreak. Trees left will be the largest trees with the most vigor. Where dwarf mistletoe occurs the stocking levels will be reduced to remove trees with extensive infections and wide spacing to reduce the inter tree spread of mistletoe. Fire will be introduced into these stands to mimic the historic processes reducing brush to more

11

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

open areas. Ponderosa pine in these stands will be developed by not cutting overstory ponderosa pine and leaving ponderosa pine understory trees as a priority over lodgepole pine when thinning the understory. The down dead lodgepole pine in excess of wildlife objectives would be removed. There are a couple lodgepole plantations included in the project. The stands are heavily stocked and present a fire hazard to nearby private property. It is desired that these stands be thinned to a spacing that will not support crown fire. Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of the UDR WUI project is to promote conditions where, in the event of a wildfire, firefighters will have a favorable operating environment to perform suppression work and members of the local communities can safely exit their subdivisions. A secondary purpose is to improve forest health and increasing resilience to fire and insects in stands by reducing stand density. To meet this purpose, the proposed treatments will minimize the potential for crown fire and reduce potential surface fire intensities by reducing surface, ladder and canopy fuels and interrupt fuel continuities. As recommended by the Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs), the goal is to reduce fuels within treatment units to a level that during summer wildfire conditions surface fire flame lengths will not exceed 4’ and there is no potential for sustained active crown fire within the treatment units. Some units are adjacent to the Deschutes River in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) where fuels reduction and riparian enhancement/meadow restoration objectives could be achieved simultaneously. Management of RHCAs are intended to achieve Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs), described by habitat features indicating “good” watershed health and inland native fish habitat. The habitat features applicable to this project (forested system) are pool frequency, water temperature, large woody debris, and width/depth ratio (See Chapter 3 under Aquatics Environmental Effects for RMO compliance). The purpose and need of this project complements the mission of the UDRC which is: To protect Upper Deschutes River communities by restoring and sustaining healthy fire-resistant forests, pure and abundant river flows and wildlife habitat. All of the treatment units are in WUI areas identified as high priority for treatment in CWPPs. Most units share a boundary with private land and were identified through public input from the UDRC, Ponderosa Pines HOA, Sunriver Owners Association (SROA) and other homeowner groups. Private property owners have worked do reduce fuels within their subdivisions and the proposed treatments on periphery U.S. Forest Service lands would complement the work done within the residential areas. The proposed treatment units are a mix of maintenance work in past treatment areas and new units that were not included in past planning efforts. Many of these past treatments were completed over ten years ago and are in need of maintenance to meet desired fuel loadings and forest structure. Proposed Action Proposed Treatment Descriptions by Subdivision Moving north to south from Deschutes River Woods to Ponderosa Pines, the following is a description of treatments planned adjacent to subdivisions:

12

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

23 SHOSHONE 21 ZUNI 22 SIOUX 24 BAKER19 INDIAN TUSCARORA BAKER CONKLIN CHOCTAW SUMMER LAKEVIEW RIVER WOODS KNOTT Deschutes River Woods LAKEVIEW ZUNI HIAWATHA UTE CHOCTAW INDIAN GALEN SUMMER HWY 97 N RIVER WOODS ARAPAHO BOUND WINNEBAGO OFF RAMP

CREE

USFS 4120 27 26 TURQUOISE 28 FAUGARWEE CRATER KIOWA APACHE 30 25 PAWNEE CINDER BUTTE OPAL AGATE T 18 S MINNETONKA R 12 E

97 T 18 S OBSIDIAN ¤£ R 11 E CHEROKEE

HOPI

24 SCALE HOUSE

¬« HWY 97 MINNETONKA

NAVAJO

CHEYENNE DRW FIRE GATE 34 COMANCHE ACCESS 36 33 35

31

SEMINOLE

MOHAWK

OSAGE

T 19 S USFS 1801 4 3 2 1 T 19 S R 11 E 6 R 12 E

Figure 8 Deschutes River Woods unit Deschutes River Woods (43 acres): Thin small diameter trees on the south end of the subdivision between the lava flow and subdivision residents (unit 24). Treating in this area will complement the defensible space work already done in the subdivision.

13

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

18 17 16 15 14 640 605 640 017 660 ¬50 600 « 653 652 650 655 47 670 46 20 ¬« 19 22

¬ 350 « 48 21 ¬« 015 9702 300 23 662 r 200 e v i 660 R

s

e

t

u h T 19 S c 45 664 290 s e ¬« R 11 E D ¬«49 700 51 30 ¬« 280 29 28 018 27 ¬«53 800 26

4001 800 ¬«52 810 ¬«54

311

400 4143 300 34 31 320 32 33 35 310 350 US-97 97 300 300 ¤£

Figure 9: Sunriver units Sunriver (682 acres): Maintain 676 acres of previous brush mowing fuels treatments around the northern edge of the resort community (units 45-54). These units were previously mowed under the Sunriver HFRA project. Complement hazard fuels work done by SROA near the bike path through small trees thinning, pruning and hazard tree removal (units 28 and 29).

14

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

33

590 490

580

600

600

00A DILLON 5 FALLS 00B 4

6 300 941:; ¬«41 T 19 S R 11 E

sc De hutes River

8 SLOUGH 9 7 45050A

405

460 405 Figure 10: Ryan ranch aspen unit Ryan Ranch Aspen (7 acres): Prescribed burn with the purpose of stimulating aspen growth (unit 41). This unit was previously thinned under the Ryan Ranch Meadow/Aspen/Willow Enhancement Project.

36 31 T 19 S T 19 S 28 R 10 E ¬« R 11 E

234

220 150

212 29 224 ¬«

200

CONKLIN

225 RIVER 110 41 228 9:; T 20 S 6 R 10 E BESSON 1 RANI T 20 S WRIGHT R 11 E POINT

VISTA FAIRWAY ¬«20 VISTA

CONE

PINE

LONE

EAGLE

SPRING RIVER VISTA PINE CONE FOREST

S NEEDLE pring DESCHUTES PINE

R GINA iver Des chutes MEADOW

River NEEDLE

PINE LISA COOPER

SPRING RIVER 40

38 12 7

STELLAR ¬« LLOYD BANDLEY SOLAR LUNAR Figure 11 Spring River units Spring River (164 acres): Reduce fuels north of FS road 40 between Spring River subdivision and Sunriver Resort (unit 20). A mix of thinning, jackpot burning and brush mastication is planned in this former pasture land located between Spring River and the Deschutes River.

15

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

Figure 12 Unit 20 With its unique location between two rivers and diverse mix of riparian vegetation and forested stands, the Unit 20 fuels reduction treatments have received interest from homeowners in the adjacent Spring River subdivision. Fuels reduction work was originally planned throughout the unit. To address local homeowner concerns, most treatments were dropped from the northern half of the unit. A more descriptive explanation of proposed unit 20 actions are provided below, and correspond to the letters on the map above.

A. The objective in this area (30 acres) is to maintain cover for wildlife while reducing threat of disease and fire to existing ponderosa pine. This objective will be achieved by cutting all lodgepole pine within 50’ of established ponderosa pine. For the purpose of this unit, established ponderosa pine are trees with

16

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

12” or greater diameters at breast height (DBH). Few large ponderosa pine still remain in this area and the amount of thinning required to meet the objective is relatively minimal.

B. The objective in this area (20 acres) east of Spring River subdivision is to maintain the previous tree thinning and brush mowing treatments completed under the past Myst CE. This objective will be achieved by mowing the brush and saplings with a tractor mounted brush mower or equipment set up with a mastication head.

C. The objective in this area (72 acres) is to reduce lodgepole encroachment from existing openings and reduce the threat of disease and fire in lodgepole pine stringers. In the existing openings (C1) all lodgepole 7” DBH or less will be cut and removed. In the denser stringers of trees (C2) all lodgepole less than 21” DBH within 50 feet of established ponderosa pine greater than 12” will be removed. Beyond 50’ of established ponderosa pine, non-uniform spacing will be achieved by variable-density thinning lodgepole 7” and less DBH to an average spacing of 20’ between trees . To further reduce fuel loading, jackpot burning of needle cast and fine fuels is planned under the larger ponderosa pine trees.

D. The objective in this area (13 acres) is to meet recommendations in the UDRC CWPP and create defensible space within 300’ of Spring River Road. Crown fire potential will be reduced by variable- density thinning lodgepole pines trees 7” DBH or less to an average of 20’ spacing and plan for future mowing. Residual trees will be limbed up to 6 ft.

E. The objective within this area (7 acres) adjacent to the river is to reduce lodgepole encroachment into riparian and spotted frog habitat, encroaching lodgepole will be cut followed by hand piling and/or the lopping and scattering of slash. Additional guidance including specifications for work around riparian areas and methods to minimize impacts to wildlife are detailed in the project design features on page 41. Project design features to protect riparian habitat include no thinning of trees greater than 7" DBH within 75 feet of rivers and streams and no thinning of any trees within 25 feet of rivers and streams. Deschutes River Recreation Homesites, Sundance, River Meadows, Cougar Grove (1296 acres): Improve fuels conditions along the primary ingress/egress route for residents (unit 10). Reduce lodgepole encroachment into the meadow that lies adjacent to the River Meadows subdivision office and HOA lodge (unit 11). Mow brush to reduce fuels in previously treated units (units 12,13 and 37-39). Reduce fuels by mowing and thinning near the Big River boat launch and Big River group campsite (units 16-18). Reduce fuels along the western edge of the subdivisions with thinning, brush mowing and underburning (units 14, 15, 30, 31, 35 and 36). Completing work in this area will maintain previous fuels treatments completed under the Klak and General Patch projects. These treatments will create a continuous fuel break along the private property boundary between Spring River Road (FS40) and South Century Drive (FS42). Included within the treatment is a 1060 acre prescribed burn block.

17

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

153 45 4 3 102 2 100 1 100 COOPER 20 6 101 40 GINA ¬« RIVER SUMMIT 500 100 CONKLIN AZUSA 996 SPRING RIVER BAKERSFIELD 116 990 39 BANDLEY 118 ¬« SPRING RIVER COVINA 9 LLOYD 12 DOWNEY 990 10 11 38

650 ¬ ELSINORE 40 657 « 7 USFS 40 9:; FONTANA 910 620 GLENDALE 140 37 960 618 ¬« 35 HERMOSA

¬« CELESTIAL INDIO METEOR

650

SOLAR JACINTO KINGSBURG 920 GUSS 900 610 LAGUNA MERCED

STELLAR 611 600 ¬«31 NORWALK 800 OXNARD 15 30 400 QUARTZ PASADENA MERGANSER ¬« 14 13 18 HILL ISLAND ISLAND 16 USFS 4220 LOOP T 20 S ROSEMEAD LOOP MILKY R 10 E SACRAMENTO

510 460 TORRANCE 520

GOTHARD CRANE 36 UPLAND BLUE HERON 4220 ¬«

SAVAGE

BROWNING WOOD

REMINGTON DUCK 350 410 21 14 SHARP WOOD ¬« DUCK DERRINGER WOOD USFS 4220 500 SHARP DUCK CHIEF 22 23 PAULINA OSPREY 640 PITCH 36 24 19 500 ¬« 200 PONY SCOUT TRAIL EXPRESS AVOCET 15 ¬«11 CONE 150 160 ¬« WAGON MASTER GATEHOUSE

SWAN STAGESTOP CAMP SITE SPIKERMAN PINTAIL 12 BIG ¬« BRENDA 150 RIVER CENTURY 18 Three Rivers 10 199 13 ¬« ¬« 153 005 ¬« BIG BIG RIVER 010 16 GROSS 42 28 27 RIVER 212 ¬« SEEVERS

CENTURY 26 25 FOSTER 17 HEIERMAN 100 210 ¬« FOREST 30 HOMESTEAD 950 960 4205 940 Figure 13 Deschutes River Recreation Homesites, Sundance, River Meadows, Cougar Grove units

18

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

CENTURY 42 CASPER 960

950 BIG RIVER

213 HEIERMAN 970 25 210 26 HEN GROSS 27

MEADOW

DRAKE

980

¬«42 ¬«19 989 GRAY WOLF 450

FOREST T 20 S BATES 975 R 10 E 23 FOSTER CHAPMAN ¬« CARRINGTON SHAWNEE tes 490 chu r MUNSON es ive 44 D R 4205 HORN ¬« PRONG

BEAVER 495 BEAVER PINEWOOD BEAVER TREELAND 35 34 500 36

MARTEN

JILLIAN

PEYTON MALLARD PLEASANT VIEW schutes 550 De River 650 600 600 600 Figure 14 Foster road and River Forest units Foster Road and River Forest Acres (78 acres): Reduce fuels while also restoring the meadow and riparian area adjacent to private lands off Foster Road and Gray Wolf Lane (units 19, 42 and 44). Unit 42 was previously treated under the Myst project. Thin and mow between the Deschutes River and River Forest Acres residences (unit 23).

GRIMM

140 24 19 142 SWAN 20 21

SNOW

CHIEF GOOSE RU GUELFI Three PAULINA 42 CENTURY Rivers CEDAR 141

HEIDI 145 HEMLOCK

FOSTER 144

RICHARD MEADOW 29 105 25 30 DARIN 28

HOMESTEAD

ZAGT SNOW

CAP ASPEN 345 32 T 20 S US-97 ¬« 347 VELVET R 11 E T 20 S 014 HWY 97 017 R 10 E LIVELY 153

LAZY RIVER 97 LODGEPOLE 150 ¤£

HUNTINGTON

300 BRIDGE LOG CALICO

019 345 JACK PINE

SHAWNEE SPRUCE 36 31 32 33

TAMARACK 9725 SUGARPINE BUTTE MINK 340

MAPLE

300 250 330 . 305 Figure 15 Lazy river unit Lazy River (135 acres): Thin and mow lodgepole pine stands on the eastern edge of Lazy River Subdivision (unit 32). These treatments will complement work previously completed under the Lavacast project

19

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

4230

520

26 250 594 212 30 29 USFS 4230592 25 240

570

4032 200

233 USFS 4032 500

235 T 20 S T 20 S R 10 E

R 9 E 300 290 291 FALL

35 RIVER 36 300 31 295

900 YELLOW PINE

RIVER RIVER 32 42 LOOP LOOP 230 ¬«34 n

a F

i k JACK R d FALL a n e I e PINE i l r RIVER v l C e 268 DEER r 290 RUN CENTURY

PINE VIEW WITCH TREE

MOUNTAIN

LONESOME

278 288 200285 332 T 21 S USFS 4358 R 9 E 600 T 21 S 2 6 1 R 10 E 5 Fall 4358 iver 334 R

270 4358

200 Figure 16 Fall river unit Fall River (91 acres): Thin trees and mow brush west of Fall River Estates and the Fall River Fish Hatchery (unit 34). Treatments in this area, combined with work planned under the Junction project and Myst projects, will provide a continuous fuels treatment block on the north and west side of Fall River Estates and nearby private land. Unit 34 contains forested lavas populated with aspen, Scouler’s willow, and large ponderosa pine, remarkable in its rarity within the context of the surrounding area. While these species are not rare, they form a relatively rare plant association in the area. The Scouler’s willow is showing signs of decadence. Putting fire into this unit will invigorate the first two species in particular.

Figure 17 Forested lavas and Scouler's willow in Unit 34, July 15, 2015

20

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

960

615

900 4350 220 510 15 18 14 4360 13 535 150 970 520 USFS 4350 120 240 PRINGLE 545 590 594 FALLS 26 530 200 ¬ « 219 BROWN 217 USFS 4360 25 218 WILDRIVERTROUT 900 KOKANEE ¬ 826 « 500

T 21 S BROOKIE

820 100 591 820 822 WHITEWATER R 10 E

43 23 24 22 27 240 213 WYETH 010 230 19 702 r ¬ « 211 210 4370 hutes Rive esc D T 21 BURGESS 700 S R 9 E USFS 4410 200

DESCHUTES RIVER

040 USFS 44

4370050 USFS 4410 070 944:; 010 4410 020 300

4410 450 050 26 27 220 30 25 050

USFS 050 4420 BULL BEND 900 400 092 USFS 060 4410 100 600 900 070 055 Figure 18 Pringle Falls and wild river units Pringle Falls and Wild River (137 acres): Thin and mow on the east side of Wild River subdivision and along the access road to Pringle Falls campground (units 25-27). Portions of this treatment area were treated with the Dilman Project. Units 25 and 27 lie within Key Elk habitat and treatments will be designed to maintain cover requirements.

31 T 21 32 33

S R 9 E 100 4370 36 USFS 4380 100

180 T 22 S R 660 8 E 654

1 6 800 5 800 4 650

680

994 USFS 676 4370 4370 674 210 850 USFS USFS 4260 4370 USFS 890 880 4370 850

870 DESCHUTES RIVER 894 892 44 860 630 880 21 TENINO 9:; ¬« 640

USFS 44

615 4260 620 900 600 T 22 USFS 4260 600

OLD WICKIUP

912 930 910 S R 9 E

Wickiup 7 Reservoir 8 12 9

RESERVOIR 810

WICKIUP USFS

925 860 4400 920 866 220 WICKIUP BUTTE 864 900 BOAT RAMP 820 13 18 17 Figure 19 Haner Park units Haner Park (80 acres): Thin lodgepole and mow brush around the western portion of the subdivision (unit 21) and along FS road 4370, a primary ingress and egress for Haner Park residents.

21

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

119 NO NAME 21 PAULINA 26 25 30 29 28 600 LAKE 27 109 110 0 0.5 1 DRAFTER 2 Miles 114

r BRIDGE GOLDENHENNA USFS 9745 e

OAK 070 v CAGLE ASH ASTOR i ELM

MURRY e KELVEL l R t s PINE JUNO t 9745 090

e 35 i

t 36 130

L PAM

u 100 h AMMON 133

c 31 32 s SUTTER 33 21 34 e T 21 S D RAILROAD 133

SKIDGEL

DOE PENNY T 21 S PINE NATOMA MEDILL TRACY 100

ANTLER R 11 E R 10 E WESTLEY 150 HUNTINGTON BURGESS 43 TEIL 9745 200 ELENA ROSLAND 300 300 WILLOW 497 ALLEN 97 EVERGREEN ¤£

350 1 6 490 5 4 3 HWY 97 390 2 ¬«40 US-97 012 BEESLEY 499 400 450

400 500 320 520 9750 2205 600 USFS 9750 200 240 530 T 22 S 11 640 R 10 E 12 7 8 300 T 22 S 9 10 R 11 E DARLENE USFS 2205

720 190 750 REED 800 ASSEMBLY RUSSELL 700

BOX 150 SLY WILLIAM 40 FOSS ¬« 020 189 890 SHAW 100 HINKLE 025 PINE 13 18 080 17 16 745

740 EVANS 900 15

WHEELER LANDERS

MITTS WALLING 018 017 USFS 083 40 2210 950 092 SPRING 22 030 USFS 22 14 ¬ 099 950 BUTTE 9:; « 23 24 19 950 Figure 20 Newberry Estates Unit Newberry Estates (1000 acres): Mow one thousand acres of brush east and south of Newberry Estates (unit 40). This unit was previously treated with the Crossings project.

22

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

USFS 055 190

330

195 300 4410 057

4330 450 USFS 4410 400 200 100 150 058 198 200 190 25

26 055 30 29 074 050 120 4410

USFS 4330

125 500 510 43 030 635 1 070 T 21 S T 21 S WAYSIDE 900 ¬ BURGESSR 10 E R 9 E 930 « 072 020

070 010 500 012

080 4320 2 3 010 35 36 900 4420 USFS ¬« ¬« 31 012 030 010 520 32 920

040 014 ¬4 « SUNRISE 060 USFS 4420 PONDEROSA 4420 9 050 010 ¬ 017 4420 « 8 018 ¬« 5 ¬« 060 6 065 WHITE PINE ¬ 066 « SUNSET BEAR BERRY 100 500 599

330 CURRANT BARBERRY ¬«7 RED

152 135 2 T 22 S 1 6 USFS 4320 500 154 SUGAR PINEBURL 5 300 R 9 E 137 T 22 S 590 155 R 10 E NATIONAL LICHEN FOXTAIL 139

USFS 4320 400 559

558

160 592 575

Figure 21 Ponderosa pines units Ponderosa Pines (480 acres): Improve ingress and egress along Ponderosa lane (units 1-6). Reduce fuels on the northwest corner of the Ponderosa Pines subdivision (unit 7). Thin and prune the plantation within the 1984 Wampus Butte fire area (units 8 and 9). Included in this area is 288 acres of underburning along Ponderosa Lane, the primary ingress and egress for subdivision residents. For specific descriptions of each treatment type, please see page29Alternatives Considered in Detail. Project Record This EA hereby incorporates by reference the project record (40 CFR 1502.21). The project record references all scientific information that was considered for the analysis, including reports, literature reviews, review citations, academic peer reviews, science consistency reviews, and results of ground- based observations to validate best available science. Chapter 3 provides a summary of the specialist reports, biological assessments, and biological evaluations in adequate detail to support the decision rationale. The project record is available for review at the Bend-Fort Rock Ranger District Office, 63095 Deschutes Market Road, Bend, Oregon 97701, Monday through Friday 7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Decision Framework The Responsible Official for this proposal is the Bend-Fort Rock District Ranger on the Deschutes National Forest. After completion of the EA, there will be a 30-day public comment period. Based on the comment response a

23

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

draft Decision Notice and a Final EA would be provided to the public for an opportunity to object to the Decision. Based on public input, as well as the analysis disclosed, the Responsible Official would make a decision and document it in a Final Decision Notice. The Responsible Official can decide to select the proposed action, an action alternative that has been considered in detail, modify an action alternative, or select the no action alternative. The Responsible Official may also identify which, if any, mitigation measures apply. The decision regarding which combination of actions to implement would be determined by comparing how each factor of the project’s purpose and need is met by each alternative and the manner in which each alternative responds to the key issues raised and public comments received during the analysis. The alternative that provides the best mix of prospective results in regards to the purpose and need, the issues, and public comments would be selected for implementation. Management Direction This EA is tiered to the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) FEIS and Record of Decision (ROD) dated (USDA, 1990), and all subsequent NEPA analysis for amendments, including the 1995 Eastside Screens Direction. The Forest Plan guides all natural resource management activities and provides standards and guidelines for the Deschutes National Forest. Forest Plan documents are available online at the Deschutes National Forest Website at: http://www.fs.fed.usda.gov/detail/deschutes/landmanagement/planning Management Direction – Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan This plan provides direction based on designated management areas (MA) and associated Standards and Guidelines. The LRMP, as amended, guides all natural resource management activities.1 The Forest is divided into management areas that have specific goals and objectives and these provide the basis for vegetation management as well as standards and guidelines (Table 1). In addition to LRMP management areas, a small portion of the project lies within the Newberry National Volcanic Monument (NNVM), established in 1990 by an act of Congress. Management direction in the NNMV Plan takes precedence over the LRMP. The 1994 NNMV Management Plan lists several management goals (NNVM Plan p. 7) that reflect the Monument Legislation, other applicable laws, and key issues identified during Monument Plan development. The following table shows LRMP management area allocations and the NNVM zones. Table 1 Deschutes LRMP Management Areas and NNVM Acres Treatment Management Area Goal Acres Units Deschutes LRMP Management Area Special Interest Areas-- Preserve and provide interpretation of unique geological, Newberry National biological, and cultural areas for education, scientific, and 24 43 Volcanic Monument public enjoyment purposes. (MA1) Emphasize timber production while providing forage 1- 8, 30, General Forest (MA8) production, visual quality, wildlife habitat, and recreational 31, 34- 38, 2063 opportunities. 40 Provide Forest visitors with high quality scenery that Scenic Views (MA9) represents the natural character of Central Oregon.

1 Forest Plan documents are located on the Deschutes National Forest web page at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/deschutes/landmanagement/planning.

24

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

1, 3, 14, Scenic View Partial Retention Foreground 32, 34, 38, 363 40 Scenic View Partial Retention Middleground 45-54 661 Provide a wide variety of quality outdoor recreation Intensive Recreation opportunities within a forest environment where the localized 10-15, 36, 355 (MA11) settings may be modified to accommodate large numbers of 38 visitors. Provide naturally evolved old growth forest ecosystems for (1) habitat for plant and animal species associated with old growth forest systems, (2) representations of landscape Old Growth (MA15) 34 43 ecology, (3) public enjoyment of large, old-tree environments, and (4) the needs of the public from an aesthetic spiritual sense. Provide an area where field research activities are conducted while considering other resource values. Administrative Experimental Forest coordination between the National Forest System and 9, 27 170 (MA16) Research within the Forest Service will provide for long-term protection of the Forest Environment to assure future research needs are met. Protect and enhance those outstandingly remarkable values that qualified segments of the Deschutes, Little Deschutes, Big

Marsh, Crescent, and Squaw Creeks for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Wild and Scenic Rivers (MA17) 10, 16- 23, Deschutes River – Recreation Segment 25, 26, 28 426 29, 42 Deschutes River – Scenic Segment 41, 46 14 Newberry National Volcanic Monument Zone Manage vegetation to provide high quality scenery, with emphasis on preserving and sustaining large, old-growth Lava Butte Zone 24 43 ponderosa pines, and to provide some habitat that allows for deer migration.

Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2 (Eastside Screens, 1995) The entire UDR WUI project area falls east of the spotted owl range, so direction from the Eastside Screens applies. The Eastside Screens contain guidelines for management of timber sales in late and old-structure forest (LOS) relative to the HRV, wildlife corridors, snags, coarse woody debris, and goshawk management. This project would not cut trees greater than 21” diameter at breast height (dbh), vegetation would either not change in structure or would be manipulated to move towards LOS and to encourage development and maintenance of large diameter, open canopy structure. The Screens also require maintaining connectivity between LOS stands and between Old Growth Management Areas.

25

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

Other Guiding Documents Wild and Scenic River Direction Vegetation management and fuels reduction activities are proposed within the Wild and Scenic Deschutes River corridor and within the eligible Wild and Scenic Fall River corridor. Rivers or sections of rivers in the National Wild and Scenic River System are classified as Wild, Scenic, or Recreational depending on the degree of development, appropriate types of land use, and ease of accessibility of roads and trails. There are no Wild River classified river segments on the Deschutes River or Fall River, but Recreational River and Scenic River classifications exist. Recreational River areas are defined as “those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past”. Scenic River areas are defined as “those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads” (USDA, 1996b). Activities within the Upper Deschutes and Fall River Wild and Scenic River Corridors for the UDR WUI Fuels Reduction Project are addressed in the Aquatics section of Chapter 3. Inland Native Fish Strategy Management direction included in the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH, USDA 1995), which amended the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP – USDA, 1990) applies within this area. Management direction within INFISH requires Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) to be delineated for watersheds. They are portions of watersheds where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis, and management activities are subject to specific standards and guidelines. The standard widths for RHCAs from INFISH that are applicable to this project will be adopted. Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) The Upper Deschutes project area includes portions of three Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs): the East and West Deschutes County CWPP, Upper Deschutes River Coalition CWPP, and Sunriver CWPP. All the CWPPs were prepared under the authorities of the Healthy Forest Reduction Act (HFRA) by a collaborative group of representatives of federal, state, and local governments and private entities. The CWPPs identify prioritized wildland-urban interface (WUI) areas for hazardous fuels reduction and the preferred fuels treatment methods. The overall fuels treatment standard in both CWPPs is to decrease the risk of uncharacteristic wildland fire behavior by reducing fuels to that which can produce flame lengths of less than four feet. This standard is to be applied starting within a ¼ mile buffer of adjacent WUI areas and within 500 feet of any critical transportation routes or ingress/egress that could serve as an escape route from adjacent communities at risk. All UDR WUI treatment units lie within or adjacent CWPP identified communities at risk prioritized for treatment. Public Involvement The project has been on the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on the Forest Website since October 2015. The Deschutes National Forest publishes the SOPA quarterly on the web and sends the document to individuals, groups and industry representatives. The Forest has been collaborating during the development of this project with stakeholder groups Upper Deschutes River Coalition and Ponderosa Pines Homeowner’s Association. Pre-scoping notification letters for UDR were mailed to tribal contacts including Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs, Burns Paiute Tribe, and the Klamath Tribes on March 19, 2015.

26

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

The scoping letters for the project were mailed or emailed to 159 interested parties on April 9, 2015. The following organizations submitted comments: La Pine Rural Fire Department, Sunriver Owners Association, Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project, Oregon Wild, and Interfor Pacific as well as the following list of individuals: Dick Artley, Christopher and Daniele Kell, Jeff Weiland, Jens and Glenda Jorgensen, Tom and Karin Vial, Julie and Jeff Glover, Robert Russell and Cynthia Carlson, John VanLandingham and Martha Walters, Jim Larsen, Jim Holmes, Dennis Grower, David Schweitzer, Tony Huffman, Carl Jansen, Charlie Jones, Richard Helmer, and Dean Richardson. Comments included feedback on topics such as prescribed fire, fuels suppression, large tree and snag retention, restoration, economics, road construction, untreated areas, and wildlife needs. All correspondence and full text of letters received are in the analysis file for the UDR WUI project at the Bend/Fort Rock Ranger District office. The State Historic Preservation Office has been consulted on findings of “No Effect” to cultural resources, and concurrence was received on December 16, 2015. Issues The interdisciplinary team reviewed the comments to develop key issue and analysis issues to be addressed in this assessment. There were no key issues. Key issues describe a dispute or present an unresolved conflict associated with potential environmental effects of the proposed action. Key issues are used to formulate alternatives, prescribe mitigation measures and focus the analysis of environmental effects. Key issues are tracked through issue identification (Chapter 1), alternative development and description (Chapter 2), and environmental consequences (Chapter 3). Since there were no key issues, a second action alternative was not analyzed in detail. Non-significant issues were identified as those outside the scope of the proposed action; already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level document; irrelevant to the decision to be made; or conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. Analysis issues include environmental components which would be considered in the effects section in chapter 3 as a way to compare the alternatives. Known as analysis issues, these items did not result in differing design elements among alternatives but are important for providing the Responsible Official with complete information about the effects of the project. Analysis issues include Forest Vegetation, including analysis of forest health, Fire and Fuels, Air Quality, Wildlife issues including Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species and analysis of Snags; Management Indicator Species; Focal Landbird Species; and Birds of Conservation Concern, Soils, Recreation, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Botanical Species, Invasive Plants, and Cultural Resources. Under HFRA Section 104, for areas inside the wildland-urban interface and within 1 1/2 miles of the boundary of an at-risk community, the USDA Forest Service and DOI BLM are not required to analyze any alternative to the proposed action, with one exception: If the at-risk community has adopted a Community Wildfire Protection Plan and the proposed action does not implement the recommendations in the plan regarding the general location and basic method of treatments, agencies are required to analyze the recommendations in the plan as an alternative to the proposed action (Sections 104(d)(2) and (3)). Agencies are not expected to develop a full no-action alternative. However, they should evaluate the effects of failing to implement the project.

27

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the UDR WUI project. It includes a description and map of each alternative considered. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each alternative. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public concerns received in response to the proposed action expressed concerns they had with the proposal and provided suggestions for different course of action. Some of these alternatives may have duplicated the alternatives considered in detail or were determined to be unable to meet the project’s purpose and need. Alternatives that were considered but not analyzed in detail are summarized below. Not Analyzed In Detail—Use Non-Commercial Thinning and Prescribed Fire to Reduce Fuel Loadings Instead of Commercial Thinning About 60% of the project is non-commercial thinning, mowing, or underburning. An alternative that would have no commercial thinning on the other units was eliminated from detailed study for two reasons. In the units planned for commercial harvest under the action alternative, crown fire potential cannot be effectively reduced without removing 7”+ DBH trees. Removal of 7”+ DBH trees is required to reduce crown bulk density and raise stand canopy base heights – two important predictors of crown fire potential. Thinning smaller trees will have some impact on average canopy base heights but will not reduce crown bulk density, which is a key input for crown fire propagation. The treatment of surface fuels through mowing cannot be effectively implemented without the removal of some 7”+ DBH trees. Current tree spacing in the stands planned for commercial harvest under the action alternative is too narrow to operate brush mowing equipment. In general, an average of 20’ spacing between trees, or approximately 100 trees per acre (tpa), is desired to effectively operate machinery. Lidar data, which tends to underestimate small tree numbers, shows that current tree stocking for all tree size classes in the planned commercial units ranges from 109-372 tpa. Under the action alternative, commercial harvest is planned for on approximately 40% of the project acres NOTE: For the purpose of this analysis commercial thinning refers to the harvest of trees that measure 7” to 21” at diameter at breast height (DBH). The thinning in the UDR WUI project is defined as a low thinning or a thinning from below with the purpose of reducing ladder fuels, breaking up crown continuity and promoting increased growth and vigor in the upper crown classes. The planned thinning targets the smaller trees in the stand, no trees over 21” DBH or trees that exhibit Van Pelt’s old growth characteristics will be cut. Occasionally, there is commercial value in trees less than 7” DBH. Especially for firewood or “post and pole” uses. If the market supports it, utilizing these small diameter trees is preferred to burning them in slash piles. Not Analyzed In Detail -In unit 20, only treat within three hundred feet of Spring River Road Some residents from the nearby Spring River subdivision submitted comments expressing concerns with the extent of the unit 20 hazard fuels reduction work displayed in the scoping letter. The residents felt that wildlife habitat would be negatively impacted by the proposed work and preferred that fuels reduction only occur along Spring River Road and directly adjacent to private property. Prior to the issuance of the draft EA, the concerned residents met with IDT members to discuss their specific concerns. Notes of field visits, meetings and other correspondence regarding unit 20 are available as part of the project record.

28

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

With over 300 residential lots within a quarter mile, Unit 20 is firmly within the wildland-urban interface (WUI). The Three Rivers area is a “highest” priority for treatment within the Upper Deschutes River Coalition Community Wildfire Protection Plan. This alternative was eliminated from detailed study because treating only within three hundred feet of Spring River Road would not meet the intent of the UDRC CWPP to treat within ¼ mile of any residential area and within 300’ of roads. (p. 51 UDRC CWPP). To address concerns brought forward during scoping regarding visuals and wildlife habitat expressed by a couple nearby Spring River residents, the treatments were modified from those initially outlined during scoping by creating subunits and more detail was provided to describe proposed actions. Changes include reducing treatment in the northern part of the unit and a reduction in the amount of small diameter lodgepole thinned in the remainder of the unit. Resource concerns also are addressed through unit treatment layout and project design features.

Alternatives Considered in Detail Alternative 1. No Action This alternative provides a basis for comparison to evaluate changes in the existing condition associated with the action alternatives. Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. No commercial or non-commercial activities would be implemented to accomplish the project purposes. No surface or ladder fuels reduction activities would be implemented to accomplish project purposes. Fuels adjacent to private property would continue to be in a hazardous condition, impairing egress in the event of a fire for residents of subdivisions, and the safety of firefighting personnel if a fire were to start. Alternative 2 Proposed Action Proposed treatments will reduce surface, ladder and canopy fuels and interrupt fuel continuities on Forest Service lands adjacent to subdivisions and along primary ingress and egress routes. Maintenance treatments are proposed in areas that have been thinned and/or mowed previously. A summary of treatments is reflected in Table 2 below. Table 3 provides a summary of treatments by unit. Maps of treatment units are displayed in Chapter 1 under the description of the proposed action. Table 2: Proposed Treatment Summary PROPOSED TREATMENT ACRES Commercial thin, Ladder Fuel Reduction Thin, Mow and Underburn 1,312 Commercial thin, Ladder Fuel Reduction Thin and Mow 402 Mow Only 1,853 Ladder Fuel Reduction Thin Only 55 Ladder Fuel Reduction Thin and Mow 347 Ladder Fuel Reduction Thin, Mow and Underburn 175 Underburn Only 7 TOTAL 4,151

29

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

Commercial Thinning refers to the harvest of trees that measure about 7” to 21” at diameter at breast height (DBH). Commercial treatments increase stand resiliency to fire and improve forest health. These treatments will raise the canopy base height to reduce the potential of surface fire to spread into tree canopies and inhibit running crown fires by decreasing crown connectivity and crown densities. The thinning in the UDR WUI project is defined as a low thinning or a thinning from below with the purpose of reducing ladder fuels, breaking up crown continuity and promoting increased growth and vigor in the upper crown classes. The planned thinning targets the smaller trees in the stand, no trees over 21” DBH or trees that exhibit Van Pelt’s old growth characteristics will be cut. Commercial harvest is planned for approximately 1714 acres. Ladder Fuels Reduction, or LFR, involves mechanically cutting smaller trees (generally less than 7” DBH) in the lower canopy layer of a stand to reduce potential for fire to move into the crowns of trees. Resulting slash would be treated by piling and burning. LFR treatments may also be completed concurrently with brush reduction through the use of machinery equipped with a mastication attachment. Pruning involves limbing the lower branches of trees (up to 6’ off the ground). Pruning decreases the potential for crown fire initiation by raising the canopy base height. Mowing is a treatment applied to bitterbrush, manzanita, and ceanothus with the intent of reducing shrub heights. This reduces hazardous fuels to facilitate use of fire and to limit mortality in surrounding trees from prescribed fire or wildfire. Mowing can be completed with mastication machinery or tractor mounted deck mowers. Generally mowing cuts brush to approximately 8” in height and mowing coverage ranges from 60-80% within a given unit. Please see project design features on page 42 for unit specific mowing specifications. Maintenance mowing refers to mowing areas previously treated under other projects. Generally, a mow treatment loses its effectiveness after five years. Slash Disposal In UDR WUI, activity generated slash and existing down as well as existing dead material within treatment units would be treated. Slash disposal methods for a specific unit depends on the amount of residual fuel, other proposed treatments, harvest method, harvest machinery used, and other factors. The preferred method of slash disposal is biomass utilization, which is highly dependent on biomass markets. For the purposes of analysis, it is assumed that the slash would not be utilized. Trees with commercial value (usually greater than 7” dbh) would be whole-tree yarded, with limbs and tops attached to the landings, thereby reducing the amount of slash piling within units. Tops and limbs would be utilized as biomass as market conditions allow, otherwise they would be burned at landings. If not utilized, residual fuel would be piled and burned. Material would primarily be piled with grapple head mounted machinery. In areas that machinery cannot access such as steeper slopes and rocky ground hand piling would occur. Machine pile dimensions are typically 12’ long by 12’ wide by 8’ in height and occur at a rate of up to 20 piles per acre. Hand pile dimensions are approximately 6’ long by 6’ wide by 5’ in height. The number of hand piles per acre would fluctuate along with fuel loadings but rarely exceed 50 piles per acre. Machine and hand piles would be burned in the late fall or winter season when moisture levels prevent fire spreading to surrounding areas. Mastication is the preferred thinning method for non-commercial material. Treatment through mastication leave the biomass on site and completes the brush mowing, small tree thinning and slash disposal in a single entry.

30

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

Figure 22: Hand pile burning

Underburning consists of burning natural fuels and slash located in timbered stands. The fuels are burned under predetermined weather conditions in order to minimize tree mortality of residual stands and to ensure smoke dispersal. Underburning is often used in combination with other treatments, particularly mowing. The fire hazard reduction benefits of underburning decrease after ten years.

Figure 23: Underburning in ponderosa pine

31

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

Table 3: Unit treatment descriptions Unit # Acres Thin Proposed Understory Treatment LRMP Nearest Subdivision from Allocation below 1 28 Yes LFR Thin, Mow, Underburn M8,M9 Ponderosa Pines 2 56 Yes LFR Thin, Mow, Underburn M8 Ponderosa Pines 3 72 Yes LFR Thin, Mow, Underburn M8,M9 Ponderosa Pines 4 63 Yes LFR Thin, Mow, Underburn M8 Ponderosa Pines 5 57 Yes LFR Thin, Mow, Underburn M8 Ponderosa Pines 6 12 No LFR Thin, Mow, Underburn M8 Ponderosa Pines 7 28 Yes LFR Thin, Mow M8 Ponderosa Pines 8 27 No LFR Thin, Mow M8 Ponderosa Pines 9 137 No LFR Thin, Mow M16 Ponderosa Pines 10 13 Yes LFR Thin, Mow M11,M17 River Meadows 11 5 No LFR Thin, Mow M11 River Meadows 12 17 No LFR Thin, Mow M11 Cougar Grove 13 19 Yes LFR Thin, Maintenance Mow M11 Cougar Grove 14 302 Yes LFR Thin, Maintenance Mow, Underburn M9,M11 River Meadows 15 37 Yes LFR Thin, Maintenance Mow, Underburn M11 Cougar Grove 16 11 No LFR Thin, Mow M17 River Meadows 17 2 No LFR Thin, Mow M17 River Meadows 18 8 No Mow M17 River Meadows 19 26 No LFR Thin, Mow M17 OWW1 20 142 No LFR Thin, Mow, Underburn M17 Spring River 21 80 No LFR Thin, Mow M17 Haner Park 23 6 Yes LFR Thin, Mow M17 River Forest Acres 24 43 No LFR Thin, Mow M1 NNVM Deschutes River Woods 25 49 No LFR Thin M16, M17 Wild River 26 44 No LFR Thin, Mow M16, M17 Wild River 27 40 Yes LFR Thin, Mow M16,M17 Wild River 28 1 No LFR Thin M17 Sunriver 29 5 No LFR Thin M17 Sunriver 30 227 Yes LFR Thin, Maintenance Mow, Underburn M8 River Meadows

32

UDR WUI Environmental Assessment

31 191 Yes LFR Thin, Maintenance Mow, Underburn M8 DRRH 32 132 Yes LFR Thin, Mow M9 Huntington Road 34 90 Yes LFR Thin, Mow M8,M9,M15 Fall River 35 22 No LFR Thin, Mow, Underburn M8 DRRH 36 280 Yes LFR Thin, Mow, Underburn M8, M11 DRRH 37 8 No Maintenance Mow M8 DRRH 38 110 No Maintenance Mow M8,M9,M11 DRRH 39 44 No Maintenance Mow M9 DRRH 40 1000 No Maintenance Mow M8,M9 Newberry Estates 41 7 No Underburn M17 None 42 15 No Maintenance Mow M17 OWW1 44 29 Yes LFR Thin, Mow M17 OWW1 45 214 No Maintenance Mow M9 Sunriver 46 28 No Maintenance Mow M9, M17 Sunriver 47 23 No Maintenance Mow M9 Sunriver 48 17 No Maintenance Mow M9 Sunriver 49 4 No Maintenance Mow M9 Sunriver 50 49 No Maintenance Mow M9 Sunriver 51 75 No Maintenance Mow M9 Sunriver 52 43 No Maintenance Mow M9 Sunriver 53 199 No Maintenance Mow M9 Sunriver 54 19 No Maintenance Mow M9 Sunriver

33

UDR Environmental Assessment

Connected Actions Pre-haul maintenance Pre-haul maintenance and minor road reconstruction would occur along all haul routes for the action alternatives. Needed road work involves brushing, blading, ditch reconditioning, spot surfacing placement, danger and downed tree removal, culvert inlet and outlet cleaning. Subsoiling Approximately 102 acres under the action alternative are likely to need subsoiling restoration treatments of previous impacts in order to meet LRMP standards for soil productivity. Subsoiling treatments on skid trails, log landings, and temp roads would further reduce the cumulative amount of detrimentally compacted soil and result in a net improvement in soil quality over a larger portion of the project area. Unit # Acres to Subsoil 2 4 3 5 4 4 5 4 7 2 9 10 10 1 12 1 14 15 15 3 19 2 21 6 27 3 30 16 31 13 34 5 36 8 TOTAL 102

Temporary Road Work Temporary road work would occur to facilitate commercial thinning in 8 units. In alternative 2, the action alternative, 3.1 miles of temporary roads would be either reopened or constructed. Temporary roads are roads used to access the interior areas of timber sale units to extract timber more efficiently and reduce ground based impacts from skidding long distances without the use of a road system. Temporary roads are built to low specification, just enough to get equipment into landings and are obliterated at the end of the timber sale activity. Where possible subsequent entries are designed to utilize previous roadbeds. Often these “existing

34

UDR Environmental Assessment roads” are merely a slight depression in the land or an area where trees were obviously removed to provide access routes. By re-using roadbeds soil disturbance can be reduced and existing access points revisited. These roads are not part of a permanent road system. They are not maintained or tracked. “Existing roads” were located mainly from field reconnaissance and from historic aerial photos that showed previous logging entries. Delineating these “existing roads” also helps the sale administration team locate skid roads efficiently. Within this project, 2.67 miles of old road beds will be used as temp roads. (Figures 24, 25 and 26) Table 4: Temporary Roads

Previously Unit # New Disturbed Total 7 0 0.46 .46 9 0.13 0.3 0.43 10 0 0.04 0.04 14 0 0.77 0.77 19 0 0.05 0.05 20 0.27 0 0.27 31 0 0.95 0.95 34 0 0.1 0.1 TOTAL 0.4 2.67 3.1

Any maintenance level 1 roads will be re-closed after use. Existing road closures will be maintained through project design (EA page 56).

228

200 4032 225 228 BESSON USFS 4032

500 RANI

WRIGHT POINT RIVER 6 36 T 20 S R 11 E T 20 31 S R 9 E T 20 S R 10 E 1

T 20 S 20 34 R 10 E ¬« LONE EAGLE ¬«

SPRING RIVER

CENTURYFall 42 River COOPER

40 SPRING RIVER T 21 12 7 200 1 T 21 S 6 LUNAR S R 9 E 332 SOLAR STELLAR R 10 E Figure 24 Temp Roads – Unit 20 and 24 (TEMP ROADS IN YELLOW)

35

UDR Environmental Assessment

10 11 12 7 KINGSBURG 650 920 LAGUNA GUSS

MERCED 610 31 800 SOLAR 611 600 ¬« NORWALK 400 14 OXNARD 30 13 15 STELLAR ¬« QUARTZ PASADENA HILL 18 ISLAND ISLAND LOOP ROSEMEAD LOOP

SACRAMENTO MILKY TORRANCE 460 510 GOTHARD 36 CRANE 4220 ¬« UPLAND BLUE HERON

520

BROWNING REMINGTON WOOD DUCK

WINCHESTER SAVAGE USFS 4220 500 USFS 4220 410 350 14 ¬« SHARP WOOD 500 T 20 S DUCK

WOOD R 10 E DERRINGER DUCK LOST SHARP T 20 S RIDER R 11 E 22 PITCH 36 23 24 OSPREY 19 ¬ PONY « 200

EXPRESS AVOCET CONE CHIEF PAULINA SCOUT 15 ¬11 TRAIL 150 ¬« « 160 GATEHOUSE

SWAN STAGESTOP WAGON WAGON BIG RIVER MASTER SPIKERMAN Three BIG Rivers BRENDA 150 RIVER 12 BONANZA 18 10 199 153 ¬« FOREST 13 ¬« ¬« GROSS 27 005 ¬« 25 010 26 30 210

16 FOSTER Big River CENTURY 212 ¬« 17 CENTURY SEEVERS 42 212 ¬« Figure 25 Temporary Roads -- Big River area (temp roads in yellow)

36

UDR Environmental Assessment

26 25 30 030 29 074 125 074

35 USFS 4330

500 43 070 1 ¬« BURGESS 930 010 072 020

070 010

012

500 2 ¬« 3 080 ¬« 030 36 31 T 21 S 32 4320 030 R 9 E 010 520 T 21 S

920 900 USFS 4420 4420 USFS 900 R 10 E

040 4 ¬« 010 4420 USFS 4420

PONDEROSA 060 9 050 017 ¬« 8 ¬« 018 010 4420 ¬«5 060

6 065 ¬ 066 BEAR « 100 BERRY WHITE PINE

SUGAR PINE RED CURRANT 2 500 7 T 22 S T 22 S ¬« 1 BARBERRY 6 R 9 E R 10 E 5

152 USFS 4320 500

USFS 135 590 4320 Figure 26Temporary Roads -- Ponderosa lane area (temp roads in yellow)

37

UDR Environmental Assessment

Project Design Features Project design criteria are actions that provide resource protection to ensure activities are consistent with the Deschutes Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Specific design features for this project are listed in Table 5. Measures are listed here to describe project design considerations and best management practices that will reduce or eliminate unwanted effects and ensure protect activities are implemented to comply with Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The sources of these measures include but are not limited to: Forest Plan goals, objectives, or standards & guidelines; Project Design Criteria from the Programmatic BA; Best Management Practices; conservation strategies; Invasive Plant Prevention Practices. Table 5: Project Design Features Measure Protection Measure Units affected Number

To protect Soil Roads and Skidding Network 1. Minimize the erosive effects of concentrated water through the proper All harvest units design and construction of temporary roads. Place temporary roads to avoid or minimize cut and fill construction (LRMP SL-1 & SL-3; BMP Road-5.) 2. Ensure that water control structures are installed and maintained on All harvest units skid trails that have gradients of 10 percent or more; Ensure erosion control structures are stabilized and working effectively (LRMP SL-1; BMP Veg-4). 3. Conduct regular preventive road maintenance on all haul routes to avoid All harvest units deterioration of the road surface and minimize the effects of erosion and sedimentation. Required post-haul maintenance and storm- proofing/winterizing should be accomplished as soon as possible after haul has been completed on each road segment (BMP Road-4) 4. Do not skid in the bottoms of draws, swales, drainage ways, or All harvest units, ephemeral channels. Cross perpendicular to the feature, if required Features noted in units (crossings will be approved by the Sale Administrator). Apply 20, 21, 25, 26, 27 appropriate buffers to ephemeral and intermittent channels as specified in the hydrology/fisheries report. If drainage ways are found in units not listed here, they will be treated the same (LRMP SL-1, SL-3 & SL-6; BMP Veg-3). Prescribed Burn Operations 5. Protect Soils and Water during prescribed burn operations – Comply All prescribed burn with all applicable LRMP standards and guidelines and Best units Management Practices in burn plans, which shall be completed before the initiation of prescribed fire treatments in planned activity areas. Include soil moisture guidelines to minimize the risk of intense fire and adverse impacts to soil and water resources from prescribed burning (LRMP SL-1 & SL-3; BMP Fire-2.)

38

UDR Environmental Assessment

Retaining Coarse Woody Debris/Down Wood 6. Minimize disturbance and piling of decaying large woody debris during All proposed activity fuel treatments to retain adequate organic matter reservoirs for nutrient areas cycling and maintenance of long-term site productivity (LRMP SL-1, Regional Soil Quality Guidelines) (Refer to Wildlife Resource Project Design Features for required retention levels). 7. Avoid direct lighting of stumps and large woody debris greater than 9 All prescribed burn inches in diameter during prescribed burn operations(LRMP SL-1, units Regional Soil Quality Guidelines). Maintaining Duff Layer 8. Strive to maintain fine organic matter less than 3-inches in diameter All proposed activity (commonly referred to as the duff layer) over at least 65 percent of an areas activity area following both harvest and post-harvest operations. Adjust minimum amounts to reflect vegetative capabilities if the potential natural plant community on site is not capable of producing fine organic matter over 65 percent of the area (LRMP SL-1 & SL-6; Regional Soil Quality Guidelines; BMP Fire-2.). Minimizing the extent of new soil disturbance from mechanical treatments 9. Use old landings and skidding networks whenever possible (except All harvest units where current resource concerns dictate otherwise). All locations for

pre-existing or new yarding and transportation systems to be used for current entry must be approved by the Sale Administrator prior to logging operations (includes all skid trails, landings, and temporary roads) (LRMP SL-1 & SL-3; BMP Veg-4. And BMP Veg-6.). 10. Maintain spacing of 100 to 150 feet for all primary (main) skid trails, All harvest units except where converging at landings, to minimize soil impacts. Closer spacing due to complex terrain must be approved in advance by the Sale Administrator. Main skid trails spaced an average of 100’ apart to limit soil impacts to 11% of the unit area. For activity areas larger than 40 acres that can accommodate wider spacing distances, it is recommended that distance between main skid trails be increased to average 150’ to reduce the amount of detrimentally disturbed soil to 7% of the unit area (Froelich, 1981, and Garland, 1983) (LRMP SL-1 & SL-3, BMP Veg-4.). 11. Grapple skidders and other rubber-tired machinery will be restricted to All harvest units primary skid trails and landings at all times. Harvesting machinery will be permitted to leave primary skid trails at 30-foot intervals to cut and accumulate material, making no more than two passes over any piece of ground. Harvesting machinery should make only linear passes out and back, constraining pivots and turns to primary skid trails where feasible (LRMP SL-1 & SL-3, BMP Veg-4.). 12. Cease operations during periods of high soil moisture or if frozen ground All harvest units or snow begins to thaw and damage to soil occurs. Some “watch-out” situations include: machine break-through begins to occur; equipment tracks sink deeply (half the width of the track) below the soil surface

39

UDR Environmental Assessment

with one or two passes; ruts greater than six inches deep form; mid-day temperatures are forecast to rise above freezing; substantial surface melt occurs over still-frozen subsurface (LRMP SL-1 & SL-3; BMP Veg-4. & Veg-7.). 13. Piling treatments to reduce fuel loadings shall be implemented to All proposed activity minimize soil disturbance as follows (LRMP SL-1 and SL-3; BMP Veg-8.): areas . Restrict grapple piling machinery to designated routes used for harvest operations where fuel loads are moderate or low. Where fuel loads are high, limit off-trail machine travel to no more than two passes on any piece of ground. . Where feasible, turns and pivots should be constrained to primary skid trails to limit soil displacement. . Operators shall plan travel paths to make full use of the machine’s capability (e.g., using full boom reach of machine) to limit ground disturbance and minimize number of off-trail passes needed to achieve treatment objectives. . Where feasible, pile fuels (both hand and machine piles) on logging facilities (i.e. skid trails and landings) in order to minimize additional detrimental soil impacts from burning (LRMP SL-1 & SL-3; BMP Veg-8.).

14. Mastication treatments to reduce brush and fuel loadings shall All proposed activity implemented to minimize soil disturbance as follows (LRMP SL-1 and SL- areas 3; BMP Veg-8.): . When using a boom-mounted masticating head, operator shall plan off-trail travel paths to make full use of the machine’s capability (e.g., using the full boom reach of the machine) to limit ground disturbance and minimize the number of off-trail passes needed to achieve treatment objectives. . When using a machine with a drum-type fixed masticating head, work in long, linear swaths to the extent practicable to avoid unnecessary pivoting and turning, which results in soil displacement damage. . Operator should not allow masticating head to make contact with the soil surface, which can result in detrimental churning and mixing of the soil. . Machines shall make no more than two passes over any piece of ground (when not on primary skid trails or landings). . Detrimental soil impacts resulting from mastication shall be isolated and infrequent (less than 5% of the unit area). Detrimental impacts include total removal of surface organics and topsoil, churning/mixing of topsoil with subsoil, rutting greater than six inches deep, and heavy compaction. . Unless otherwise specified to meet wildlife or other resource objectives, limit treatment to 80% of the unit area, leaving 20% in both untreated islands of 0.5 to 2 acres in size and in isolated pockets of smaller size equally distributed through the unit.

40

UDR Environmental Assessment

15. For slopes greater than 30 percent falling within activity units (LRMP SL- All proposed activity 1, SL-3 & SL-5; BMP Veg-4.: areas (isolated slopes over 30% possible in . Prioritize for leave areas within units. Exceptions for areas that Units 7, 9, 37, 38, and make up less than 10 percent of an activity area would be 39) subject to Forest Service approval. . Prohibit any new development of temporary roads, minimize designated skid trails, and restrict mechanical disturbance to existing roads and designated skid trails at all times. . Directionally hand fall trees that cannot be reached by shears from designated skid trails and suspend the leading end of logs while accumulating or skidding. . Skid trails used by the purchaser shall be reclaimed by applying appropriate erosion control measures such as the placement of slash in conjunction with, or in place of, waterbars for rehabilitation. 16. Consider alternatives to ground-disturbing fireline, including wet line, All prescribed burn rock outcrops, roads, or other features. Reclaim all machine-built fire units lines by redistributing displaced topsoil and unburned woody debris over the disturbed surface (LRMP SL-1 & SL-3; BMP Fire-2.).

17. Apply restoration treatments (e.g. subsoiling, surface slash placement) Harvest activity units to primary logging facilities where needed to meet LRMP standards or with prior entries and reduce overall impacts. Units with prior entries and elevated existing elevated existing detrimental conditions are likely to need restoration treatments to meet detrimental conditions LRMP standards for soil productivity (LRMP SL-1, SL-3, SL-4, & SL-6; BMP – Units 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, Veg-4. and Veg-6.). 10, 12, 14, 15, 19, 21, 27, 30, 31, 34, and 36.

18. Rehabilitate all temporary roads created for the current entry. This may All harvest units. Temp include masking/obliterating entrances, subsoiling, utilizing excavator roads planned for units bucket teeth to loosen compacted soils, recontouring cuts and fills, 7, 9, 10, 14, 19, 20, 31, and/or placing fine slash or other organic materials over treated surfaces and 34. New temp road to establish effective ground cover protection where available. New segments planned in disturbances are expected to be fully obliterated after use, while existing units 9 and 20. roads/disturbances used as temp roads for the current entry may be hydrologically stabilized, scarified, and blocked. Subsoiling of temporary roads may occur as a post-sale area improvement activity where conditions are appropriate (LRMP SL-1, SL-3, & SL-4; BMP Road-5.). To protect sensitive soils 19. Where high water tables are present (saturated conditions within two Units 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, feet of the soil surface, presence of riparian vegetation) all treatments 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 28, will be conducted by hand. Machines may be permitted to reach in from 29, 31, 34, 35, 41, 44 upland areas, where feasible. The Sale Administrator, in consultation with the Soil Scientist, may allow mechanical operations only when water tables are low enough and soil is dry enough to avoid resource

41

UDR Environmental Assessment

damage. Alternately, operating machinery over sufficient snow, frozen ground, or slash mats may be acceptable to limit detrimental soil disturbance (LRMP SL-1, SL-3, & SL-5; BMP Veg-3. and Veg-4.).

20. Where forested lavas are present, place additional emphasis on the Unit 34 containment of detrimental soil impacts through careful planning and layout of the skidding network and through close Sale Administrator oversight. Further limit the extent of detrimentally impacted soils by conducting post-harvest fuels treatment by hand or limiting machinery to existing primary skid trails and landings (LRMP SL-1, SL-3, and SL-5).

21. Avoid placing landings in or routing temporary roads through frost Unit 45 (southwestern pocket soil types (mapped as SRI 15 in this project area). Prioritize for part of unit)

leave areas if necessary (LRMP SL-1, SL-3, and SL-5).

22. In units to be thinned for aspen release, the soil scientist will be Unit 34 consulted to help determine the distance from existing clones/shoots to conduct thinning operations. To protect riparian vegetation, water, and aquatic species Project design features include Best Management Practices found in the National Core BMP Technical Guide National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands (USDA 2012a). Erosion Prevention and Control Within RRs/RHCAs - BMP Veg-2

23. Operate equipment when soil compaction, displacement, erosion, and Units 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, sediment runoff would be minimized. Avoid ground equipment 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 26,

operations on unstable, wet, or easily compacted soils and on steep 34, 42, 44 slopes unless operations can be conducted without causing excessive rutting, soil puddling, or runoff of sediments directly into waterbodies. No mechanized equipment will operate on slopes greater than 30% in RHCAs. 24. Evaluate site conditions frequently to assess changing conditions and Units 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, adjust equipment operations as necessary to protect the site while 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 26, maintaining efficient project operations. 34, 42, 44 Vegetation Management within Aquatic Management Zones (AMZ)-BMP-Veg-3 25. Design silvicultural or other vegetation management prescriptions and Units 10, 16, 17, 20, 21, operations in the AMZ to maintain or improve the riparian ecosystem 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 34, and adjacent waterbody. The RHCAs are the Aquatic Management 44 Zones for the UDRC WUI Project. Retain trees as necessary for canopy cover and shading, bank stabilization, and as a source of large woody debris within the AMZ.

42

UDR Environmental Assessment

26. Retain all snags > 18” dbh within 100 feet of the Deschutes River and Units: 10, 16, 17, 18, 20, Spring River unless deemed as a safety hazard. 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 42, 44 27. Within Category 1 RHCAs – fish bearing streams and rivers: No thinning Units 10, 16, 20, 21, 23, of trees greater than 7" dbh within 75 feet of rivers and streams. 25, 26, 34, 44 No thinning of any trees within 25 feet of rivers and streams 28. Within Category 1 RHCAs – fish bearing streams and rivers: No thinning Units 17, 28 of trees greater than 7"dbh within 50 feet of rivers and streams. No thinning of any trees within 25 feet of rivers and streams. 29. Within Category 4 RHCAs – intermittent or ephemeral channels: No Units 20, 21 thinning of trees within 10 feet of stream channel. 30. Directionally fall trees away from rivers, streams, and riparian areas to Units 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, avoid disturbance to riparian and near-river environment. Hazard trees 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, left on-site exempted. 29, 34, 44 31. Fisheries Biologist or hydrologist to assist unit boundary marking crews Units 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, in identifying stream and wetland buffers in the field. 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 34, 42, 44 32. Retain maximum number of snags in RHCAs post hazard tree felling Units 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 34, 44 33. For hazard trees (that are felled) with potential to fall into streams, fall Units 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, toward stream and leave on-site. 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 34, 44 Ground-based Skidding and Yarding Operations within RRs/RHCAs – BMP Veg-4 34. Heavy equipment to remain >75 feet from rivers and streams and >25 Units 10, 20, 21, 34, 44 from riparian vegetation. Equipment allowed to use existing improved

crossing of intermittent channel in Unit 20. 35. Locate skid trails outside of RHCAs to the extent practicable. When Units 10, 14, 20, 21, 34, within RHCAs, maximize skid trails perpendicular to slope. Avoid long 44 runs on steep slopes. 36. Use existing road and skid trail network to the extent practicable. Units 10, 14, 21, 34, 44 37. Use suitable measures to stabilize and restore skid trails after use. Units 10, 14, 20, 21, 34, Reshape surface to promote dispersed drainage, mitigate soil 44 compaction to improve infiltration and revegetation conditions, and apply soil protective cover on disturbed areas where accelerated erosion may occur. Landings – BMP Veg-6 38. Avoid landings within RHCAs when feasible. Units 10, 14, 20, 21, 34, 44 39. Locate landings to minimize the number of required skid trails. Landings Units 10, 14, 20,21, 34, will be obliterated after use, with the surface deeply ripped; natural 44

43

UDR Environmental Assessment

drainage features re-established, road effectively drained and blocked; and road returned to native vegetation through either replanting or natural succession. Prescribed Fire, Mowing, and Slash Management Activities 40. Mowing equipment to remain >75 feet from rivers and streams and >25 Units 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, feet from riparian vegetation. 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 26, 34, 42, 44 41. Keep high-intensity fire out of RHCAs. To minimize potential Units 14, 20 sedimentation, plan prescribed fire with an intensity that will not result in hydrophobic soils or excessive consumption of ground cover and downed coarse wood. 42. Minimize machine fireline construction within RHCAs. Utilize handline Units 14, 20 construction whenever feasible. Construct firelines to the minimum size and standard necessary to contain the prescribed fire and meet overall project activities. Maintain firebreaks in a manner that minimizes exposed soil to the extent practicable. All firelines will be rehabilitated immediately after underburn is completed. 43. Ignitions during underburning shall be 50 feet or more from streams and Units 14, 20 riparian areas. Fire is allowed to creep toward streams. 44. Evaluate the completed burn to identify sites that may need stabilization Units 14, 20 treatments or monitoring to minimize soil and site productivity loss and deterioration of water quality both on and off the site. Provide for rapid revegetation of any denuded areas through natural processes supplemented by artificial revegetation where necessary. 45. Handpiling is allowed >50 feet from streams Category 1 RHCA streams Units 10, 16, 17, 20, 21, and >25 feet from Category 4 RHCA streams. Placement of handpiles 23, 25, 26, 34, 44 would focus on upslope areas and avoid areas of washes and depressions that may facilitate water run-off toward streams. Burning would occur under conditions that do not allow excessive creeping from the pile, generally 10 feet or less. Handpiles should not exceed 50 ft². 46. Minimize handpiles in riparian vegetation. If handpiles are constructed Units 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, in riparian vegetation, do not burn. 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 34, 44 47. Slash generated from machine piling to be located outside of riparian Units 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, vegetation and > 125 feet from Category 1 RHCA rivers and streams, and 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 34, >75 feet from Category 4 RHCA streams. Heavy equipment used for 42 piling to remain >75 feet from all rivers and streams and >25 feet from riparian vegetation Equipment Refueling and Servicing 48. Develop or use existing fuel management plans (e.g. spill response plan) Units 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, when assigning the equipment and refueling and servicing sites. 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 26, 34, 42, 44

44

UDR Environmental Assessment

49. To prevent pollutants from entering water, all servicing and refueling of Units 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, equipment shall occur outside of RHCAs. 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 26, 34, 42, 44 50. Storage of fuels and other toxicants used during management activities Units 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, shall be stored outside of RHCAs. 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 26, 34, 42, 44 Water Drafting 51. Water drafting to occur only at Forest Service pre-approved sites on the All Units Deschutes River. Pump intake hoses to be screened with 3/32” mesh size. To Protect trees with old growth tree characteristics 52. Retain ponderosa pine trees greater than or equal to 21 inches and All units / Project trees with old growth tree characteristics (Van Pelt 2008, PP 73-94 ). Design Ponderosa pine old tree characteristics include all of the following: 1) orange bark with plates generally more than three times wider than the darker fissures that separate them, 2) rounded crown, and 3) below the main crown, few if any dead branches present and knots not noticeable To Protect Sensitive Plants 53. Protect pumice moonwort habitat. The habitat for the pumice Unit 40 moonwort (BOPU) will be avoided by all operations in unit 40. The

district biologist or his/her designee will flag out the area in unit 40 to be avoided. 54. Protect the spring/creek from mechanical damage. Unit 34 55. Canada thistle site on E edge of unit (near edge with Ryan Ranch Unit 41 meadow) that will need to be avoided. It’s a patch maybe 50’ x 50’ in size. Desirable to pull Mullein in unit prior to treatment.

45

UDR Environmental Assessment

To Prevent the Introduction and Spread of Invasive Plants

Figure 27: Known weed sites

Unit Species Comment 10* Spotted Site (480PHAR3), CEBI2 along SE border. knapweed,(reed canary Reed canary grass is not likely to be grass) treated prior to project start. 16* Spotted knapweed, Site 307CEBI2, west end; 306CEBI2, dalmatian toadflax 187CEBI2 and 647LIDA along Rd. 42 20* Spotted knapweed, Site 507CEBI2, 135CIVU, along south and Canada thistle, bull east edges respectively; 639CIAR4 in thistle ditchline in SW portion 21* Canada thistle, St. Site 172HYPE, CIAR4, at northern tip Johnswort 26* Spotted knapweed Site 774CEBI2, at western tip 27 Spotted knapweed Site 308CEBI2, along 43 Road 28* Bull thistle Site 86CIVU 41 Canada thistle Site 890CIAR4, outside east boundary 52 Spotted knapweed Site 587CEBI2, middle of unit on 4001-720 rd 54 Spotted knapweed Site 19CEBI2 along 4143 Rd., also diffuse reported but probably not likely

56. To ensure weeds are not brought into the project area, clean all All treatment units equipment before entering and after leaving National Forest System lands. Remove mud, dirt, and plant parts from project equipment before moving it into the project area and before proceeding to the next project 57. Any fill material proposed for use with the project will be examined by All road work the district botanist, or designee, for the presence of invasive plants prior to bringing it onto the National Forest. 58. To prevent existing weeds from spreading, treat weed sites prior to All treatment units project initiation. Reed canary grass treatment is unlikely to happen within that timeframe; see next mitigation measure for direction on that unit/species. 59. To prevent existing weeds from spreading, avoid ignitions within the All underburn and pile listed weed sites (although some are on road shoulders) and to the burn units extent possible, prevent fire from reaching those sites. The units with internal sites (rather than at unit edge or roadside) are listed in the table below with an asterisk.

46

UDR Environmental Assessment

60. To prevent existing weeds from spreading, all listed weed sites will be All treatment units avoided by project vehicles either parking on them and/or using them for staging areas. 61. To ensure weeds are not spread, the weed sites that are deemed All treatment units necessary to be avoided will be flagged by the district botanist or his/her designee prior to project implementation. 62. To ensure that weeds have not been spread or introduced, the sites Please see Figure 27 listed in the table will be monitored post-treatment. It is encouraged above. but not mandatory that other units are also monitored for weed introductions. 63. To ensure weeds are not spread, a map of all weed sites and the Please see Figure 27 following table will be provided to project implementers and discussed above. with them prior to project initiation. To ensure public safety and awareness during operations 64. Warning signs and public notices will be posted when burning or logging All units during hunting season or other times when public use of the area is high. 65. Hazard trees created by underburning, within falling distance of roads or All burn units private property, will be felled and left on site. 66. To help ensure public safety during burning operations, signs or other All burn units traffic control measures would be used. To preserve air quality 67. All prescribed burning operations would be coordinated with the Oregon All burn units State Department of Environmental Quality and the Oregon State

Department of Forestry, State of Oregon smoke management program. To protect trees while burning 68. To reduce potential for direct fire-related mortality, minimize damage All burn units that could result in delayed mortality, and fire damage which could result in long-term growth loss conduct burns in a manner that will result in: 1) For General Forest retain at least 50 percent live crown and having no more than 40 percent bole scorch. 2) For Scenic areas scorch no more than 30 percent live crown and no more than 40 percent bole scorch (M9-90). 3) Minimal cambium scorching of lodgepole pine. Possible measures include: 1) initiating burns outside the time of bud elongation (generally between mid-May to early June depending on weather conditions), 2) initiating burns when weather and fuel moisture conditions are favorable for meeting fuel reduction objectives and minimizing damage, and 3) utilizing lighting techniques expected to meet fuel reduction objectives while minimizing damage to residual trees. To minimize cambium scorching of lodgepole pine, lighting

47

UDR Environmental Assessment

techniques to include avoiding direct ignition under lodgepole pine, except where desired. 69. In general, trees 21 inches or greater that show old growth Units 2,3,4,5,6 characteristics (Van Pelt 2008, PP 73-94) have deep accumulation of organic duff at their bases. Of concern are the first order fire effects of deep charring at the root collar causing delayed mortality of these old growth trees. No more than 50 percent of the duff collar should be consumed during a prescribed fire operation. Possible mitigation measures are to 1) burn when duff collar fuel moistures are high, and or 2) manual pull back of duff collars prior to ignitions. 70. Locate all slash piles to minimize the bole scorch effect on adjacent All Pile Units (1- trees. 12,166,17,19,20,21-29, 32,34-36, 44) To ensure adequate tree stocking levels 71. Openings larger than 2 acres caused by management activities which do All units not contain adequate advanced regeneration will be evaluated for reforestation (TM-9). To Preserve Visual Quality 72. Underburning activities in Foreground areas would be designed to avoid Units 1, 3, 14, 32, 34, scorching more than 1/3 of the live crown of dominant and co-dominant 38, and 40 trees. Activities such as pruning of lower branches may be used to guard against crown scorch. To Minimize Impacts to Wildlife 73. Maintain snags and green tree replacements of >15 inch DBH at 100% All treatment units maximum potential population (mpp) for all vegetation types except lodgepole pine; for lodgepole pine, maintain snags and green tree replacements of >10 inch at 100% mpp. Retain downed logs ranging from 3 to 20 pieces per acre depending upon vegetation series, as shown in the table below. Dead and live trees showing wildlife signs (dens, nests, cavities, squirrel middens or woodpecker activity) should be chosen first for retention. Retention trees should only be chosen that will not become hazards to people or property or interfere with project operations. Snags within 500 feet of water, meadows/parks/forest openings and ridgetops are of best value. Retain snags in groups when possible to minimize risk of wind throw. Choose a variety of heights, shapes and decay conditions for snag retention. Protect retention trees from damage during project preparation and through all phases of implementation.

SNAG, GREEN TREE AND DOWNED WOOD DESIGN CRITERIA HABITAT TYPE HABITAT TYPE TREATMENT UNITS

48

UDR Environmental Assessment

Lodgepole Pine 1-6, 8, 20-21, 27-29 Ponderosa Pine All other treatment units SNAGS TREATMENT UNITS MINIMUM RETENTION PER ACRE Lodgepole Pine Units 1.8 Ponderosa Pine Units 2.25 GREEN TREE REPLACEMENTS (GTRs) TREATMENT UNITS MINIMUM RETENTION PER ACRE Lodgepole Pine Units Approx. 17 Ponderosa Pine Units Approx. 10 DOWNED WOOD TREATMENT PIECES DIAMETER MIN. PIECE TOTAL UNITS PER ACRE LENGTH LINEAR AT SMALL LENGTH END Lodgepole 15-20 8 inches 8 feet 120-160 Pine Units feet Ponderosa 3-6 12 inches 6 feet 20-40 feet Pine Units NOTE: Prescribed fire consumption will not exceed 3 inches total (1.5 inches per side) of diameter reduction in the featured large log sizes above.

74. In all treatment units, restrict disturbance activities within ¼ mile of any All units, and those known or newly discovered nests as shown in the table below. This listed to the left. condition may be waived in a particular year if nesting or reproductive success surveys reveal that the species indicated is non-nesting or that no young are present that year. KNOWN SPECIES DATES RESTRICTED UNITS Red-tailed hawk March1 – August 31 None Northern goshawk March 1 – August 31 None Cooper’s and Sharp-shinned April 15 – August 31 None hawks Osprey April 1 – August 31 None Northern spotted owl March 15 – None September 3 Great gray owl March 1 – June 30 Unit 41

49

UDR Environmental Assessment

Great blue heron March 1 – August 31 None Bald eagle February 1 - July 31 Unit 21 In all treatment units, if a new goshawk territory is discovered, a 30 acre no treatment area around the nest will be identified and a 400 acre post fledging area will be delineated. 75. Water drafting will only occur in streams that are at least 10 cubic feet All treatment units. per second (cfs). Avoid shallow areas of ponds or lakes. Water intakes must meet NFMS fish screen criteria. Water drafting only applies to short-term water withdrawals defined as those occurring less than 8 hours/day, not longer than 3 consecutive days, and less than 10% of the volume removed where the volume is measured at the time of the withdrawal. 76. Previously-identified retention areas from earlier projects will be All treatment units. retained. In new treatment units, retain 10% of the area in untreated clumps (0.5 to 5 acres in size) dispersed throughout the unit that are focused on areas of dense vegetation to provide cover (LRMP WL-59). During layout, strategically use reserve patches to create fingers, islands and irregular boundaries to break up larger openings and maximize edge habitat. Retention areas should be used for multiple-resource benefit when possible. Efforts should be made to retain good cover properties in retention areas through all phases of treatment, including prescribed fire. 77. Limit mowing and mastication treatment as noted below. Higher Units 32, 34, 39, 47, 48, retention standards will help maintain important habitat characteristics 50, 53 and 54 in key elk areas, wildlife connectivity corridors and old growth management units. Untreated pockets should be well distributed throughout the unit and not exceed 2 acres in size. Focus leave patches around pockets of regenerating trees and large downed logs or accumulations of downed woody debris, in terrain depressions and along ridgetops. Do not focus leave patches exclusively on/near rocky outcrops.

MAXIMUM TREATMENT AREA TREATMENT HEIGHT LIMIT 50% of Unit Approx. 8 inches 32, 80% of Unit Approx. 8 inches All ot

78. Within portions of Unit 25 and Unit 20, as key elk areas and other areas Units 20 and 25 identified for maintaining important hiding cover – treatment will be limited to ladder fuel reduction within the dripline of dominate trees to maintain cover distribution. To Protect Cultural Resources and to avoid potential effects on eligible and unevaluated sites 79. Provide a 30 meter (100 foot) buffer for identified cultural resource sites located within treatment units, proposed temporary roads, and

50

UDR Environmental Assessment

proposed landings. No project activities will occur within the buffer Units affected are without consultation with the District archaeologist. identified in the heritage resource 80. No abandoned RR grades are approved for use as skid roads unless they report, located in the are documented and determined not eligible (lacks integrity of project file. materials, i.e., rails and ties are all removed and no other associated features or artifacts are present). 81. In the event that previously unknown sites, cultural artifacts, or features are discovered during project implementation, they would be flagged and operations in the area avoided until the archaeologist can review the site. 82. No fireline construction through, staging of fire vehicles on, or mop up within eligible or unevaluated cultural resource sites. 83. No turning and maneuvering of mowing equipment within eligible or unevaluated prehistoric sites. 84. Pre-commercial thinning by hand (chainsaw) will not affect historic or prehistoric sites but mechanical thinning and machine piling will avoid all eligible historic and prehistoric sites. 85. Commercial activities, will exclude all eligible sites from treatment units, landings, temporary roads and skid trails. Avoidance areas will be marked in contractor files or maps as Special Management Areas (SMA) and not as archaeological sites. 86. Where sites need to be avoided by project activities, an archaeologist will mark the area to be avoided prior to layout and/or design, and implementation. This will be done at the time of the burn plan being signed by the district ranger/agency administrator. 87. Where danger trees are identified within known eligible or unevaluated sites will be directionally felled and left in place. When possible, trees will be felled toward access routes. Lifting a tree in its entirety is a preferred method of preventing displacement and mixing of site sediments and artifacts. Complete suspension of smaller lengths is another method. If either method is not feasible, felled trees will be left in place.

Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to the scenic resource and preserve or enhance scenic quality. 88. Locate landings, skid trails, slash piles or staging areas using existing Units 1, 3, 14, 32, 34, openings and skid trails and minimize bole damage to remaining 38, 40, 45-54 vegetation along scenic travel corridors and access to developed recreation sites (Forest Roads 40 and 42). Flush cut stumps (6 inches or less with angle cut away from line of sight) in immediate Foreground areas (0-300 feet). 89. Minimize amount of leave-tree markings and black out tagging units with vertical orange paint on both side of trees along scenic travel corridors and access to developed recreation sites after sales close.

51

UDR Environmental Assessment

90. Design underburning activities to minimize short-term visual effects by maintaining crown scorch at less than 30 percent and minimize bole scorch up to 10 feet in height. 91. Clean-up activities in Scenic Views High Scenic Integrity Level – SMS (Retention – VMS) treatment areas including landings, skid trails, slash piles or staging and removal of flagging and unit boundary tags and other markings will not be visible to the casual Forest visitor one year after the work has been completed. 92. Clean-up activities in Scenic Views Moderate Scenic Integrity Level – SMS (Partial Retention - VMS) treatment areas including landings, skid trails, slash piles or staging and removal of flagging and unit boundary tags and other markings will not be visible to the casual Forest visitor two years after the work has been completed. Roads 92. To avoid compromising new and existing road closures: Design thinning All units and brush mowing adjacent to road closures to avoid jeopardizing the integrity and effectiveness of the of road closure device (gates, rocks, earthen mounds etc.)

Comparison of Alternatives Table 6 Summary of how each alternative addresses the elements of the purpose and need and additional decision criteria

ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION) ALTERNATIVE 2 Fire Hazard Rating Acres % of Project Area Acres % of Project Area None 118 3% 118 3% Low 1,158 27% 3,485 84% Moderate 73 2% 117 3% High 280 7% 74 2% Extreme 2,505 61% 340 8% Moderate to High crown fire Canopy base heights are susceptibility rating raised; crown bulk density lowered. Crown fire susceptibility Fire Resilience moves to low rating Most units stocked above the SDI reduced 60 to 83 upper management zone. percent. Continued deterioration of Improved tree vigor and forest health. increasing radial growth. Decreased susceptibility to successful bark beetle attacks. Forest Health

52

UDR Environmental Assessment

Sale Area Improvement Projects Money may be collected from the timber sales to complete certain projects such as required mitigation, and enhancement and restoration projects in the vicinity of the timber sale areas. This list is intended to serve as an overall guide for the analysis area. As timber sales are defined, specific priorities may be adjusted to meet the needs for each sale area. This priority setting should be documented briefly in the implementation file for each timber sale. Non-commercial thinning and associated slash disposal. Non-commercial thinning involves cutting, usually by hand, understory trees in the lower most canopy layer of a stand to reduce potential for fire to move into the crowns of trees in the middle to upper canopy layer trees. Small diameter trees, generally less than 4 to 6 inches dbh, with potential to carry fire into the crowns of ponderosa pine in the middle to upper canopy levels would be cut. If market conditions preclude utilization, resulting slash would be treated by lopping and scattering or piling and burning. Non-commercial thinning and slash disposal may be achieved in one entry with the use of mastication equipment. The effects of non-commercial thinning are analyzed in the EA. Stocking surveys. Stocking surveys to monitor progress in establishing a new stand following all regeneration harvest treatments. Cost $2/acre. Not subject to further NEPA analysis. Subsoil – Restoration/Enhancement – Sale Area Improvement. Approximately 102 acres under the action alternative are likely to need subsoiling restoration treatments of previous impacts in order to meet LRMP standards for soil productivity. Estimated cost to complete subsoiling is $40,800. Subsoiling treatments on skid trails, log landings, and temp roads would further reduce the cumulative amount of detrimentally compacted soil and result in a net improvement in soil quality over a larger portion of the project area. Subsoiling is analyzed in this EA as a connected action. Removal of Sale Area Flags/Tags and Marking. Remove visible boundary marking indicators from Scenic View areas, trails and developed recreation sites following harvest and fuels treatments. Not subject to further NEPA analysis. Invasive plant control and effectiveness monitoring. Invasive plant sites listed in Chapter 3 are to be treated prior to other project work. Treatment will be conducted according to 2012 Invasive Plant FEIS. Analyzed in the EA as a connected action. Road closure failure repair: Road closures that are not effective in eliminating vehicle traffic are to be re-closed following methods described in the Deschutes National Forest Road Closure Guide. Not subject to further NEPA analysis.

53

UDR Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Existing Conditions & Environmental Consequences Background and Context for Analysis of Effects This section summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments of the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives. Past, Present & Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities The cumulative effects discussed in this section include an analysis and a concise description of the identifiable present effects of past actions to the extent that they are relevant and useful in analyzing whether the reasonably foreseeable effects of the agency proposal for action and its alternatives may have a continuing, additive, and significant relationship to those effects. The cumulative effects of the proposed action and the alternatives in this analysis are primarily based on the aggregate effects of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Individual effects of past actions are not listed or analyzed, and are not necessary to describe the cumulative effects of this proposal or the alternatives. The cumulative effects analysis in this document is consistent with Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations (36 CFR 220.4(f)) (July 24, 2008) which states, in part, “CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to determine the present effects of past actions…The agency must determine what information regarding past actions is useful and relevant to the required analysis of cumulative effects.” Areas of analysis are listed for each scale referenced in chapter 3, cumulative effects sections. Table 7 and Table 8 list past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions that were considered in cumulative effects analysis.

54

UDR Environmental Assessment

Figure 27: UDR WUI Units and 10th Field Hydrologic Units (watersheds)

55

UDR Environmental Assessment

Table 7: Past Actions that contribute to the existing condition Past Actions Timing Description Residual Effects

Wildfires

Major Fires Included: Effects variable, reduction in Finley Butte, White, Sutilet, understory/overstory 1900- Approximately 29,491 acres burned Round Swamp, Edison Ice structure, snag/log creation present Cave 1, Awbrey Hall and and/or loss Lost Man Vegetation Management/Fuels Reduction Projects

Major Projects Included: Reduced overstory structure, Katalo, Dilman, Fuzzy, Klak, reduction in mid-story Charlie Brown, Fall, East 43,182 acres, actions include commercial structure, reduction in Tumbull, Lava Cast, Past 30 harvest, underburning, mowing, ladder understory structure, Crossings, Oz, Myst, years fuel reduction and pre-commercial reduction in small downed Sunriver, Fall, Sparky, West thinning wood, possible conversion of Tumbull, EXF, Ogden and green trees to snags and West Bend snags to downed wood

56

UDRI Environmental Assessment

Table 8: Ongoing or Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions that may Contribute to Cumulative Effects Project Name/Activity Timing Description Predicted or Ongoing Effects Vegetation Management/Fuels Reduction Projects Reduced overstory structure, reduction in 42,318 acres of commercial harvest, Rocket, West Bend, UDRC HFRA, midstory structure, reduction in understory Next 10-20 underburning, mowing, ladder fuel Shield, Ursus, Junction, Ogden, Lex structure, reduction in small downed wood, years reduction and pre-commercial and Kew possible conversion of green trees to snags and thinning snags to downed wood Botany Removal of Invasive Plants, treatment Treatments will result in an reduction in the through herbicide application or hand extent of invasive plant sites and better pulling prevention of introduction and spread.

Invasive Plant Treatment Ongoing

Recreation, Transportation and Special Uses Midstate Transmission Line Right of 50 foot right of way clearing adjacent Treatments will result in open area adjacent to Way clearing 2017 to powerlines powerline, will reduce the risk of wildlife from powerlines

57

UDR Environmental Assessment

Vegetation Vegetation – Regulatory Framework Land Management of this area is guided by the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (DLRMP), 1990, as amended by the Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2, 1995 (Eastside Screens), and The Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River FEIS, (1996). M8 GENERAL FOREST Goals: To emphasize timber production while providing forage production, visual quality, wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities for public use and enjoyment. Desired Condition: Continue to convert unmanaged stands to managed stands. The aim is to have a variety of age classes with all stands utilizing the site growth potential. Refer to DLRMP 4-117 – 4-120, M8-1 – M8-29. M9 SCENIC VIEWS, PARTIAL RETENTION, FOREGROUND Goal: To provide visitors with high quality scenery that represent the natural character of Central Oregon. Desired Condition: - In partial retention ponderosa pine areas, management activities may be noticeable to the casual forest visitor. Where there is an existing mosaic of tree size, size class diversity will be perpetuated by managing some of the trees within each size class. Where visual diversity is lacking, diversity will be gradually introduced to ultimately produce the desired mosaic. Management emphasis will focus on leaving the largest diameter trees and the healthiest crowns and forms in every stand. Visual variety will be provided by leaving occasional gnarly, old, overmature “character trees”. Precommercial thinnings and other tree removal practices will be done to achieve size class and species diversity and to promote full healthy crowns in younger trees and to provide larger scale diversity through a mosaic of size classes across the landscape. Trees may be removed from foreground areas to provide safety along travel routes and in recreation areas. Refer to DLRMP 4-121 – 4-131, M9-1 – M9- 96. M11 INTENSIVE RECREATION Goal: To provide a wide variety of quality outdoor recreation opportunities within a forest environment where the localized settings may be modified to accommodate large numbers of visitors. Desired Condition: Provide a wide variety of recreation opportunities including, but not limited to, activities dependent on various intensities of development. Sophisticated facilities and sights and sounds of humans will be evident and often essential to provide the desired recreation experience. Generally, high concentrations of visitors will occur around developments. Fewer numbers will occur outside developments but encounters between visitors can be frequent. Opportunities for participation in a broad range of outdoor recreation activities will be available. Activities will often require support facilities and often, but not always, involve widespread use of motorized vehicle and boats. Refer to DLRMP 4-135 – 4-139, M11-1 – M11-47. M15 OLD GROWTH Goal: To provide naturally evolved old growth forest ecosystems for (1) habitat for plant and animal species associated with old growth forest ecosystems, (2) representations of landscape ecology, (3) public enjoyment of large, old-tree environments, and (4) the needs of the public from an aesthetic spiritual sense.

58 UDR Environmental Assessment

Desired Condition: To perpetuate or enhance old growth stand characteristics. No trees over 21 inches would be considered for removal, firewood cutting and gathering is not permitted. Refer to DLMRP M15-4, M15-6. M16 EXPERIMENTAL FOREST Goal: To provide an area where field research activities are conducted while considering other resource values. Administrative coordination between the National Forest System and Research within the Forest Service will provide for long-term protection of the Forest Environment to assure future research needs are met. Desired Condition: The Experimental Forest serves as a field laboratory for research. Experiments are conducted to evaluate the effects of silvicultural practices on growth and yield of ponderosa and lodgepole pine. Treatments proposed with this project would not preclude future research opportunities (Paul Anderson, 10/29/2015). Refer to DLRMP 4-152 – 4-154, M16-1 – M16-23. M17 WILD AND SCENIC Goal: To protect and enhance those outstandingly remarkable values that qualified segments of the Deschutes River for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River FEIS was completed in 1996 and is the guiding document for management of federal lands within the designated river corridor. Desired Condition: Refer to the Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River FEIS, 1996 Effects Analysis The effects analysis will analyze one action alternative and the No Action alternative. The effects analyses are used to compare the differences between the no action and action alternative. Alternatives will be analyzed by measurable attributes and what effects the alternatives will have on forest vegetation. The analysis will also show how each alternative relates to the purpose and need of the UDR project. Best available science was considered and used in analyzing the effects of the proposed treatments. Scientific information relied on is incorporated and cited in the discussion of effects. A listing of references can be found in the section of the report titled “Work Cited”. For cumulative effects analysis, consideration of past actions follow guidance provided by the Council of Environmental Quality (June 24, 2005 Memorandum from James L Connaughton, Project Record). Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered for this analysis is listed in Table 8. The following attributes are used to describe effects: 1) forest health; 2) stand resistance to fire; and 3) structure in relation to HRV. Scope and Scale of Analysis Analysis was conducted in the units proposed for thinning treatments. Analysis will be done by attributes of stand density, diameter distribution and canopy structure. Stand structure will be analyzed to the historic range of variability on a landscape scale. The stand structure analysis is covered in the historical range of variability section. Methods Past and present stand exams and LiDAR tree point data for the UDR project area are available for characterizing stand conditions within units proposed for treatment. Common stand exam data was available for 14 units in the UDR project area. These common stand exams were used with Forest

59 UDR Environmental Assessment

Vegetation Simulator (FVS) to model alternatives and the effects of each alternative to the year 2056. For the complete methodology for FVS modeling please refer to Appendix B- Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) Methods in the silviculture report. LiDAR is a surveying technology measuring distance using lasers. LiDAR data was collected in 2009, 2010, and 2011 for the Deschutes National Forest. The LiDAR data used for the UDR project was collected in 2010 and 2011. LiDAR data has been analyzed on the Deschutes to produce a multitude of useful data pertaining to vegetation. LiDAR data used in this analysis includes tree point data. Tree point data has mapped individual trees within the project area and provides tree characteristics like diameter at breast height (DBH), tree height, canopy diameter, basal area per tree and stand density index per tree. LiDAR data sets used in the analysis can be found in Appendix A of the silviculture report. Forest Vegetation Attribute #1- Forest Health Stand density measures will be used to quantify stand characteristics and how they apply to forest health (tree vigor, mountain pine beetle susceptibility) and crown fire susceptibility. Stand density is a quantitative, objective measure of one or multiple physical characteristics of a forest stand expressed by unit area (Ernst and Knapp, 1985). Density can be expressed in relative or absolute terms. The density of a stand can be analyzed in terms of maximum density possible for its type, and in the latter, the density of stands of differing compositions may be compared to a common reference (Shaw, 2005). Stand density limits have been determined by Cochran (1994) and Booser and White (1996). Cochran et al (1994) described the concepts for the use in estimating density limits. Upper management zones (UMZ) or density limits are determined when a suppressed tree develops at a particular density. For ponderosa pine, mortality due to mountain pine beetle is not confined to intermediate and suppressed trees. Empirical stocking level curves for ponderosa pine suggest that tree mortality from mountain pine beetle remains low until a critical stand density is reached (UMZ). The lower management zone (LMZ) or density limit are often set at 67 percent of the upper management zone. This allows for enough stocking to take advantage of a major portion of a growing sites resources for tree growth while lowering susceptibility to mountain pine bark beetle due to increase tree vigor. The decrease in stand density would create more growing space for residual trees increasing tree vigor, decrease the chances of successful bark beetle attacks and allows for more rapid development of fire resistant bark suitable for fire disturbances. Stand density reduction treatments in the UDR project would create a low rating for crown fire susceptibility. Measures The units of measure for stand density are basal area per acre (BAA), and stand density index (SDI). Basal area is a term used to describe the area occupied by tree stems. Basal area is defined as the total cross- sectional area in square feet of all stems in a stand measured at diameter at breast height (4.5 feet) and expressed as per unit of land area (ft²/acre). Stand Density Index (SDI) is a measure of stocking of a stand based on the number of trees per unit area (Reineke 1933). SDI expresses relative density as the relationship between a number of trees per acre and a stand’s quadratic mean diameter (Powell, 1999). Reineke developed SDI to represent the maximum or absolute index values for a given species. An SDI is the number of 10 inch trees per acre or a SDI value of one equals one 10 quadratic mean diameter tree for one acre. Methods • SDI Relative to UMZ • Basal Area Relative to UMZ

60 UDR Environmental Assessment

Upper and lower management zones are used to compare stand densities and their relation to forest health, fire susceptibility and mountain pine beetle disturbance. Density limits were used to analyze measures to the existing condition and alternatives. Upper management zones were determined using the process described by Booser and White (1996) for calculating the maximum stand density indexes for the Deschutes National Forest by (Volland, 1985) plant association group. The Booser and White paper (1996) was developed for use on the Deschutes National Forest by the methods described by Cochran et al (1994) for determining management zones. Upper and lower management zones by plant association for site conditions found for the UDR Fuels Reduction project can be found in Table 9 below. Table 9- Upper and Lower Management Zones For SDI and Basal Area, by dominant plant association groups found in the UDR project area for ponderosa pine a lodgepole pine.

Stand Density Index (SDI) Basal Area (BA FT²) Plant Association Code Plant Association Group UMZ LMZ UMZ LMZ CPS2-11 Ponderosa Pine Dry 115 77 63 42 CPS2-12 Ponderosa Pine Dry 111 74 60 40 CPS2-13 Ponderosa Pine Dry 92 62 51 34 CPS2-17 Ponderosa Pine Dry 124 83 68 45 Ponderosa Pine CPS3-11 Ponderosa Pine Wet 145 97 79 53 CLM1-11 Lodgepole Pine Wet 166 111 90 60 CLM3-11 Lodgepole Pine Wet 158 106 86 58 CLS2-11 Lodgepole Pine Dry 105 70 57 38 CLS2-12 Lodgepole Pine Wet 161 108 88 59 Lodgepole Pine CLS2-14 Lodgepole Pine Dry 137 92 75 50

Plant association groups for the UDR project were determined by field verification and referencing the Deschutes National Forest Potential Vegetation layer based off Volland (1985) plant association groups. This information is from our corporate geographical information system. All plant association found in this project are displayed in Table 9. Two dominant plant association groups were taken from both ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine. Lodgepole pine/bitterbrush/fescue (CLS2-14), lodgepole pine/bitterbrush/needle grass (CLS2-11), Ponderosa Pine/Bitterbrush/Fescue (CPS2-11), ponderosa pine/bitterbrush/needle grass (CPS2-12) are the most common and dominant plant association groups found within the project area. The upper and lower density measures pertaining to each plant association were then averaged to compare unit densities within the UDR project. The values are a generalization to show the general densities and the UMZ and LMZ per dominant plant association group for ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine. UMZ and LMZ values can differentiate from unit to unit. Site specific prescriptions will be based on the specific plant association found within the unit/stand and will not be based on averaged values. Data sets used for analysis include Lidar and FVS modeling based on common stand exams. FVS computed variables will be similar to those from LiDAR. Lidar data was acquired for the whole project area from the Deschutes National Forest and the FVS modeling was used for units where common stand exams were acquired in the project area. Common stand exam data is the most accurate sample for forest vegetation. LiDAR tree points is an additional data set used in the analysis. LiDAR tree points were analyzed across the whole project area. LiDAR tree point data were analyzed to produce total trees per acre, basal area, and stand density index per diameter group for each UDR EA

61 UDR Environmental Assessment unit (Appendix A, Table 1 of the Silviculture report). Trends were identified from field reconnaissance and subsequent data analysis of LiDAR tree point data. The trend in LiDAR tree point data was less accurate determining trees per acre for small diameter groups when compared to the common stand exam data. The LiDAR dataset was accurate determining trees per acre within the larger diameter groups (>13 in. DBH), whereas, the accuracy of trees per acre in the smaller diameter groups was less accurate. Observations from field reconnaissance concluded that there were more trees per acre in the smaller diameter groups than what the LiDAR depicted. In addition to LiDAR, common stand exam data was used to generate stand data through Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS). FVS modeling was conducted by Eric Werner, Lead Silviculturist- Deschutes National Forest- Bend Fort Rock Ranger District, and was used to depict the existing conditions within the UDR project and predict the effects the proposed action would have on stand densities. FVS modeling produced total trees per acre, basal area per acre, and stand density index for each modeled stand. For methods and parameters used in FVS please refer to Appendix B of the silviculture report. Existing Condition Stand densities are variable across the UDR project. As seen in Figure 29 through Figure 32 the majority of the units in the UDR project are stocked above the upper management zone. The UMZ is an important baseline density indicator in referencing potential impacts by disturbances. Stands above the upper management zone are susceptible to bark beetle attacks, overall tree vigor is decreased due competition for above and below ground growing space which effects overall forest health. Over stocked stands can also be susceptible to stand replacing wildfires. The majority of all the units proposed for treatment are overstocked and are above the upper management zones for their respective plant association group. Below Figure 29 through Figure 32 display the units of measure for density; basal area per acre (BAA), and stand density index (SDI). The figures below display basal area and stand density index for all units within the UDR project to the unit’s dominant plant association group.

Existing SDI Comparison to Upper and Lower Managment Zones for Ponderosa Pine Plant Assiciation Group 400

300

200 Tot SDI

100 SDI UMZ Existing SDI /AC SDI LMZ 0 1 7 10 12 13 14 15 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 36 37 38 39 45 47 48 50 53 UDR Unit Number

Figure 29- Stand density index per unit for the ponderosa pine plant association group and associated upper and lower management zones. The average UMZ is 113 and average LMZ is 76 for the ponderosa pine plant association groups. In Ponderosa Pine, average SDI is between 86% and 275% of the UMZ.

62 UDR Environmental Assessment

Existing SDI Comparison to Upper and Lower Management Zones for Lodgepole Pine Plant Associations 350 300 250 200 Tot SDI 150 SDI UMZ 100

Existing SDI / AC 50 SDI LMZ 0 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 11 16 17 18 19 20 21 35 40 41 42 44 46 49 51 52 54 UDR Unit Number

Figure 30- Stand density index per unit for the lodgepole pine plant association group and associated upper and lower management zones. The average UMZ is 121 and average LMZ is 81 for the lodgepole pine plant association groups. In Lodgepole Pine Stands, Average SDI is between 54% and 183% of the UMZ.

Existing Basal Area Comparison to Upper and Lower Management Zones for Ponderosa Pine Plant Associations 250 200 ²) / AC 150 Tot BA 100 BA UMZ 50 0 BA LMZ 1 7 10121314152324252627282930313234363738394547485053 UDR Unit Number Existing Basal Area (FT Figure 31- Existing BA per acre per unit for the ponderosa pine plant association in relation to the upper and lower management zones by Booser and White (1996). UMZ is 62 ft²/ac and LMZ is 41 ft²/ac for ponderosa pine plant association group.

63 UDR Environmental Assessment

Figure 32- Existing basal area per acre per unit for the lodgepole pine plant association in relation to the upper and lower management zones by Booser and White (1996). ). UMZ is 66 ft²/ac and LMZ is 44 ft²/ac for lodgepole pine plant association group.

Existing Basal Area Comparison to Upper and Lower Management Zones for Lodgepole Pine Plant Associations 250 200 ²) / AC 150 Tot BA 100 BA UMZ 50 0 BA LMZ 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 11 16 17 18 19 20 21 35 40 41 42 44 46 49 51 52 54 UDR Unit Number

Existing Basal Area (FT

As seen in Figure 29 through Figure 32 the majority of the units in the UDR project are stocked above the upper management zone. All units except for five (units 8,9,11,28,29) are above the UMZ for its related plant association group. Overstocked stands are less vigorous, more susceptible to bark beetle attacks and fire related mortality. Thinning is often necessary to prevent stagnation or excessive mortality due to suppression and to create vigorous trees and stands in the absence of insects and disease (Cochran, 1994). It can be determined that UDR units are need of density reduction treatments. Powell (2010) relates five common measures of stand density (stand density index, trees per acre, basal area per acre, canopy cover and tree spacing to create three categories of crown fire susceptibility (high, moderate, and low). Table 24 displays the rating system for crown fire susceptibility developed by Powell, 2010. Table 10- Powell, 2010 rating system for crown fire susceptibility based off stand density measures. Stand density index is rated by the overall SDI per unit. Susceptibility is also displayed in referencing quadratic mean diameter to basal area per acre.

Crown Fire Susceptibility Veg Type Measure Low Moderate High

Ponderosa Pine SDI <141 141-364 >364

& <5" QMD <59 59-149 >149

Lodgepole Pine Basal Area 5-9" QMD <71 71-181 >181

>9" QMD <80 80-206 >206

Though Forest Vegetation Simulator units that contained common stand exam data were modeled to show structure classes. Table 12 below shows structure classes and the modeled units. These units were used to model proposed actions and the projected structures through 2056. FVS outputs from modeled stands were used to compare existing conditions to Powell’s rating system. For the comprehensive list of values used in this section refer to Appendix A Table 2 of the Silviculture report.

64 UDR Environmental Assessment

Table 11- Existing stand density conditions (2016) from FVS. Crown fire susceptibility rating in parentheses. Crown fire susceptibility rating; M-Moderate, H-High.

Forest Vegetation Simulator UDR Units

Unit Year QMD BA SDI

1,2,7 2016 4.4 159(H) 402(H)

12,15 2016 4.2 148(M) 381(H)

8,9,11,20,28,29 2016 6.5 98(M) 213(M)

31 2016 12.4 113(M) 190(M)

10,36 2016 5.2 111(M) 261(M)

Table 12 displays existing conditions for modeled units compared to the crown fire susceptibility rantings from Powell(2010), existing conditions rated out from moderate to high potential for crown fire all modeled units. The exception is unit 31 where the quadratic mean diameter is larger due to prior thinning activities associated with the Klak project. This unit was thinned in the early 2000s and has a moderate crown fire susceptibility across all density metrics. The existing condition for other modeled units show a moderate to high rating per structure group. For groupings of units per structural stage please refer to Table 12.

Table 12- Existing condition for structure class for FVS modeled stands. Table represents unit/stand conditions in the year 2016 and its correlation to the Structural Stage classification found in the Regional Foresters Amendment #2 (Eastside Screens).

Units/Stand Structure Class Plant Association Group Definition Description

Crowns are open growing, canopy is broken, may be a Poles to small saw logs, < 21” 2 -Stem Exclusion: Ponderosa Pine Dry moisture limiting area or dbh. Crown closure of 25% or 31 Open Canopy (CPS2-11) maintained by frequent less. Scattered overstory may be underburning, density mgmt, or present as in stage 1. high water tables.

Occurrence of new tree stems is 3-Stem Exclusion: Ponderosa Pine Dry Same as stage 2 except that crown 10,12,15,36 mostly limited by light, stand Closed Canopy (CPS2-11) closure is 26% or greater. density. Canopy is closed.

Occurrence of new tree stems is 3-Stem Exclusion: Lodgepole Pine Dry Same as stage 2 except that crown 8,9,11,20,28,29 mostly limited by light, stand Closed Canopy (CLS2-14) closure is 26% or greater. density. Canopy is closed.

Broken overstory canopy, 2+ canopy layers. Large trees Multi canopy layers, multi dominant in the overstory. Stands 6-Multi- Stratum : Ponderosa Pine Dry 1,2,7 strata stands with large, old characterized by diverse With Large Trees (CPS2-11) trees. distributions of trees and tree sizes. All tree sizes maybe present.

65 UDR Environmental Assessment

Alternative 1- No Action Under this alternative, no vegetation management activities, commercial, precommercial, ladder fuel reductions, would occur in the project area. Forest vegetation would remain in an overstocked and dense condition. Growth of forest vegetation would continue to slow down and stagnate. Stress on large trees would increase due to decreased growing space, causing an impact on tree vigor. The amount of understory vegetation would remain the same or increase. Forest vegetation would continue to be increasing susceptible to large stand replacing fires, bark beetle attacks or other disturbances that would cause tree mortality. Overall forest health would continue to deteriorate, desired conditions associated with the management direction would not be met, and stands would continue to remain in a moderate to high crown fire susceptibility rating which goes against the recommendations for the Upper Deschutes River Coalition Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Alternative 2- Proposed Action Thinning is proposed within stands that have been classified as stem exclusion closed canopy and multi- stratum with large trees. Figures 33 through 36 display visual projections of modeled stands for the year of 2016. Both images display before and after treatment for each structure class. Reductions in stand density and removal of trees from the lower to intermediate canopies can be observed. Proposed thinning convert stem exclusion closed canopy to stem exclusion open canopy or single stratum with large trees. Figure 28- SVS representation of modeled stands for structure stage class multi-stratum with large trees for ponderosa pine plant association group in the year 2016, with and without thinning.

Without thin- Multi-Stratum With Large Trees (units 1,2,7) stand conditions: stand density index - 402, quadratic mean diameter - 4.4”, trees per acre -1481, basal area per acre -159 (ft²), Crown Base Height-6 ft, Crown Bulk Density- .0495 kg/m³

66 UDR Environmental Assessment

With thin- Single Stratum with Large Trees (units 1,2,7) stand conditions: stand density index-67, quadratic mean diameter- 26.9”, trees per acre- 14, basal area per acre- 54 (ft²), Crown base height- 50, Crown bulk density- .0145 kg/m³ Figure 29 SVS representation of modeled stands for structure stage class stem exclusion closed canopy for ponderosa pine plant association group in the year 2016, with and without thinning.

Without thin- Stem Exclusion Closed Canopy (units 10,12,15,36) stand conditions: stand density index - 321, quadratic mean diameter - 5”, trees per acre -1128, basal area per acre -129 (ft²), Crown Base Height- 7 ft, Crown Bulk Density- .044 kg/m³

67 UDR Environmental Assessment

With thin- Stem Exclusion Open Canopy (units 10,12,15,36) stand conditions: stand density index-81, quadratic mean diameter- 19.9”, trees per acre- 37, basal area per acre- 58 (ft²), Crown base height- 55, Crown bulk density- .015 kg/m³

Figure 30- SVS representation of modeled stands for structure stage class stem exclusion closed canopy for lodgepole pine plant association group in the year 2016, with and without thinning.

Without thin- Stem Exclusion Closed Canopy (units 8,9,10,20,28,29) stand conditions: stand density index - 213, quadratic mean diameter – 6.5”, trees per acre -420, basal area per acre -98 (ft²), Crown Base Height- 10 ft, Crown Bulk Density- .039 kg/m³

68 UDR Environmental Assessment

With thin- Stem Exclusion Open Canopy (units 8,9,10,20,28,29) stand conditions: stand density index - 60, quadratic mean diameter – 10.2”, trees per acre -58, basal area per acre -33 (ft²), Crown Base Height- 22 ft, Crown Bulk Density- .019 kg/m³

Figure 31-SVS representation of modeled previously treated stands for structure stage class stem exclusion closed canopy for ponderosa pine plant association group in the year 2016, with and without thinning.

Without thin- Stem Exclusion Closed Canopy (units 31) stand conditions: stand density index - 190, quadratic mean diameter – 12.4”, trees per acre -135, basal area per acre -98 (ft²), Crown Base Height- 23 ft, Crown Bulk Density- .044 kg/m³

69 UDR Environmental Assessment

With thin- Stem Exclusion Open Canopy (units 31) stand conditions: stand density index - 77, quadratic mean diameter – 14.6”, trees per acre -42, basal area per acre -49 (ft²), Crown Base Height- 46 ft, Crown Bulk Density- .020 kg/m³ Table 13- UDR-WUI FVS modeling results for 2016. Stand Characteristics. Before Treatment values represent starting and ending conditions for No Action alternative and beginning condition for Proposed Action alternative. After Treatment values represent stand conditions after thinning treatments for the Proposed Action. 8, 9, 11, 20, UDR - WUI Unit # 1, 2, 7 12, 15 31 10, 36 28, 29

060101UDR FVS Exam ID 19711172 19711214 19711228 19911202 CWUI0036 Identity

Plant Association Code CPS211 CPS211 CLS214 CPS211 CPS211

TPA 1481 1520 420 135 749 BAA (ft²) 158 148 98 113 109

QMD (in) 4.4 4.2 6.5 12.2 5.2 SDI 402 381 213 190 259 Top Ht. (ft) 83 79 85 73 69 No Action Crown Closure (%) 52 50 38 32 39 Crown Base Ht. (ft) 4 6 6 21 8 Crown Bulk Density (kg/m³) 0.0558 0.0331 0.0436 0.0443 0.0333 TPA 14 17 58 42 56

BAA (ft²) 102 76 33 49 40 QMD (in) 26.9 28.3 10.2 14.6 11.4 SDI 67 93 60 77 69 Top Ht. (ft) 101 100 54 65 50 Crown Closure (%) 12 17 14 15 12 Proposed Action Proposed Crown Base Ht. (ft) 50 51 22 46 58 Crown Bulk Density (kg/m³) 0.0145 0.0191 0.0195 0.0202 .0107

70 UDR Environmental Assessment

The proposed actions focus on stand improvement by reducing stand densities. Stand improvement actions include commercial thinning, precommercial thinning, and ladder fuel reduction thinning on 2291 acres of the UDR project area. Thinning would occur within the lodgepole pine/bitterbrush/fescue and ponderosa pine/bitterbrush/fescue plant associations. Table 14 below summarizes the difference between alternatives. Values were derived from FVS modeling based on common stand exam data. The table also contains the relation of the density values compared to Powell’s crown fire susceptibility rating. Modeled stands project that thinning could reduce unit stand density index by approximately 60 to 83 percent. For lodgepole pine, modeling project a reduction of 72 percent of stand density index and 66 percent basal area per acre. For ponderosa pine, stand density index values would be reduced to a range of 67 to 81. The least reduction would occur in stands that received previously vegetation treatments. It is estimated that there could be a reduction of 60 percent in the overall stand density index to a value of 77. (Table 14) The greatest reduction would occur in the multi-story structure with large trees structure stage class for ponderosa pine dry plant association group, which had a reduction of 83 percent (Table 14) to a stand density index of 67. This large reduction is due to the large quantity of small diameter lodgepole pine in the understory and managing for a residual ponderosa pine overstory. FVS modeling depicts that there will be decrease in densities post proposed action which in turn will have a beneficial impact to forest health. Stand densities are decreased by 60 to 83 percent in modeled stands. Due to the decrease of tree density, more growing space is available for residual trees improving tree vigor and increasing radial growth. Increased radial growth decreases tree susceptibility to successful bark beetle attacks. Decreased stand densities also decrease the crown fire susceptibility of a stand. Table 14 Proposed action vs. no action by Structure Stage for the UDR Fuels Reduction Project. In parentheses is crown fire susceptibility rating (Powell,2010).

Structure Condition Trees Per Acre Basal Area Per Acre (FT²) Stand Density Index Average Average Average 3- Stem Exclusion: Closed Canopy (*PT)- PPD No Action 135 (M) 113(M) 190(M) Proposed Action 42 (L) 49 (L) 77 (L) Percent Reduction 69% 57% 60% 3- Stem Exclusion: Closed Canopy PPD No Action 1128 (L) 129 (M) 321(M) Proposed Action 30 (L) 58 (L) 81 (L) Percent Reduction -97% -55% -75% 3- Stem Exclusion: Closed Canopy LPD No Action 420 (M) 98 (M) 213 (M) Proposed Action 58 (L) 33 (L) 60 (L) Percent Reduction 86% 66% 72% 6- Multi-Stratum: With Large Trees PPD No Action 1481(M) 159 (H) 402 (H) Proposed Action 14 (L) 54 (L) 67 (L) Percent Reduction 99% 66% 83% *PT- Previous treated stands from past vegetation management project. (Crown susceptibility; L-Low, M-Moderate, H-High)

Table 10 displays the stand density compared to findings of Powell (2010) crown fire susceptibility rating. The proposed action decreases stand density which decreases the susceptibility of crown fire for

71 UDR Environmental Assessment the proposed treatment units. Currently stand densities rate out as having moderate to high crown fire susceptibility. After treatment all models project that treatments would create a low crown fire susceptibility. Cumulative Effects Implementation of the proposed actions will have a positive cumulative effect when combined with past actions. Density reduction in the proposed thinning treatments will meet the Deschutes National Forest guidelines and will meet the recommendations of the UDRC CWPP. Thinning will improve stand health, improve tree vigor and reduce susceptibility to mountain pine beetle outbreaks. Forest Vegetation Attribute #2- Fire Resistance Measures • QMD (tree resistance to fire) • Crown Fire Susceptibility Rating (stand resistance to fire) • Crown base height • Crown bulk density • Canopy cover QMD and Crown Fire Susceptibility Rating The diameter distribution of a stand can be an indicator of a stand’s resistance to fire and relation to historical stand structure. Depending on tree species, the larger the diameter of a tree, the higher fire resistance to fire. Ponderosa pine is a fire adapted species and fire tolerant because they have fire- resistant bark containing a 1/8- to 1/4-inch (0.3-0.6 cm) thick layer at 2 inches (5 cm) diameter (Wright, 1978). As a ponderosa pine increases in diameter it becomes more resistant to surface flames and less susceptible to fire induced mortality. The quadratic mean diameter (QMD) is used to summarize diameter distribution within a unit and its relation to resistance to mortality from ground fire and the susceptibility of crown fire. Comparing the QMD and trees per acre we can determine a unit’s crown fire susceptibility. The smaller the QMD, the higher the frequency of small diameter trees occur in the unit. A larger QMD, the higher the frequency of larger diameter trees in the unit. Table 16 displays the probability of mortality when an individual tree is exposed to surface ground fire. Smaller diameter trees are more susceptible to mortality, where larger trees have more developed bark and are less susceptible to mortality. The larger the QMD value, the larger the tree diameters are within a unit and the more resistant the stand is to fire disturbances. When compared to Powell (2010) crown fire susceptibility rating found in Table 17 , a comparison of QMD to trees per acre can be made to determine the crown fire susceptibility. The QMD value can also be used to refer the stands diameter distribution to historical stand conditions. The larger the QMD and less trees per acre represents more of a historical condition which is more of a fire resistant stand structure. The number of trees greater than 21 inches is used to compare the historical conditions found in Youngblood, 2004 and the historical conditions found in the Pringle Falls area. Due to the location of the Pringle Fall Study area, this reference paper is considered very relevant to the UDR project and is used as a reference condition to compare action alternatives. QMD Measures The following measures are used to describe the existing diameter distributions. • Existing quadratic mean diameter (QMD) for all live trees 4.5 feet and greater. • Existing trees greater than 21 inches in diameter.

72 UDR Environmental Assessment

The following measures are used to evaluate the effects of thinning on diameter distribution within modeled stands for treatment and its relation for crown fire susceptibility and mortality probability by ground fire disturbance. • Projected quadratic mean diameter for all live trees greater than 4.5 feet tall at the following times: • Initial quadratic mean diameter • Quadratic mean diameter following thinning • Number of trees 21 inches and greater for comparison to historic conditions and comparison to the Eastside Old-growth reference condition. Historical diameter ranges are provided by Hopkins, 1993 and Youngblood, 2004. Methods The quadratic mean diameter (QMD) was determined for both no action alternative and proposed action alternative. Through FVS modeling the QMD was determined stands per Structure Class. These values were derived using FVS to model both alternatives from 2016 to 2056. Methods of FVS modeling parameters can be found in Appendix B and the outputs used in this analysis can be found in Appendix B Table 5 of the Silviculture report. All FVS models were ran using thinning from below to the lower management zone for its respective plant association. Average mortality probability by flame length by species and diameter class was determined by using the First Order Fire Effects Model (FOFEM) provided by Pete Powers on 2/10/2016, District Silviculturist – Bend Fort Rock Ranger District, Deschutes National Forest. Through verbal communication Powers recommended this model output to portray tree mortality by fire disturbance. Mortality was determined at the 4 foot flame length of 4 to 14 diameter classes. 4 foot flame length was used as a reference due to it’s the desired flame length recommended by the UDRC CWPP. Existing Condition Table 15 below display all the QMD and trees per acre found for the stratified FVS modeled units. QMD values are existing for per action alternative. The Table 15 also displays the projected QMD range over time (2016-2056). Table 18 displays existing and projected trees 21 inches and greater per acre. Table 15- Exising QMD values and prjected QMD values post treatment through Forest Vegetation Simulator.

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 QMD TPA QMD TPA Existing Post Structure Unit Existing Range Range Trees Range Range Trees Treatment Stage Number QMD (2016 to (2016 to Per Acre (2016 to (2016 to Per Acre QMD 2056) 2056) 2056) 2056) 28.3 to Ponderosa 12, 15 4.2 1520 4.4 to 6.9 1520 to 753 28.3 17 17 to 16 31.7 Pine Stem 11.4 to Exclusion 10, 36 5.2 736 5.2 to 9.9 736 to 261 11.4 56 17.5 56 to 48 Closed 12.4to 14.6 to Canopy 31 12.4 135 135 to 64 14.6 42 42 to 39 17.9 20.2 Lodgepole Pine Stem 8,9,11,20 6.5 to 10.2 to Exclusion 6.5 420 420 to 135 10.2 58 58 to 54 ,28,29 12.4 17.3 Closed Canopy Ponderosa Pine Multi- 4.4 to 1481 to 26.9 to 1,2,7 4.4 1481 26.9 14 14 to 12 Stratum With 6.9 699 30.9 Large Trees

73 UDR Environmental Assessment

Trends can be observed in the QMD values from FVS modeled units. The largest QMD value is found in the stand with the least amount of trees per acre, whereas, the smallest QMD values are found in units with the most trees per acre (Table 15). The largest quadratic mean diameters are found in Unit 31 (ponderosa pine- stem exclusion closed canopy, Table 15). The QMD is 12.4 inches at 135 trees per acre. Unit 31 represents a stand structure that has received thinning from prior projects. The lowest QMD values are found in the units with the most trees per acre. The lowest QMD can be found in units 12 and 15 and 1, 2, and 7 (stem exclusion closed canopy and multi-stratum with large trees). The stem exclusion closed canopy structure contains an average of 1520 trees per acre with a QMD of 4.2. The multi-stratum with large tree structure have an average of 1481 trees per acre with a QMD of 4.4. Even though large trees exist in these stands the high population of small diameter trees contribute to the small quadratic mean diameter values. Small diameter trees have a higher probability to fire related mortality (Table 16) and high trees per acre with small QMD has a higher crown fire susceptibility (Table 17 ). Table 16 below displays the average mortality probability of mortality by surface flame length by ponderosa pine by diameter class. Small diameter trees have thinner bark and are have a higher mortality probability when exposed to surface fire. Larger trees that have thicker, more developed bark, have a lower probability of mortality when exposed to surface ground fires.

Table 16- First Order Fire Effects Model (FOFEM) output showing average probability of mortality for an individual tree by flame length by species and diameter class.

Flame Length (feet) Species Tree DBH Class 2 4 6 8 10 4 0.06 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 6 0.06 0.74 0.80 0.80 0.80 8 0.06 0.13 0.80 0.80 0.80 Ponderosa Pine 10 0.06 0.06 0.79 0.80 0.80 12 0.06 0.06 0.51 0.80 0.80 14 0.06 0.06 0.19 0.80 0.80

Table 17 Crown fire susceptibility rating (Powell, 2010) for the relationship for QMD and trees per acre. Crown Fire Susceptibility Vegetation Type Low Moderate High QMD (inches) Trees Per Acre <5 <1174 1174-3057 >3057 Ponderosa Pine & Lodgepole Pine 5-9 <263 263-682 >682 >9 <102 102-262 >262

Based on Powell’s rating for crown fire susceptibility (Table 17 ), the existing stand conditions rate out as moderate to high susceptibility. When comparing QMD and trees per acre per unit (Table 15) the highest susceptibility occurs in the stem exclusion closed canopy. The existing condition for other units rate as a moderate crown fire susceptibility. This rating is solely based on the stand measures of QMD

74 UDR Environmental Assessment and trees per acre. These values are used to rate the susceptibility and does not account for other factors that influence fire, which include weather and topography. For a more detailed fire effects analysis please refer to the Fire/Fuels section.

Table 18 Existing and projected trees per acre 21 inches and greater for proposed treatments. Projections are based on FVS modeling.

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Existing Trees per Acre Trees per Acre Structure Stage Unit Number Trees per 21"+ Range Post Trees per Acre 21"+ 21"+ Range Acre 21"+ (2016-2056) (2016-2056) 12, 15 17 17 to 17 17 17 to 16 Ponderosa Pine Stem Exclusion Closed 10, 36 5 5 to 11 5 5 to 12 Canopy 31 0 0 to 12 0 0 to 18

Lodgepole Pine Stem Exclusion Closed 8,9,11,20,28,29 2 2 to 10 2 2 to 10 Canopy

Ponderosa Pine Multi- Stratum With Large 1,2,7 14.0 14 to 17 14 14 to 12 Trees

The frequency of occurrence of trees larger than 21 inches is variable across the UDR project as a whole. In Table 18 above, Density of trees greater or equal to 21 inches DBH ranges from 0-14 trees per acre (Table 18 ). Units 1, 2, 7 (multi-stratum with large trees) has the highest occurrence of 14 trees per acre (Table 18 ). The lowest occurrence of trees 21 inches and greater occurs in stem exclusion closed canopy, which has no trees 21 inches DBH and greater. Reference Condition Reference conditions used in this report are based off the findings from Youngblood et al. (2004), “Stand structure in the eastside old-growth ponderosa pine forests of Oregon and northern California”. The purpose of the study was to develop quantitative measures of the horizontal and vertical structural attributes found in eastside old-growth ponderosa forests for management prescriptions (Young 2004). One of the three study areas where the research was conducted was the Pringle Falls Study Area. The Table 19 below summarizes the findings from Youngblood for the Pringle Falls Study area. The values in the table have been converted to acres. For original values please refer to Youngblood’s paper. Table 19- Table of reference conditions found by Youngblood, 2004 for eastern Oregon. Upper Canopy Live Tree Density Upper Canopy Live Tree Size Location 1 Trees/Hectarei Trees/Acre1 DBH (cm) DBH (inches) 1 2 Metolious Study Area 34 - 94 14 - 38 12.0 – 133.1 4.7 – 52.4 Pringle Butte Study Area 35 - 79 14 - 32 16.0 – 121.9 6.3 – 48.0 Blacks Mountain Study Area 15 - 73 6 - 30 29.5 – 129.8 11.6 – 51.1 Eastside Old-Growth Ponderosa pine Forests 50 + 3.5 20 + 1.4 60.0 + 1.55 23.6 + 0.61 Reference Condition4

Due to the proximity and the high locational relation to the UDR project, the findings of Youngblood, 2004 are used as the historical reference conditions for evaluating the effects of proposed treatments.

75 UDR Environmental Assessment

The Region 6 Interim Old Growth Definition (Hopkins et al. 1993) provides another similar reference condition for evaluating effects of treatments. Density and size conditions are similar to Youngblood et al. (2004). The Region 6 Interim Old growth for ponderosa pine states that old-growth ponderosa pine stands area at least 150 years in age and have a minimum of 13 trees per acre that are 21 inches and greater and typically occur at 18-40 trees per acre. Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct and Indirect Effects Under this alternative no vegetation management activities, commercial or pre-commercial, would occur in the project area. The quadratic mean diameters would continue to increase over time, but at a marginal level. FVS projections of diameter growth for the quadratic mean diameter and projected trees per acre can be found in Table 15. The projected QMD and trees per acre ranges show that there will be an increase in quadratic mean diameters with a decrease in trees per acre. In the short term (2016) and long term (2056) , for units proposed for thinning, the largest QMD would continue to be found in stands that have received prior thinning treatments (Unit 31 Stem exclusion closed canopy, Table 15). The QMD for 2016 is 12.4 inches and projected to be 17.9 inches in 2056. Currently the existing stand would be resistant to mortality from surface fire and would continue to have a moderate susceptibility for crown fire. Over time the previously treated stands will increase quadratic mean diameters and will decrease trees per acre from isolated tree mortality. FVS projects by 2056 previously thinned stands (Unit 31, Table 156) could be rated as a low crown fire susceptibility (Table 17 ). The smallest quadratic mean diameters are found in units that contain the most trees per acre. Due to the overstocked densities found in the units, the diameter grown would increase at a marginal level for the short term (2016) and long term (2056). Referring to Table 15, FVS modeling projects by 2056 these units would continue to have small quadratic mean diameters and high density of trees per acre. With no treatments, these stands would continue to have slow growth, a high probability of being susceptible to fire related mortality and would remain in a moderate to high susceptibility rating for crown fires (Table 17 ). The current crown fire susceptibility of the proposed units is moderate to high. For the long term, units would not decrease in the crown fire susceptibility except for stands that have received prior thinning. The majority of the units would maintain a moderate susceptibility or increase to a high susceptibility. Units with small quadratic mean diameters would be susceptible to fire related mortality. From a wildland urban interface standpoint; ladder fuels would remain within the stand and the threat of crown fire susceptibility would remain in the units proposed for treatment. All modeling shows an increase of trees 21 inches and greater per acre with the no action alternative (Table 18) over the long term (2056). FVS projects with no action, units could meet the minimum requirements of large structure stands based on trees per acre, but most likely the stands would have large trees with a multi-story and not the historic large structure single canopy. Reference conditions are based on the historical condition of (Youngblood (2004), Table 19, 14-32 trees per acre ranging from 6.8 to 48 DBH occurred in the Pringle Falls study area, and 13 TPA at 21 DBH or greater for Hopkins (1993). FVS projected mortality in trees over 21 DBH. Due to tree mortality agents associated with these modeled stands and the occurrence of dwarf mistletoe in the stand, some large tree mortality resulted from the model. With mistletoe occurring in the strata and different plant associations FVS modeling captured mortality in the overstory and projected a decrease in the population of trees greater than 21 inches. The FVS model is not exact and is a good tool to show trends. We can assume that a larger tree diameter class can be reached sooner through thinning. There is no proposed thinning in trees greater than 21 inches.

76 UDR Environmental Assessment

Alternative 2 Under this alternative thinning from below would occur in the project area. Area proposed for treatment would be commercial and pre-commercial thinning. In this alternative thinning from below would be done commercially and pre-commercially. Targeted diameter classes would be small to medium trees in the understory and intermediate canopy. As recommended by the UDRC CWPP goals are to minimize ladder fuel components in the stand and create a stand structure that has improved stand health, resistant to wildfire and resilience other disturbances like mountain pine bark beetle. Thinning from below, in which the target trees are small diameter classes, would be removed from the lower canopy levels, would increase the quadratic mean diameter by 40 to 120 percent (Table 15). The largest increase of the QMD would occur units that have not received prior thinning (stem exclusion closed canopy ponderosa pine and multi-strata with large trees) which increase QMD 4.2 and 4.4 to 28.3 and 26.9 inches. The lowest QMD value projected from FVS would occur in the stem exclusion closed canopy for ponderosa pine previously thinned stands in which the QMD is projected to increase from 12.4 to 14.6 inches. The increase in QMD values will have a beneficial effect on a stands resistance to fire and advances the development of a stand to more a historical stand structure. FVS projects post treatment quadratic mean diameters would range from 10.2 to 28.3 inches. The residual stand would have larger diameters trees with more developed bark. These trees would have a less probability of mortality when impacted by ground surface fires (Table 16) and have a low susceptibility to crown fires (Table 17 ). Increasing a stands quadratic mean diameter can allow a stand to develop into a more historical stand structure more quickly than with no action. All FVS modeling projects an increase of trees 21 inches and greater per acre with the no action and action alternative (Table 18 ) over the long term (2056). The difference with the action alternative would be the absence of the small diameter trees. Historically ponderosa pine stands were large tree single story structure that was maintained by frequent low intensity fires. The proposed action would create more of a single story canopy structure within the proposed thinning units for all the structure classes. Thinning to the lower management zone would increase tree vigor and growth. The residual stand would have a higher quadratic mean diameter and with increased growing space, the stand can develop trees greater than 21 inches in diameter more quickly. This is projected to occur in stands that have little to no dwarf mistletoe. The stem exclusion closed canopy (Unit 31, 10 and 36, Table 18 ) displays the increase of trees greater than 21 inches DBH with the action alternative. Cumulative Effects Thinning would improve the overall fire resistance to on the stand level, increase growing space for residual trees, and increase the likelihood of reference conditions being achieved over the long term. No other projects overlap these treatment units in time or space, therefore there will be no cumulative effects on stand measures. Canopy Structure Canopy Structure measures are being related to the crown-fire hazard for the units proposed for treatment. The general assumption being made is the lower the crown base height the more likely a ground fire can vertically move to the canopy of the stand, the higher the crown base height the less likely a ground fire can move vertically to the canopy of a stand. The crown bulk density is measured in kg/m³. A crown bulk density range between zero where there is no canopy to a value of .400 kg/m³ in very dense forests (Scott and Reinhardt, 2002). By maintaining stands at crown bulk densities of less than 0.10 kg/m3, active or independent crown fire activity can be limited (Agee, 1996).

77 UDR Environmental Assessment

This focuses on the structure of the stand and the susceptibility of crown fire based on the FVS modeling and Lidar datasets. For an accumulative crown fire susceptibility encompassing ground fuels and environmental inputs please refer to the Fire/Fuels section of the EA. Measures: Crown Base Height, Crown Bulk Density, and Percent Canopy Cover The unit of measure for canopy structure will be the crown base height, crown bulk density, and percent canopy cover. These measures directly relate to the susceptibility of crown fire within the stands in the UDR project. The canopy base height is the height on the bole representing the bottom of the live crown and in a wildland fire context in an effective value that incorporates available fuels, including ladder fuels to the stand-level canopy (Scott, 2007). Crown bulk density is the measure of biomass available as a crown fire fuel and is the “primary controlling factor of crown fire behavior” (Grahm et al. 1999). Percent canopy cover is vertical projection of vegetation foliage over the ground when viewed from above (Powell, 2010). Existing Condition Using the data provided by the FVS model we can derive current conditions for the units that represent current conditions that exist in the UDR project. The current condition of canopy base height, crown bulk density and canopy cover varies on the structural stage the stand(s) are currently in. Table 20 displays the crown structure per modeled unit. Table 20 also contains the crown fire susceptibility rating by percent canopy cover to according to Powell, 2010 (Table 22 ) per FVS modeled unit. Table 21 display the current canopy structure conditions by structure class. Table 20 . Existing conditions for FVS modeled stands. Values are the current conditions for the year 2016.

Existing Condition Unit Number Canopy Base Height (FT) Crown Bulk Density (kg/m³ ) Canopy Cover (%) 1,2,7 6 0.050 52 (M) 12,15 5 0.054 50 (M) 8,9,11,20,28,29 10 0.039 38 (L) 31 23 0.044 32 (L) 10,36 8 0.034 39 (L) * In parentheses is the (Powell,2010) rating for crown fire susceptibility.

Table 21 Average existing canopy structure conditions by structure class and plant association group (PAG). Avg. Canopy Unit PA Avg. Crown Bulk Avg. Canopy Structure Class Base Height Number G Density (kg/m³ ) Cover (%) (FT) Stem Exclusion 31 PPD 23 0.044 32 Closed Canopy 10,12,15, Stem Exclusion PPD 6.5 0.044 44.5 36 Closed Canopy 8,9,11,20 Stem Exclusion LPD 10 0.039 38 ,28,29 Closed Canopy Multi-Stratum w/ 1,2,7 PPD 6 0.050 52 Large Trees

78 UDR Environmental Assessment

Table 22 Estimated tree canopy cover for the tree crown fire susceptibility rating (Powell,2010).

Canopy Cover (%) for each fire susceptibility Cover Type Diameter Class rating Low Moderate High

Ponderosa & Seed-Sap (<5" QMD) <46 46-60 >60 Lodgepole Poles (5-9" QMD) <49 49-63 >63 Pine Small (>9" QMD) <51 51-66 >66

The current conditions within the UDR project are listed in the above tables (Table 20, Table 21). Unit 31 is in the structure class 3 (stem exclusion: closed canopy) for the ponderosa pine dry plant association group. This unit received prior thinning through the Klak project. As the model shows the canopy base height is higher than the other units. The crown bulk density is .044 kg/m³ and the average canopy cover is 32 percent. Figure 32 below graphically shows unit 31 in the Stand Visualization System. Figure 32 Structure Visualization System Image of structure stage 3 (stem exclusion: closed canopy) for Unit 31

As the structure classes shift to as smaller diameter structure the canopy base height drops and the canopy cover increases. Structure class 3 (stem exclusion: closed canopy) for the ponderosa pine dry and lodgepole pine dry plant association groups have the lowest canopy base heights ranging from 6 to 6.5 feet. The canopy cover is denser than thinned stands ranging from 38-44.5% and have they have crown bulk densities ranging from .039 to .044 kg/m³. Visual projections can be found in Figure 33 and Figure 34 .

79 UDR Environmental Assessment

Figure 33 Structure Visualization System Image of structure stage 3 (stem exclusion: closed canopy) for Ponderosa Pine Units 10,12,15,36.

Figure 34 Structure Visualization System Image of structure stage 3 (Stem exclusion: closed canopy) for lodgepole pine plant association group. Units 8,9,11,20,28,29.

Structure class 6 (multi-stratum with large trees) has the highest canopy cover, crown bulk density and lowest canopy base height. The existing condition is the presence of ponderosa pine overstory with a lodgepole pine understory. The average canopy base height is 6 feet, average canopy cover is 52% and the average crown bulk density is .050 kg/m³.

80 UDR Environmental Assessment

Figure 35 Stand Visualization System Image for Structure class 6 Multi-stratum with large trees for ponderosa pine plant association group. Units 1,2,7.

Alternative 1- Direct and Indirect Effects Under this alternative no vegetation management activities, commercial or pre-commercial, would occur in the project area. Stem exclusion closed canopy stands would continue to grow and canopy structure will remained closed. Growth will stagnate and crown base heights would gradually increase as tree heights increase, but crown base heights would remain low. As stands develop, percent canopy cover would continue to increase and crown bulk densities would increase. The crown structure in these stands would continue to be susceptible to crown fire. Alternative 2-Direct and Indirect Effects Thinning from below to reduce ladder fuels within the wildland urban interface and would aid in achieving the desired conditions set by the UDRC CWPP to create conditions where a stand can support flame lengths no more than 4 feet and not support active crown fires. Thinning from below would increase the canopy base heights, decrease the crown bulk density, and decrease percent canopy cover for units proposed for treatment (Table 23).

81 UDR Environmental Assessment

Table 23- Existing Canopy Structure Measures compared to immediately following proposed actions. Stand condition is broken out by Structural Stage class and plant association group.

Canopy Base Height Crown Bulk Density Canopy Cover Structure Condition (FT) (kg/m³) (%) 3- Stem Exclusion: Closed Canopy *PT- PPD No Action 23 0.044 32 Proposed Action 46 0.020 15 Change +23 -.024 -17 3- Stem Exclusion: Closed Canopy PPD No Action 6.5 0.044 44.5 Proposed Action 54.5 0.026 14.5 Change +48 -.018 -30 3- Stem Exclusion: Closed Canopy LPD No Action 10 0.039 38 Proposed Action 22 0.020 14 Change +12 -.019 -24 6- Multi-Stratum: With Large Trees PPD No Action 6 0.050 52 Proposed Action 50 0.015 12 Change +46 -.035 -40 *PT- Stands that received prior thinning treatments. In Table 23, the before and after conditions are displayed for canopy base height, crown bulk density and canopy cover. Table 23 shows that the proposed actions will have a beneficial effect on the canopy base heights. The models show that residual canopy base height directly following treatment could range from 22 to 54 feet. This alteration in the canopy structure will have a direct impact to the susceptibility of these stands to crown fire. This will allow surface flames to remain on the forest floor and inhibit the vertical movement to the stands canopy. Crown bulk density and percent cover are related, the less canopy cover in a stand means less tree crowns hence less crown bulk density. From the models it is estimated the range in reduction in percent canopy cover ranges from 17 to 40 percent. This is correlated with the decreased crown bulk density in the stand, where crown bulk densities could decrease by a range of .018 to .035 kg/m³. In relation to the Powell,2010 paper (Table 22 ) we can evaluate the fire susceptibility of these treatments based on percent canopy cover. Conditions post treatment are projected to have a QMD greater than 10 inches (refer to Table 15) and would create a percent canopy cover of less than 51%. This would create a stand that has low crown fire susceptibility (Table 22 ) and meet the recommendations of the UDRC CWPP. Forest Vegetation Attribute #3- Stand Structure & Historic Range of Variability The vegetative patterns that we see today are a result of numerous contributing factors that converged during the 1920’s and 1930’s. Between 1900 and 1925 summer climatic patterns were influenced by a cool and wet phase of the pacific decadal oscillation (Ferguson, 2001). Summer time moisture would have allowed for greater survival and establishment of seedlings. Competition between domesticated livestock and wild ungulates impacted native fescue and bunchgrasses ability to recover from heavy grazing pressures (Johnson and others, 1994). Exposed mineral soils and lack of competing native grasses and forbs would have created favorable seedbed and soil moisture conditions for conifer seedlings to establish. During this time, the Forest Service acquired cut-over private timber company lands through timber for land exchanges. Not all trees on cut-over lands were removed and provided a

82 UDR Environmental Assessment seed source for the 1930’s cohort of trees. Also, during this time, the Forest Service was aggressively suppressing wildfires that might otherwise limit new seedling establishment. Review of stand exam data confirms the stand development trajectory described above. The majority of larger trees are ponderosa pine and are 200 years old or older and are present at low stocking levels while smaller diameter trees are approximately 80 years of age and are a mixture of ponderosa and lodgepole pines having higher stocking densities. Typically a Historic Range of Variability (HRV) analysis is conducted at the subwatershed level where forest cover types, moisture regimes and disturbance agents and patterns are relatively uniform across one to two subwatersheds covering an area between 25 to 50 square miles in size. This analysis is conducted to detect changes in forest structural classifications between historic, current and projected future conditions. Conducting a HRV analysis for the project is problematic because proposed treatment units fall across 15 different subwatersheds covering 463 square miles. At this scale, detecting change at the subwatershed level is virtually impossible. While proposed thinning and mowing treatment area cover approximately six and a half square miles and cover approximately 1.4 percent of the 15 watersheds, thinning treatments which may result in a structural classification change will occur across 3.6 square miles or approximately 0.8 percent of this area. Thinning treatment areas are further divided across 34 treatment units where per unit values equate to approximately 0.02 percent of the 15 watersheds. The matter of scale in conducting a HRV analysis for this project will be resolved by selecting a smaller area having relatively uniform characteristics that are representative of the general area of the project. Methods The HRV analysis area for this Project was delineated by buffering proposed treatment areas with a mile and a half buffer which results in an area of 83,378 acres or 130 square miles. This analysis area is similar to the one used for the fire and fuel analysis report. Forest cover types across ownerships are variable and include dry and moist ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine and mixed conifer cover types. The prominent landscape feature within in the analysis area are river drainages. River systems include the Deschutes, Little Deschutes and Fall rivers. Within this area approximately 23% of land holdings are in non-industrial private land ownership and 77% is under Forest Service management; included are miniscule parcels managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the state of Oregon. See map in Figure 36. This HRV analysis will utilize work previously completed for the Dilman Environmental Assessment (USDA, 2001). The Dilman HRV analysis included areas found in the Dilman and Dorrance subwatersheds which coincide with the southwestern portion of this Project’s analysis area. The frequency and magnitude of dominant historical disturbance types along with ranges of historic stand structures for differing forest cover types are taken from the Silviculture Report written by Silviculturist Kim Johnson dated February 24, 2000. See Table 24 and Table 25 below. Johnson’s work utilized County level forest cover type mapping from the 1950’s which was compared to timber survey data from 1911 to determine historical conditions. Forest cover types from the 1922 Deschutes National Forest Timber Survey map were also reviewed and visually correlated well with the 1950’s data.

83 UDR Environmental Assessment

Figure 36- UDR Fuels Reduction Project Historic Range of Variability Analysis Area Map

84 UDR Environmental Assessment

Table 24 - Historic Disturbance Regimes adapted from Dilman Environmental Assessment for Dilman and (South) Dorrance subwatersheds.

Forest Cover Dominant Disturbance Average Typical Typical Aspect Types Disturbance Regimes Disturbance Landform Elevation (Biophysical Factors Patch Size Setting Environment) (acres) Lodgepole 1) Fire Moderate 80 – 150 Level, 4,400 Flat, Pine 2) Insect & Moderate 10 – 1,000 Rolling Various Disease Ponderosa 1) Fire Low 80 – 150 Level 4,500 Flat, Pine 2) Insect & Low 1 – 20 Elevated Sites Various Disease Mixed 1) Fire High 100 – 500 Elevated Sites, 5,000 NW-NE, Conifer 2) Insect & Moderate 100 – 500 Buttes Various Disease Open Not Not Not Lava, Rock, Cinder, Various Level applicable applicable applicable Meadow, Shrub, Hardwood, Water, Riparian Low Severity Disturbance Regimes: 1-25 year return interval, 0-20% of trees killed Moderate Severity Disturbance Regimes: 26-100 year return interval, 26-70% of trees killed High Severity Disturbance Regimes: >100 year return interval, >70% of trees killed

Existing forest structure classification was made by utilizing 2011 LIDAR tree data points associated with stand polygons delineated through photointerpretation. Data points were summarized by diameter groups and compared to a structural scripts utilized by the Malheur National Forest to determine forest structural classifications used with Eastside Screens (O’Hara and others, 1996). The Malheur script parses out the number of trees per acre by diameter groupings and uses an if-then logic sequence to classify a given stand’s structure by biophysical environments and productivity. See Table 24 ,Table 25 and Table 27 in Appendix B of the Silviculture report. This methodology is utilized when stand exam data is not available and produces similar results when compared to structural classifications generated through FVS when exam data is available. When exam data was not available, stand classifications for the No Action alternative were not changed from their initial classification. For the Proposed Action alternative structural classifications were changed from closed canopy to open canopy classifications. Stem exclusion closed canopy stands shifted to stem exclusion open canopy and old forest multi-storied stands shifted to old forest single storied stand classifications. All other structural classifications remained the same.

85 UDR Environmental Assessment

Table 25 Forest Vegetation Structural Classification used for Historical Range of Variability Analysis. Adapted from O’Hara (1996). Structural Class Definition Description Stand Initiation Growing space is reoccupied following a One canopy stratum (may be broken or (SI) stand replacing disturbance, typically by continuous), one dominant cohort of seedlings or early seral species. saplings. Grass, forbs, or shrubs may also be present with early seral trees. Stem Exclusion Occurrences of new tree stems is excluded One discontinuous canopy stratum. One cohort Open Canopy (moisture limited). Crowns are open of trees. New tree stems excluded by (SEOC) grown. Canopy is discontinuous. This competition. Trees may be poles or of small or structure can be maintained by frequent medium diameter. Understory shrubs, grasses, or underburning or management. forbs may be present. Stem Exclusion Occurrence of new tree stems is excluded Canopy layer is closed and continuous. One or Closed Canopy (light limited or moisture limited). Crowns more canopy stratum may be present. Lower (SECC) are closed and abrading canopy strata, if present, is the same age class as the upper stratum. Trees may be poles or of small or medium diameter. Understory shrubs, grasses, or forbs may be present. Understory A second cohort of trees is established The overstory canopy is discontinuous. Two or Re-initiation under an older, typically seral, overstory. more canopy layers are present. Two or more (UR) Mortality in the overstory creates growing cohorts of trees are present. Overstory trees may space for new trees in the understory. Large be poles or of small or medium diameter. trees are uncommon. Understory trees are seedlings, saplings of poles. Multi-Story w/o Several cohorts of trees are established. The overstory canopy is discontinuous. Two or Large Large overstory trees are uncommon. Pole, more canopy layers are present. Large trees are (MSWOL) small, and medium sized trees dominate. uncommon in the overstory. Horizontal and vertical stand structure and tree sizes are diverse. The stand may be a mix of seedlings, saplings, poles, or small or medium diameter trees. Old Forest Multi- Several to many cohorts and strata of trees The overstory canopy is broken or discontinuous. Story are present. Large trees are common. Two or more canopy layers are present. Two or (OFMS) more cohorts of trees are present. Medium and large sized trees dominate the overstory. Trees of all sizes may be present. Horizontal and vertical stand structure and tree sizes are diverse. Old Forest Single- A single stratum of large trees is present. The single dominate canopy stratum consists of Story Large trees are common. Young trees are medium sized or large trees. One of more cohorts (OFSS) absent or few in the understory. Park-like of trees may be present. An understory may be conditions may exist. absent or consist of sparse or clumpy seedlings or saplings. Grasses, forbs, or shrubs may be present in the understory.

86 UDR Environmental Assessment

HRV- Existing Condition Table 26- Existing Conditions and Result of Proposed Action Comparted to the Historic Range of Variability UDR-WUI Historic Range of Variability Analysis for 2016. Existing acre and percentage values represent starting and ending conditions for No Action Alternative and the beginning condition for Proposed Action Alternative. Proposed values represent conditions after thinning treatments for the Proposed Action have taken place. Biophysical Environment Lodgepole pine Total Acres 38656 % of Analysis Area 46 % of Historic Area 30-55 Structure Class I II III IV V VI VII Structure Description SI SEOC SECC UR MSWOL OFMS OFSS Existing (ac) 12826 0 11590 14226 14 0 0 Existing (%) 33 0 30 37 0 0 0 HRV low (%) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 HRV high (%) 30 0 30 30 10 0 0 Proposed Action (ac) 12826 0 11590 14226 14 0 0 Proposed HRV (%) 33 0 30 37 0 0 0 Biophysical Environment Ponderosa pine Total Acres 34607 % of Analysis Area 42 % of Historic Area 40-70 Structure Class I II III IV V VI VII Structure Description SI SEOC SECC UR MSWOL OFMS OFSS Existing (ac) 1142 17996 11085 26 0 3237 1121 Existing (%) 3 52 32 0 0 9 3 HRV low (%) 1 0 0 0 0 1 10 HRV high (%) 10 20 20 10 20 30 60 Proposed Action (ac) 1142 18492 10250 26 0 3167 1530 Proposed HRV (%) 3 53 30 0 0 9 4 Biophysical Environment Mix Conifer Total Acres 3010 % of Analysis Area 4 % of Historic Area 0-10 Structure Class I II III IV V VI VII Structure Description SI SEOC SECC UR MSWOL OFMS OFSS Existing (ac) 0 1129 900 0 0 470 513 Existing (%) 0 37 30 0 0 16 17 HRV low (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HRV high (%) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Proposed Action (ac) 0 1129 900 0 0 470 513 Proposed HRV (%) 0 37 30 0 0 16 17 Non Forest Cover Type Open (Lava, Rock, Cinder, Meadow, Shrub, Hardwood, Riparian, Water) Total Acres 7074 % of Analysis Area 8 % of Historic Area 0-5 Structure Class I II III IV V VI VII Structure Description SI SEOC SECC UR MSWOL OFMS OFSS Existing (ac) 0 7074 0 0 0 0 0 Existing (%) 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 HRV low (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HRV high (%) 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 Proposed Action (ac) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Proposed HRV (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

87 UDR Environmental Assessment

Table 26 above reveals current levels of stand structural stages by biophysical environments and also shows departures from historical conditions. The Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2, (Eastside Screens), Interim wildlife standards, or scenarios, are determined based on the level of historic late and old structure stages (LOS) found by biophysical environments. Interim wildlife standard scenarios are described as follows: If one or both types of LOS occur in a bioenvironment (OFMS and OFSS) and one type is above and the other below HRV then this condition is classified as Scenario A. Under Scenario A, 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 historic conditions. In this situation there should be no net loss of LOS as a result of management activities. If one or both types of LOS occur in a bioenvironment and both types are present at historic levels or above then this condition is classified as Scenario B. In this scenario management activities are permissible as long as HRV values stay above the lower threshold of historic levels. Activities should enhance and LOS conditions and attributes in a way that is consistent with other management objectives. Except for lodgepole pine biophysical environments, LOS is classified as old forest multi-storied (OFMS) or old forest single story (OFSS) where a threshold in the number of large trees exceeding 21 inches in diameter is met or exceeded (Fierst and others, 1993). For lodgepole pine biophysical environments, LOS is classified as stands having a multi-storied without large (MSWOL) structure. For the lodgepole pine biophysical environment, the following structural classes are within historic ranges: stand initiation, understory reinitiation and multi-storied without large. Stem exclusion closed canopy structural classes greatly exceed their historic ranges. For this biophysical environment, interim wildlife standard Scenario B is in effect. For the ponderosa pine biophysical environment, the following structural classes are within historic ranges: stand initiation, understory reinitiation, multi-storied without large and old forest multi-storied. Stem exclusion open canopy and stem exclusion closed canopy structural classes greatly exceed their historic ranges while old forest single storied class is below historic levels. For this biophysical environment, interim wildlife standard Scenario A is in effect. For the mixed conifer biophysical environment, the following structural classes are within historic ranges: stand initiation, understory reinitiation, multi-storied without large and old forest single story. Stem exclusion open canopy, stem exclusion closed canopy and old forest multi-storied structural stands exceed their historic ranges. For this biophysical environment, interim wildlife standard Scenario B is in effect. Alternative 1 Direct and Indirect Effects Under the No Action alternative, no management activities will take place. Forest stand structures found across the Lodgepole and Ponderosa pine and Mix Conifer biophysical environments will remain out of balance relative to historic conditions. In the near term, a direct effect of the No Action alternative is that late, old structural stages (LOS) will remain below historic levels for Ponderosa OFSS, within their historic range for Ponderosa OFMS and Lodgepole MSWOL and above historic levels for OFMS and OFSS in the Mix Conifer types. In the near term, younger structural stages will remain near historic levels for Lodgepole pine bioenvironment but will continue to be well above for SEOC and SECC structures found in the Ponderosa and Mix Conifer types.

88 UDR Environmental Assessment

Understanding the degree of stocking for a given stand is an important part of appreciating direct and indirect effects across time. Stocking levels were determined by using recommended upper management zone SDI levels (Booser and White, 1996) by plant association (Volland, 1982). Recommended stocking ranges coincide with historic ranges (Fierst and others, 1993) found for Ponderosa and Mix Conifer types and are lower than those of Lodgepole pine. For ponderosa types, upper management zone SDI value of 115 was used for CPS112. For lodgepole pine types, upper management zone SDI value of 138 was used for CLS214. Upper management zone SDI values for mixed conifer type for CWS114 is 120. Stand stocking levels for the Ponderosa stands will be above recommend stocking levels across 43% of their bioenvironment. For the Lodgepole type, approximately 7% of their area will be above recommended stocking levels. Of the Mixed Conifer stands, 62% are overstocked. Overall, 26% of all forested stands are currently overstocked. In the near term, an indirect effect of overstocking, a large proportion of forested stands in the analysis area will experience stagnation, reduced growth increment and will be vulnerable to the damaging effects of fire, insects, disease and parasitic agents. Trees experiencing stagnation generally do not die in a predictable pattern but generally die shortly after extreme weather events or other adverse conditions (Oliver and Larson, 1996). In the long term, an indirect effect of the No Action alternative is that MSWOL structures will increase in the Lodgepole type as UR and SECC structures age and mature while being subject to moderate severity disturbances, including fire events along with endemic and possible epidemic bark beetle outbreaks which will cause canopy layers to differentiate into different layers there by creating multi-storied structures. LOS characteristic will begin to emerge at the beginning of the next century when stands are between 120 and 150 years old. An indirect effect is that SI structure will grow into SECC structures. The level of overstocked stands will continue to increase until a landscape level disturbance occurs. The balance of future stand structural classifications will remain partly unknown due to conditions found at the beginning of this analysis where contiguous forest canopy conditions area considered to be a biological anomaly and where the stochastic nature of disturbances effecting lodgepole stand types may exceed our ability to foresee future conditions. In the long term, an indirect effect of the No Action alternative is that Ponderosa OFSS stands will continue to persist and will exhibit a higher degree of late and old structural characteristics than present. OFMS stands will also continue to persist but may exhibit a greater degree of horizontal and vertical structural diversification than OFSS stands. Ponderosa SEOC and SECC stands will continue to grow in such a manner that they may enter into OFSS LOS structural classification around the year 2080 when trees are mature at 150 years of age. As all of these structures move across time they will be subject to low severity disturbances, including fire events and endemic insect attacks which will create regeneration opportunities where SI and UR structures may develop. Through time, natural disturbance process will tend to rebalance forest structural conditions that may more closely resemble historical ranges. In the long term, an indirect effect of the No Action Alternative is that Mixed Conifer OFMS and OFSS stands may continue to persist and will be subject to moderate to high severity disturbances from fire events, insect outbreaks and from damaging disease agents. As LOS structures are modified or lost due to disturbance there is the potential for UR and eventually OFMS structures to develop or for regeneration opportunities where SI structures could develop. As SEOC structures develop and mature as they may progress towards OFMS or OFSS LOS stages by the year 2080 when they are 150 years of age. SECC stands may progress towards OFSS structures or be subject to disturbances which set them on a trajectory to become UR or MSWOL structures. SEOC stands may progress toward MSWOL and eventually towards OFMS structures. The potential for different structural pathways to develop into

89 UDR Environmental Assessment different structures is complex. See Figure 37 below. With time, natural disturbance process will tend to rebalance forest structural conditions that may more closely resemble historical ranges.

Figure 37 Conceptual mode of vegetation states and transitions associated with fire severity. Adapted from Stine and others (2014).

Alternative 2, Direct and Indirect Effects Under Alternative 2 commercial thinning is planned across 1,476 acres. As a result of thinning, forest stand structural stages will change across 1,296 acres. Table 25 in Appendix B of the Silviculture report tracks structural changes by biophysical environments for proposed thinning units. Despite thinning, forest stand structures will continue to remain out of balance relative to historic conditions across all biophysical environments. It is important not to lose sight of the relative scale of this project. All proposed treatments which change structural conditions will only happen across 2% of the analysis area. The primary purpose of this project is to reduce hazardous fuel conditions within and around the human built environment located within wildland urban interface areas of concern.

90 UDR Environmental Assessment

In the near term, late, old structural stages (LOS) will remain below historic levels for Ponderosa OFSS, within their historic range for Ponderosa OFMS and Lodgepole MSWOL and above historic levels for OFMS and OFSS in the Mix Conifer types. For the Ponderosa pine type, 70 acres of OFMS will be thinned to transition this structure to OFSS conditions. There are 339 acres of SECC will be thinned to create OFSS structures. In the near term, younger structural stages will remain near historic levels for Lodgepole pine bioenvironment but will continue to be well above for SEOC and SECC structures found in the Ponderosa and Mix Conifer types (Table 26). In the near term, a direct effect of Alternative 2 is to decrease the level of stands found in an over stocked condition. Stand stocking levels for Ponderosa pine stands will be above recommended stocking levels across 40% of their bioenvironment. For the Lodgepole pine type, approximately 6% of their area will be above recommended stocking levels. 62% of the Mixed Conifer stands are overstocked. Overall, 23% of all forested stands are currently overstocked. Stands found in overstocked conditions will experience stagnation, reduced diameter increment growth and will venerable to the damaging effects of fire, insects, disease and parasitic agents. Stagnated trees generally do not die in predictable patterns but rather parish after experience extreme weather conditions or other adverse events. In the long term, an indirect effect of Alternative 2 is that MSWOL structures will increase in the Lodgepole type as UR and SECC structures age and mature while being subject to moderate severity disturbances, including fire events along with endemic and possible epidemic bark beetle outbreaks which will cause canopy layers to differentiate into different layers there by creating multi-storied structures. Commercial thinning across 571 acres (180 acres of SECC and 391 acres of UR) will result in 391 acres of new SECC structure. The stand trajectories for these thinned acres will trend towards MSWOL development. LOS characteristic will begin to emerge at the beginning of the next century when stands are between 120 and 150 years old. An additional indirect effect is that SI structure will grow into SECC structures. The level of overstocked stands will continue to increase until a landscape level disturbance occurs. The balance of future stand structural classifications will remain partly unknown due to conditions found at the beginning of this analysis where contiguous forest canopy conditions area considered to be a biological anomaly and where the stochastic nature of disturbances effecting lodgepole stand types may exceed our ability to foresee future conditions. In the long term, an indirect effect of the Proposed Action alternative is that Ponderosa OFSS stands will continue to persist and will exhibit a higher degree of late and old structural characteristics than present. OFMS stands will also continue to persist but may exhibit a greater degree of horizontal and vertical structural diversification than OFSS stands. Ponderosa SEOC and SECC stands will continue to grow in such a manner that they may enter into OFSS LOS structural classification around the year 2080 when trees are mature at 150 years of age. As all of these structures move across time they will be subject to low severity disturbances, including fire events and endemic insect attacks which will create regeneration opportunities where SI and UR structures may develop. Through time, natural disturbance process will tend to rebalance forest structural conditions that may more closely resemble historical ranges. In the long term, an indirect effect of Alternative 2 is that Mixed Conifer OFMS and OFSS stands may continue to persist and will be subject to moderate to high severity disturbances from fire events, insect outbreaks and from damaging disease agents. As LOS structures are modified or lost due to disturbance there is the potential for UR and eventually OFMS structures to develop or for regeneration opportunities where SI structures could develop. As SEOC structures develop and mature as they may progress towards OFMS or OFSS LOS stages by the year 2080 when they are 150 years of age. SECC stands may progress towards OFSS structures or be subject to disturbances which set them on a

91 UDR Environmental Assessment trajectory to become UR or MSWOL structures. SEOC stands may progress toward MSWOL and eventually towards OFMS structures. The potential for different structural pathways to develop into different structures is complex. See Figure 37 above. With time, natural disturbance process will tend to rebalance forest structural conditions that may more closely resemble historical ranges. Cumulative Effects The effects of past vegetation management activities, within the last 15 years, have partially contributed to the current imbalance of forest stand structural stages across the HRV analysis area. Past activities have mostly contributed to imbalances in SEOC and SECC structures across biophysical environments. The Forest Service Activity Tracking System (FACTS) (USDA, 2014b) was utilized to track management activities that have affected forest stand structures. For a given management activity, FACTS activity descriptions, along with activity codes in parentheses are shown below. Regeneration harvests within the HRV analysis area included stand clearcutting (4113 acres), shelterwood removal cutting (4141 acres), overstory removal cutting (4143 acres), seed tree removal cutting (4146 acres), single-tree selection cutting (4151 acres), group selection cutting (4152 acres) and two-aged seed-tree seed and removal cutting (4183 acres) across approximately 1,352 acres. These activities have contributed to approximately 2% of the stands found in SI, SECC and UR stand structures. Intermediate harvest treatments include improvement cutting (4210 acres), commercial thinning (4220 acres), salvage cutting (4231 acres). Treatments have occurred across approximately 9,864 acres since 2001. These activities have occurred across 13% of the analysis area where effected stand structures include SI, SEOC and SECC stand structures. Intermediate treatments have also contributed to the propagation and maintenance of OFSS structures. Thinning for hazardous fuels reduction (1160 acres) has happened across 3,656 acres or 5% of the analysis area. Treatments have been applied in some areas that were previously treated with regeneration harvest treatments and intermediate harvest treatments. This activity has contributed to creation of UR structures and in the maintenance and propagation of SEOC, SECC and OFMS structures. Tree release and weeding (4511 acres) and precommercial thinning (4521 acres) has occurred across approximately 33,059 acres or 43% of the analysis area. These activities have contributed to the maintenance and propagation of OFMS, OFSS, MSWOL, SECC, SEOC and SI stand structures. Within the analysis area, approximately 23% or 19,177 acres are found in private ownerships which mostly appear to be managed as nonindustrial private forest holdings. Private ownerships are generally found in and around developed communities such as Sunriver, Oregon. The human built environment is generally found in the lodgepole pine cover type and is mostly found in a SECC structural conditions. It is anticipated that SECC conditions will be maintained by homeowners and will not be allowed to transition into MSWOL type structures because of the potential risks associated with wildfire threats. This block of holdings represents a substantial contribution towards HRV in the lodgepole pine biophysical environment. The effects of Alternative 2 cover 1,296 acres or approximately 2% of the analysis area where commercial thinning (4220 acres) will move 409 acres into the Ponderosa type OFSS structures. This change covers approximately one half of a percent of the analysis area. 887 acres will move from UR and SECC to SECC and SEOC structures. This change cover approximately one percent of the analysis area. Forest Plan Consistency

92 UDR Environmental Assessment

Alternative 2 has approximately 2291 acres of proposed thinning activities (commercial and ladder fuel reduction thinning). Alternative 2 is approximately 2 percent of the HRV analysis area. The proposed actions would have a negligible effect on the landscape’s condition relative to the historical range of variability. The proposed action would not contribute to any net loss of Late Old Structure (LOS). Treatments occurring in LOS will retain all trees greater than 21 inches dbh. Proposed thinning would move stands towards large tree structure. Thinning would favor the retention of the best dominant and codominant trees. The residual codominant and dominant trees within the units will most quickly achieve diameters of 21 inches dbh. Reduced stand densities will increase induvial tree vigor and growth rates. Dominant and codominant trees will have a reduced susceptibility of beetle induced mortality and improved fire resistance over the long term. Accelerated diameter growth and reduced beetle susceptibility will enhance the potential for large tree structure for the future and meet the recommendations set forth by Forest Plan Guidelines and the Upper Deschutes River Coalition Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Ponderosa Pine, Lodgepole pine, and Mixed Conifer Biophysical Environments The Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2, (Eastside Screens), Interim wildlife standards, or scenarios, are determined based on the level of historic late and old structure stages (LOS) found by biophysical environments. Interim wildlife standard scenarios are described as follows: If one or both types of LOS occur in a bioenvironment (OFMS and OFSS) and one type is above and the other below HRV then this condition is classified as Scenario A. Under Scenario A, 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 historic conditions. In this situation there should be no net loss of LOS as a result of management activities. If one or both types of LOS occur in a bioenvironment and both types are present at historic levels or above then this condition is classified as Scenario B. In this scenario management activities are permissible as long as HRV values stay above the lower threshold of historic levels. Activities should enhance LOS conditions and attributes in a way that is consistent with other management objectives. Ponderosa Pine Biophysical Environment For the ponderosa pine biophysical environment, the following structural classes are within historic ranges: stand initiation, understory reinitiation, multi-storied without large and old forest multi-storied. Stem exclusion open canopy and stem exclusion closed canopy structural classes greatly exceed their historic ranges while old forest single storied class is below historic levels. For this biophysical environment, interim wildlife standard Scenario A is in effect. Lodgepole Pine Biophysical Environment For the lodgepole pine biophysical environment, the following structural classes are within historic ranges: stand initiation, understory reinitiation and multi-storied without large. Stem exclusion closed canopy structural classes greatly exceed their historic ranges. For this biophysical environment, interim wildlife standard Scenario B is in effect.

Mixed Conifer Biophysical Environment For the mixed conifer biophysical environment, the following structural classes are within historic ranges: stand initiation, understory reinitiation, multi-storied without large and old forest single story. Stem exclusion open canopy, stem exclusion closed canopy and old forest multi-storied structural stands

93 UDR Environmental Assessment exceed their historic ranges. For this biophysical environment, interim wildlife standard Scenario B is in effect. No Net loss of late and old structure (LOS) Within the ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine PAGs. The proposed action will thin in LOS, but there will be no net loss to LOS structure. Where LOS conditions exist, thinning will perpetuate and enhance LOS conditions. Maintain all remnant late and old seral and/or live trees greater than or equal to 21 inches dbh. Proposed harvest treatments in Alternative 2 would retain all live trees greater than or equal to 21 inches dbh. Manipulate vegetative structure to move it towards LOS Alternative 2 will manipulate vegetation to move stands to a large tree structure. Thinning would favor the retention of the best dominant and codominant trees. Residual trees would have increased vigor and diameter growth.

Fire and Fuels Fire and Fuels – Regulatory Framework The Deschutes National Forest is directed by the Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan, referred to in the document as the Forest Plan. Fire and fuels management are guided by direction in the Forest Plan and by direction in the National Fire Plan and associated documents. Fire and Fuels specific Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP) direction is included in Appendix A of the Fuels report. Fire and Fuels – Analysis Methods Analysis Area The UDR WUI project focuses on forest service lands adjacent to CWPP identified communities at-risk. For the purpose of the fire and fuels analysis, the analysis area was defined as a 1.5 mile buffer around communities at-risk within the Upper Deschutes River area. The UDR WUI project analysis area was created in ArcMap 10.2 by identifying the communities at-risk within the UDRC CWPP and creating a 1.5 mile buffer (See Figure 38). A 1.5 mile buffer around neighborhoods will adequately capture the conditions of wildland fuels for the purpose of a fire hazard analysis.

94 UDR Environmental Assessment

Figure 38: UDR WUI Analysis Area

95 UDR Environmental Assessment

Indicators and Measurements The primary purpose of the UDR WUI project is to decrease fire hazard to CWPP identified communities at-risk within the UDRC, Sunriver and Greater Bend CWPP’s. To indicate how alternatives affect fire hazard within the UDR WUI planning area the following measurement is used: Acres of Forested (US Forest Service land) project area rated as LOW for wildfire hazard. What is Fire Hazard? In regards to wildland fire, there exists a considerable range of definitions for hazard (Hardy C.C., 2005). For the purpose of this analysis, the following definition is used: A fuel complex, defined by volume, type, condition, arrangement, and location that determines the degree of ease of ignition and the resistance to control (NWCG, 2012). This analysis assumes that a fuel complex rated low for fire hazard and will not support widespread crown fire and surface fire behavior will be of relatively low intensity under summer like weather conditions. To rate wildfire hazard, the matrix in Table 27was used (Vaillant, Ager, Anderson, & Miller, 2012). Using this matrix, fire hazard is represented as a combination of potential flame length and crown fire activity that the fuel complex will support during 90th percentile weather conditions. The 90th percentile weather parameters used in the analysis are described in Appendix B of the Fuels report. Table 27 Fire Hazard Rating Matrix Crown Fire Flame Length (feet) Activity 0-4 4-8 8-11 >11 Surface Fire Low Mod High High Passive Crown Low Mod High Extreme Active Crown Mod High Extreme Extreme Analysis Area Description Fire Regimes Fire regimes describe patterns of fire occurrence, frequency, size severity, and sometimes vegetation and fire effects, in a given area or ecosystem (NWCG, 2012). A fire regime is a generalization based on fire histories at individual sites. The national, coarse-scale classification of fire regimes include five groups: I – frequent (0-35) years), low severity; II - frequent (0-35 years), stand replacement severity; III - 35-100+ years, mixed severity; IV - 35-100+ years, stand replacement severity; and V - 200+ years, stand replacement severity. The UDR WUI project area is composed of vegetation characterized by Fire Regime I, III, & IV (See Table 28). Appendix C of the Fuels report contains a detailed description of each fire regime. Table 28 UDR WUI Analysis Area Fire Regimes

FIRE REGIME Description Plant Association ACRES % of Forested Group (PAG) Project Area I 0-35 yr frequency Ponderosa Pine 44,393 53% / mixed severity III 35-100+ yr Mixed Conifer 3,250 4% frequency / mixed IV 35-100+it yr Lodgepole Pine 35,397 43% frequency / high TOTAL it 83,040 100%

96 UDR Environmental Assessment

Figure 39 UDR WUI Fire Regimes Fire and Fuels – Existing Condition

97 UDR Environmental Assessment

The UDR WUI project area is characterized by its close proximity to communities and infrastructure within the wildland urban interface. All units are within the WUI of the Greater La Pine and Bend, UDRC, and Sunriver CWPP’s. These areas are designated as priority for treatment because they are adjacent to communities. Past treatments have occurred around many of the UDRC subdivisions through the Sunriver HFRA, Dilman, East Tumbull, Fall, Katalo, Klak, Lavacast Environmental Assessments (EA), and the Lavacast and Myst Categorical Exclusions (CE). These past treatments are in need of maintenance to meet desired fuel loadings. Many of the units are within or adjacent to private lands, meadows and riparian areas, these areas have had less stand management, logging activity and highly effective wildland fire suppression, which have substantially altered the ponderosa pine forest type. Suppression of fire has greatly increased the stocking levels and density of trees, creating ladder fuels and putting the stands at risk of attack from insects and disease contributing to more intense fires in ponderosa pine forests in recent years (Lighthall, K. 2013). Firefighter and Public Safety Wildfire in this area could quickly threaten adjacent communities, private lands, State Parks, state and federal recreational developments, and threatened and endangered species habitat. Due to high fuel loadings, continuous fuels, and proximity to communities these areas contain safety hazards that increase the risk exposure for initial attack and/or extended attack firefighting resources. The project area is bordered by at-risk communities and general forest. To improve firefighter and public safety during a wildfire event it is desired that defensible space be created surrounding residential communities, resorts, and high use recreation areas. On federal lands CWPP’s encourage managers to reduce potential of extreme fire behavior by reducing fuel loads to that which can produce flame lengths less than four feet within a ¼ mile buffer of WUI areas and within 300 feet of any critical transportation route or ingress/egress that could serve as an escape route from adjacent communities at-risk. Ladder fuels and shrubs should be managed by mowing and prescribed burning (Lighthall, K. 2015). It is desired that fire hazard be low within the UDR WUI treatment units. The CWPP measurement of flame lengths less than four feet does not consider crown fire behavior. To consider both crown fire and surface fire, fire hazard was used as a measurement. An area rated as low for fire hazard will not support surface fire flame lengths greater than 4’ and will not support crown fire under hot, dry and windy conditions. Treatment of these units would reduce the fire hazard from extreme to low and provide for appropriate ingress/egress for home owners and firefighting personnel. Values at Risk Upper Deschutes River Coalition Communities at-Risk – there is a considerable amount of public land with numerous destination resorts, and developed recreation sites which provide valuable recreation and economic opportunities to both residents and visitors in the Deschutes County. In the summer months, transient populations occupy these areas creating a seasonal challenge for fire managers responsible for suppression and evacuation (Lighthall, K. 2015). Evacuation Routes – UDRC CWPP recommends that ingress/egress routes should be treated by thinning trees to a wide spacing to protect and enhance large trees on any given site. Ladder fuels and shrubs should be aggressively managed by mowing and burning (Lighthall, K. 2015). Bridge Creek, Two Bulls, and the Awbrey Hall fire advanced 5+ miles within single burning periods. Under similar weather conditions, a fire starting in or near the UDR WUI project area could quickly reach the Upper Deschutes River communities.

98 UDR Environmental Assessment

Recreation Values – Numerous developed and undeveloped recreation sites exist within and adjacent to the project area bringing increased local and visitor seasonal traffic to the general area. The adjacent forest is used for hunting, hiking, fishing, general river access, mountain and motor trail use, wildlife watching, etc. Fire Hazard The hazard rating describes resistance to control once a fire starts based on weather, topography, vegetation and crown fire potential. Effective wildland fire suppression has led to extensive buildup of over story and ground vegetation in the WUI. Based on the UDRC CWPP all communities identified as at-risk are rated high or extreme under this assessment. (Lighthall, K. 2013). The project area has four primary vegetation types that contribute to fire hazard: the area includes ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, bitterbrush, and some riparian areas. Ponderosa pine, historically, contained more understory grasses and sporadic shrubs than currently present. These plants combined with an accumulation of needle cast gave way to high frequency and low severity wildfires. Fire return interval occurred every 11-15 years. Mature Lodgepole pine, in Central Oregon, is characterized by dense, uniform stands (lacking diversity), occurring with bitterbrush understory. Lodgepole pine forest burned with a moderate severity and moderate frequency, approximately 60-80 year return interval. Bitterbrush is fire dependent but not fire resistant. Bitterbrush will sprout after burning regardless of burn severity and matures relatively quickly. The planning area is rich with patches of bitterbrush capable of providing fire-ready ladder fuels. Bitterbrush is primarily present in the understory of ponderosa pine stands. Riparian areas which are routinely wet provide a seasonal concern, in the spring prior to green up and in the fall when fuels have cured. These areas provide an abundance of fuel loading, dead or dying vegetation that contribute to a substantially elevated risk of wildfires that are difficult to control. These overly dense conditions lead to fire behavior that produces flame lengths over eight feet with opportunities for crowning and stand replacement severity fires (Lighthall, K. 2015). Based on 2012 Landfire analysis, over 62 % of the UDR WUI identified treatment area are (Scott and Burgan) fuel model GS2 (122) Moderate Load Dry Climate Grass-Shrub (Dynamic), 9% as TU1 (161) Low Load Dry Climate Timber-Grass-Shrub (Dynamic), 8% as TL5 (185) High Load Conifer Litter, and 9% TL6 (186) Moderate Load Broadleaf Litter, the remaining 12% are sporadically spaced throughout the treatment units and provides a representation of the remaining fuel models.

99 UDR Environmental Assessment

Figure 40 UDR WUI Vicinity Fire Hazard – Current Condition

100 UDR Environmental Assessment

Fire and Fuels –Direct and Indirect Effects – Alternative 1 The purpose of UDR WUI project is to decrease fire hazard to at-risk communities within the UDRC CWPP and provide opportunities to safely and effectively manage a wildfire. Without treatments, a fire in the area will place the public and firefighters at increased risk. From a landscape view, this is an optimal place to implement treatments on a large enough scale to make meaningful change in fire hazard. Treatments in UDR WUI are aimed at providing suppression options for fire starts in the planning area and for preventing fires from reaching values at risk. The potential for crown fire is the main concern in the lodgepole and dense ponderosa pine stands. There is very little that can be done once a crown fire starts (information from “Crown fire behavior and prediction in conifer forests: a state-of-knowledge synthesis” (Alexander, Cruz, Vaillant, & Peterson, 2013) Crown Fires Move Fast - At a minimum, a doubling or tripling in a fire’s rate of advance follows the onset of crowning. Wind-driven crown fires have been documented to spread at up to 100 meters/min (3.7mph) for several hours and in excess of 200 meters/min (7.5 mph) for up to an hour. A crown fire in the UDR WUI area could easily burn over communities within a burning period. Crown Fires are Intense – A fire can easily quadruple its intensity in a matter of seconds when crowning takes place (e.g., from 3,000 kW/m to 12,000 kW/m). The resulting wall of flame, standing nearly vertical, is on average up to two to three times the tree height and emits fierce levels of radiation. Flame fronts commonly exceed 30-45 meters in depth. Once crown fire initiates, suppression resources, including air tankers would be ineffective at keeping it away from the values at risk and private land. Crown Fires get big quickly - The area burned by a crown fire is at least four to nine times greater that of a surface fire for the same period of time. Assuming unlimited horizontal fuel continuity, crown fires are capable of burning an area of upwards to 173,000 acres with a perimeter length of 100 miles in a single burning period and have done so in the past. The entire UDR WUI analysis area of 89,857 acres could burn within a single burning period if conditions line up. As evidence, the 2014 Two Bulls fire burned 6,900 acres in less than 24 hours and the Skeleton Fire burned close to 18,000 acres within a burn period. Crown Fires can spot long distances - Crown fires commonly display high-density, short-range spotting (<50 m). Spotting distances of up to about 1.25 miles, although less common, are frequently seen on crown fires, resulting in normal barriers to fire spread being breached. Many spot fires are simply overrun by the main advancing flame front of a crown fire before they effectively contribute to an increase in the fire’s overall rate of advance. Cases of long-distance spotting in excess of six miles have been reported. It would not take much for a crown fire in the UDR WUI area to send embers into adjacent communities. There will be serious air quality issues if a fire were to start in this area. Relatively small prescribed burns (100-200 acres) along the Deschutes river drainage have resulted in smoke intrusions in Bend. A large wildfire within the analysis area would likely result in unhealthy air quality conditions for an extended period of time. Fire and Fuels –Direct and Indirect Effects – Alternatives 2 Various treatments planned within Alternative 2 (i.e. commercial harvest, mechanical shrub treatment, ladder fuel reduction, and under burning) will result in the majority of the project area having a reduction of hazardous fuels resulting in a decrease in fire hazard for the associated treatment areas (See Table 27).

101 UDR Environmental Assessment

Table 27 Fire Hazard Alternative 1 & Alternative 2 CURRENT CONDITION ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 CHANGE Hazard Rating Acres % of Project Area Acres % of Project Area Acres None 118 3% 118 3% 0 Low 1,158 27% 3,485 84% 2,327 Moderate 73 2% 117 3% 44 High 280 7% 74 2% (206) Extreme 2,505 61% 340 8% (2,165) Total 4,134 100% 4,134 100% Total size project area is 4,151 acres. The difference of 17 acres, 0.4% of the project area being omitted from analysis due to clipping raster cells to a polygon in ArcGIS 10.2 and is not accounted in the above table. The effects analysis demonstrates that treatments in alternative 2 would change 2,327 acres to low hazard rating. If implemented, the alternatives would result in relatively similar effects to fire hazard, and from a fuels perspective, Alternatives 2 would acceptably meet the purpose and need of the project. The preferred alternative for fuels is alternative 2; it would result in the majority of the project area, 84% rating as a low fire hazard post treatment. Commercial thinning, pre-commercial thinning (PCT), ladder fuel reduction LFR, piling, pile burning, mechanical shrub treatment (mowing or mastication), and under burning are some of the treatment options that are available when treating over grown timber stands in this planning area. All treatments are targeting a reduction of canopy closure, ladder fuels, and ground fuels. A reduction of ground fuels and ladder fuels will reduce flame length and a reduction of canopy closure will reduce crown fire potential. The table below quantifies firefighting efficiency as production rates (Table 29). For this comparison it was assumed that currently the surface fuels in the Ponderosa pine is represented as fuel model 5 (due to the composition of the needle draped brush understory), post treatment stands will be represented by fuel model 8, open timber. Table 29: Firefighter Efficiency RESOURCE Production Rate in FM5 (ch/hr) Production Rate in FM8 (ch/hr) 20 Person Type I Hand Crew 6 40 Type II Dozer, Flat Ground 105 105 3 Person Engine Crew 12 40 Line Production Rates can be referenced in Behave Plus 5.05 and/or NWCG Fire Line Handbook Appendix B. When designing treatments consideration was put into how fire would travel across the landscape and there was an attempt to maximize treatment effectiveness by strategically placing treatment areas. Table 5 describes principles of fire resistance. Treatments are aimed at increasing canopy base heights, reducing crown bulk density and reducing surface fuel loading. It is unlikely that these treatments alone would stop a rapidly moving wildfire displaying extreme fire behavior. However, the treatments will provide a place for firefighters to attempt to stop a wildfire through control actions.

102 UDR Environmental Assessment

Figure 41: Current Condition / Alternative 1 - No Action Figure 42: Alternative 2 - Action

Fire and Fuels –Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis is spatially bounded by the adjacent and overlapping project boundaries of Sunriver HFRA, Myst EA and Lava cast CE and are temporally bounded at fifteen years. UDR WUI can be viewed as one part of a series of projects designed to provide fire managers with increased options for managing wildfires within the general forest and wildland urban interface. UDR WUI, Sunriver HFRA, Lava cast project as well as the soon to be signed Junction EA cumulatively reduce hazard and risk and create a broader range of options to manage fire near the communities of the Upper Deschutes River. The past accomplishments and ongoing fuels treatments in these projects are anticipated to have a net positive landscape level effect on resiliency to fire by decreasing fire hazard and fire risk. In addition, treatments done in these projects in combination with the treatments done in UDR WUI would provide more options for fire managers to manage wildfires that originate on general forest designated lands that threaten values at risk.

103 UDR Environmental Assessment

The UDR WUI project boundary overlaps the Sunriver HFRA and Lava cast CE boundaries. Mowing and thinning (commercial and pre-commercial) implementation has begun in these project areas, the effects of these projects are considered in the UDR WUI effects analysis. Air Quality Smoke produced from wildland or prescribed fires can have considerable effects on the surrounding urban landscapes. Smoke deteriorates air quality and causes a range of effects depending on the quantity, concentration, and duration of emissions. Smoke can potentially impact human health through inhalation of small airborne particles known as “particulate matter” (PM). PM with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 to 2.5 microns (known as PM 10 or PM2.5; OAR-340-200), is one of the “criteria pollutants” as defined by the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). The levels of criteria pollutants above which may result in detrimental effects on human health and welfare (visibility) are set by the Environmental Protection Agency by a series of standards known as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Below the NAAQS thresholds, smoke caused by wildfire or prescribed fire can also affect human health and welfare. Smoke-related impacts of this type are known as “nuisance smoke”, and are defined by the US Environmental Protection Agency as the amount of smoke in the ambient air that interferes with a right or privilege common to members of the public, including the use or enjoyment of public or private resources (US EPA 1998). Nuisance smoke can lead to loss of scenic visibility, unpleasant odors, eye and nose irritation, and visibility-caused collisions on highways. The Federal CAA prescribes air quality to be regulated by each individual state. On National Forest Systems lands in Oregon, the authority to manage smoke emissions from management activities is given by the Department of Environmental Quality to the Oregon Department of Forestry’s (ODF) Smoke Management Program under the Oregon Smoke Management Plan (Oregon Revised Statute 477.013, OAR-629-048). ODF has the authority to coordinate burning on agricultural and National Forest Systems lands to minimize impairments and to designate smoke sensitive receptor areas to protect dense population areas with special legal status from visibility impairments. The designated urban growth boundaries of Bend and Redmond are considered smoke sensitive receptor areas (SSRA). In these areas, smoke intrusions or the certified entrance of smoke from prescribed burning at ground level is avoided and must be reported. The Oregon Smoke Management Plan identifies the Three Sisters, Mount Washington, and Mount Jefferson Wilderness as well as Crater Lake National Park as mandatory Class I air sheds. Mandatory Class I air sheds are protected by the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program and include national parks over 6,000 acres, national wilderness areas over 5,000 acres, national monuments, national seashores, and other areas of special national or regional natural, recreational, scenic, or historic values that were in existence as of August 1977. These are also considered “smoke sensitive” and require restrictions on prescribed burning during the Visibility Protection Period July 1st thru September 15th (OAR-629-048, OAR-340-200, and OAR-340-200-0040). When prescribed burning is conducted outside the Visibility Protection Period, in addition to compliance with smoke management instructions issued in the daily forecast and compliance with all conditions of the burn permit required under Oregon Revised Statute 477.515, burn bosses and field administrators are encouraged to closely observe local conditions at the burn site to avoid the main smoke plume entering a Class I air shed at ground level. The UDR WUI project is adjacent to and near a number of Smoke Sensitive Receptor Areas (SSRA’s). These areas include the greater communities of Bend, Redmond, Sisters and Prineville. Smoke has a tendency to settle during nighttime conditions and move down drainages or river corridors (i.e. the

104 UDR Environmental Assessment

Deschutes River). The named SSRA communities above are all located downriver and/or at lower elevation than the majority of planned under burn units within the UDR WUI project area. This being said, fuels specialists will need to plan burn days when smoke will clear from treatment units and will decrease the impacts to prospective SSRA’s. Wildlife Analysis boundary Because the proposed treatment units are spread geographically over a large area, a collection of HUC12 subwatersheds were used to define the analysis boundary, as shown below in Figure 43. This includes portions of 5 watersheds (Fall River – Deschutes, Middle Little Deschutes, Long Prairie, Lower Little Deschutes and North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River) represented by 14 subwatersheds that total 279,011 acres. This was done to make the most coherent analysis area possible that would accurately depict the geography and conditions of the proposed treatment areas and describe potential effects at the landscape scale. In addition, this provides enough of each habitat type analyzed (12,800 acres minimum) to meet the best available science criteria for describing the project effects to dead wood (snag and downed wood analysis using DecAid.

Figure 43: Wildlife Analysis Area

105 UDR Environmental Assessment

The analysis area is composed of three major wildlife habitat types (WHTs): ponderosa pine/Douglas fir (PPDF), lodgepole pine (LP) and eastside mixed conifer/east Cascades/Blue Mountains (EMC_ECB). These are generally distributed as low elevation (PPDF), mid-elevation (LP) and high elevation (EMC_ECB) within each subwatershed. Because there are no proposed actions in the mixed conifer habitat type, it was not considered in detail for this analysis.

Cumulative impacts considered for this analysis are shown in Table 30 and Table 31. If there are no anticipated direct or indirect impacts, cumulative impacts are not considered. Cumulative effects may overlap both direct and indirect effects, and may include actions outside the footprint of proposed treatment units. For this cumulative effects analysis, actions were considered within the analysis boundary, which includes 14 subwatersheds in portions of 5 watersheds. Timespan considered is based on the effect of the action. The effectiveness of fuels treatments, like those proposed, are estimated to be 5 years for mowing, 10 years for underburning, 15 years for ladder fuels reduction/precommercial thinning and 30 years for commercial thinning. Table 30 below summarized past and present actions. The effects of these activities are included in the baseline condition. Table 31 displays, reasonably foreseeable future actions that may impact wildlife within the analysis boundary. Table 30: Cumulative Effects Considered for Wildlife UDR WUI Project Analysis - Past and Present Actions (FACTS Datasource, Bend-Fort Rock District Files) Action Timing Acres Within General Effect Analysis Area (% of Analysis Area) Wildfires 1900- 29,491 (11%) Effects variable, reduction in present understory/overstory structure, snag/log creation and/or loss Major Fires Included: Finley Butte, White, Sutilet, Round Swamp, Edison Ice Cave 1, Awbrey Hall and Lost Man Rx Underburn Within 9,472 (3%) Reduction in understory structure, 10 years reduction in small downed wood, possible conversion of green trees to snags and snags to downed wood Major Projects Included: West Bend, Lava Cast, Katalo, Dilman, Fuzzy, Charlie Brown, Klak, East Tumbull, Fall, EXF and Sunriver

Commercial Thinning Within 43,182 (15%) Reduced overstory structure 30 years Major Projects Included: Katalo, Dilman, Fuzzy, Klak, Charlie Brown, Fall, East Tumbull, Lavacast, Crossings, Oz, Myst, Sunriver, Fall, Sparky, West Tumbull, EXF, Ogden and West Bend

Ladder Fuel Within 88,976 (32%) Reduced understory and midstory Reduction/Pruning/PreCommercial 15 years structure Thin Major Projects Included: Katalo, Katalo West, Prairie Dog, Fuzzy, Charlie Brown, Dilman, Klak, Crossings, East Tumbull, Fall, South Bend, Lava Cast, Myst, Sunriver, EXF, Opine, West Bend, Deschutes River Aspen Enhancement, Long Prairie, Sparky, Topso-Finley Fires Conifer Release, Ryan Ranch and General Patch Mowing Within 5 1,671 (1%) Reduced understory structure years Major Projects Included: EXF and East Tumbull NOTE: Many actions overlap resulting in some acres being counted multiple times.

106 UDR Environmental Assessment

Table 31: Cumulative Effects Considered for Wildlife UDR WUI Project Analysis – Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Action Timing Acres Within Analysis General Effect Area (% of Analysis Area) Rx Underburn Within Approx. 65,141acres Reduction in understory structure, 10 years (23%) reduction in small downed wood, possible conversion of green trees to snags and snags to downed wood Major Projects Included: Lava Cast, West Bend, UDRC HFRA, Rocket, Ogden and Junction

Commercial Thinning Within Approx. 42,318 acres Reduced overstory structure 30 years (15%) Major Projects Included: Rocket, West Bend, UDRC HFRA, Shield, Ursus, Junction, Ogden, Lex (Partial) and Kew

Ladder Fuel Within Approx. 17,889 acres Reduced understory and midstory Reduction/Pruning/PreCommercial 15 years (6%) structure Thin Major Projects Included: UDRC HFRA, Ogden, Lava Cast, Rocket and Shield

Mowing Within 5 Approx. 30,285 acres Reduced understory structure years (11%) Major Projects Included: UDRC HFRA, Rocket, Ogden, Shield and Junction NOTE: Many actions overlap resulting in some acres being counted multiple times.

An explanation of the data and models, methods of analysis, general assumptions and evaluation criteria used in this report are outlined in Appendix 001 of the Wildlife report. Recent survey data and historical records were used in the determination of species presence within the analysis area or, in most cases, potentially suitable habitat was considered to be occupied. TES Species The following tables are derived from the updated Regional Forester’s Special Status Species List (USDA FS 2015b). Highlighted species will be carried forward for analysis. Species or species habitat not known or suspected in or near the project area will not be carried forward for analysis and will be addressed only in Appendix 3 of the Wildlife BE. Table 32 OCCURRENCE OF FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES FOR THE UDR WUI PROJECT Species & Status Basic Habitat Known or Suitable Designated Alt 2 – Description Suspected Habitat Critical Proposed to be Present Habitat Action Present in/near Present or Determination in/near Project Affected Project Area Area FEDERALLY LISTED AMPIBIANS Oregon spotted Slow streams, Yes Yes -- NE frog (T) marshes, ponds & lake edges Rana pretiosa

107 UDR Environmental Assessment

Oregon spotted -- -- Yes NE frog (P) CRITICAL HABITAT FEDERALLY LISTED BIRDS Northern spotted Old growth mixed No No -- owl (T) conifer forest with Douglas fir & true Strix occidentalis firs caurina Northern spotted -- -- No owl (T) CRITICAL HABITAT FEDERALLY LISTED MAMMALS Gray wolf (E) Large areas with No* No* -- low human Canis lupis densities/few roads Pacific fisher (P) Mixed conifer & No No -- riparian with Pekania pennanti complex structure North American High elevation No No wolverine mixed conifer forest Gulo gulo SPECIES STATUS: (Federal Status) T=Threatened; E=Endangered; P=Proposed FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES DETERMINATIONS: NE=No effect; BE=Beneficial effect, NLAA=May affect, not likely to adversely affect; LAA=May affect, Likely to adversely affect *There are no known den sites on the Deschutes National Forest (O’Reilly 2015) Table 33: OCCURRENCE OF R6 SENSITIVE SPECIES FOR THE UDR WUI PROJECT Species Basic Habitat Known or Suitable Alt 2 – Proposed Description Suspected to Habitat Action be Present Present Determination in/near Project in/near Area Project Area SENSITIVE AMPHIBIANS Columbia spotted frog Slow streams, marshes, No No ponds & lake edges Rana luteiventris SENSITIVE BIRDS

108 UDR Environmental Assessment

Northern bald eagle Lakeside or riverside Yes Yes BI with large trees Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bufflehead Snags associated with Yes Yes BI lakes Bucephala albeola Harlequin duck Rapid streams with No No large trees Histrionicus histrionicus Tricolored blackbird Riparian, Cattails No No Agelaius tricolor Yellow rail Marshes/wetlands No No Coturnicops noveboracensis Greater sage grouse Sagebrush flats No No (western) Centrocercus urophasianus American peregrine Riparian & cliff habitats No No falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Lewis’ woodpecker Open ponderosa pine No Yes BI forest with large Melanerpes lewis diameter dead/dying trees or burned forest White-headed Mature ponderosa pine Yes Yes BI woodpecker forest with large diameter snags Picoides albolarvatus Northern waterthrush Dense riparian willows No No Parkesia noveboracensis Horned grebe Lakes with emergent No No vegetation Podiceps auritus Tule goose Seasonal migrant – No No spring & fall, wetlands Anser albifrons elgasi with emergent vegetation

109 UDR Environmental Assessment

SENSITIVE MAMMALS

Townsend’s big-eared Caves, mines, bridges, No Yes MIIH bat rock crevices and old buildings Corynorhinus townsendii Pallid bat Arid desert or grassland No Yes MIIH with rock crevices, Antrozous pallidus caves, old mines, trees or old buildlings Spotted bat Caves & rock crevices No Yes MIIH Euderma maculatum Fringed myotis Caves, mines, rock No Yes MIIH crevices, desert, Myotis thysanodes grassland, woodland Sierra Nevada red fox High elevation forest, No No shrub and meadow Vulpes vulpes necator SENSITIVE INVERTEBRATES Crater Lake tightcoil Perennially wet riparian No Yes NI Pristiloma crateris Shiny tightcoil Aspen stands within No Yes NI ponderosa/doug fir Pristiloma wascoense forest Silver-bordered Wet meadow, bog or No Yes NI fritillary marsh with floral resources Boloria selene atrocostalis Johnson’s hairstreak Coniferous forest, No Yes MIIH especially old growth Callophrys johnsoni with mistletoe Western bumblebee Areas with abundant No Yes MIIH floral resources, rodent Bombus occidentalis burrows, bunch grass or other nesting structure SENSITIVE SPECIES DETERMINATIONS: NI=No impact; BI=Beneficial impact; MIIH=May impact individuals or habitat but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species;

110 UDR Environmental Assessment

WIFV=Will impact individuals or habitat with a consequence that the action may contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species

Oregon Spotted Frog, Rana pretiosa The Oregon spotted frog occupies wetland habitats in western North America from southwestern British Columbia to southern Oregon. Their habitat consists of perennial wetlands, such as springs, ponds, lakes, slow-flowing streams, irrigation canals, or roadside ditches with reliable water and good solar exposure. They are highly aquatic, often avoiding forested uplands. Breeding and egg laying/development occur in shallow water (March thru June) while Oregon spotted frogs rely on deeper pools and springs for overwintering habitat. Larvae eat organic debris and algae while adults feed mostly on insects. Threats include habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation, often due to changes in hydrology, water quality and temperature. Common disturbances include the loss of beavers, filling/draining wetlands, grazing, engineering/dewatering for urban and agricultural use, exotic vegetation (notably, reed canarygrass) and invasive species introduction such as predatory and competitive fishes (brook trout) and frogs (bullfrogs). Climate change and amphibian diseases such as chytridiomycosis likely compound the impact of these threats, but their interaction is poorly understood. (NatureServe 2015). The Joint Aquatic and Terrestrial Programmatic Biological Assessment (USDAFS 2014) specifies that breeding adults separate soon after egg-laying, with females returning to fairly solitary lives and males remaining at breeding sites for up to several weeks. Egg masses are often laid communally in groups of a few to several hundred. Breeding sites may be as small as 2.5 acres or as large as 4,915 acres, with abundant shallow pools (2-12 inches). Vegetation must be low or sparse to provide adequate solar exposure. Overwintering pools are typically deep and associated with flowing oxygenated water to support aerobic metabolism and allow frogs to evade predation. In central Oregon, these sites are typically covered in ice during the winter season. Oregon spotted frogs are the most aquatic native frog species in the Pacific Northwest, having no terrestrial life stage. Although they are found in emergent wetland habitats in forested landscapes, they are not typically found under forest canopies (USDAFS 2014). The Oregon spotted frog was listed as a threatened species with proposed critical habitat in 2013. Critical habitat designations identify areas containing primary constituent elements, which are specific physical or biological features that provide for a species’ life history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species. Of the 68,228 acres of critical habitat identified for Oregon spotted frog, 20,955 acres occur on the Bend-Fort Rock District (approximately 30%). This includes most riparian habitat on or adjacent to the Deschutes River from Hosmer and Winopee Lakes to the Meadow Picnic Area directly southwest of Bend, including two large reservoirs (Wickiup and Crane Prairie). The proposed action has approximately 3.25 miles of shoreline that occur directly adjacent to proposed critical habitat. All treatment is proposed in forested uplands. No treatment is proposed within areas identified as Critical Habitat for Oregon spotted frog. The nearest known breeding sites occur approximately 0.5 miles from any proposed treatment in the Wickiup Reservoir Area (unit 21), the Sunriver area (unit 28) and the Ryan Ranch area (unit 41). Habitat near treatment units was opportunistically surveyed in the summer of 2015 with negative results and marginal suitability (notably around units 19 and 20). Table 34: Summary of Critical Habitat Acres for Oregon Spotted Frog Acres of habitat in Acres of habitat in the Acres of habitat on the Proposed analysis area Deschutes National Treatment Units Forest 0 (0%) 5,098 (16%) 31,823 (100%)

111 UDR Environmental Assessment

Proposed Treatments in Critical Habitat: None

Applicable design criteria and best management practices considered in the effects analysis for Oregon spotted frog can be found on EA page 42-56. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION): In the short-term, existing habitat is expected to continue to function at levels comparable to the current condition. Over time, overstocked stand conditions will increase the likelihood of insect, disease and wildfire damage. Conifer encroachment into riparian habitat is likely to occur, reducing the abundance and quality of this habitat. Changes to native riparian plant communities caused by wildfire disturbance include potential invasive weed infestation, such as reed canarygrass (FEIS 2015). This may reduce the amount and quality of suitable habitat for breeding, resulting in reproductive losses, lower survivorship and altered dispersal and movement abilities. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 (PROPOSED ACTION): Because all proposed treatment occurs in upland forest habitat, and Oregon spotted frogs are highly aquatic, there are no direct impacts anticipated as a result of project implementation. In addition, extensive design criteria have been incorporated into the project to protect riparian and aquatic habitat quality (see Appendix 001 of the Wildlife BE). No treatments are proposed within Critical Habitat or near known breeding sites. The proposed action would not contribute to the known threats of this species as outlined in the Joint Aquatic and Terrestrial Programmatic Biological Assessment (USDAFS 2014). Implementation of the proposed action would not alter the suitability of known breeding or overwintering sites, diminish dispersal opportunity or limit survivorship or Oregon spotted frog. CUMMULATIVE EFFECTS: Because there are no direct or indirect effects anticipated as a result of the proposed project, there are no associated cumulative effects. DETERMINATION: Alternative 2 (proposed action) is anticipated to have No Effect (NE) on Oregon spotted frog. Oregon spotted frog Critical Habitat. Alternative 2 (proposed action) is anticipated to have No Effect (NE) on Oregon spotted frog Critical Habitat. Riparian and aquatic habitats are not targeted by proposed treatments. The proposed actions do not overlap Critical Habitat or occur in close proximity to known breeding sites. The proposed project is consistent with management direction and all proposed activities are compliant with project design criteria outlined under the Joint Aquatic and Terrestrial Programmatic Biological Assessment for Federal Lands within the Deschutes and John Day River Basin’s Administered by the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests (USDA FS 2014). Please see Appendix 004 of the Wildlife BE. NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL, Strix occidentalis caurina Northern spotted owls generally require mature or old-growth coniferous forest with complex structure including multiple canopy layers, large green trees and snags, heavy canopy habitat, and coarse woody material on the forest floor. These types of forests usually contain the structures and characteristics required for nesting, roosting, foraging (NRF), and dispersal. Forest characteristics associated with northern spotted owls usually develop with increasing forest age, but their occurrence may vary by location, past forest practices, and stand type, history, and condition. Spotted owls will use younger, managed forests provided that key habitat components are available. These younger forests provide dispersal habitat for owls and foraging habitat if near nesting or roosting areas. Suitable habitat on the eastside of the Cascade Mountains is naturally confined to a narrow forested band below the high- elevation subalpine forests and above the low-elevation lodgepole/ponderosa pine forest - neither of which are considered spotted owl habitat. NRF habitat for the northern spotted owl on the Deschutes

112 UDR Environmental Assessment

National Forest includes stands of mixed conifer, ponderosa pine with white fir understories, and mountain hemlock with subalpine fir. Nest trees on the Deschutes have been predominantly large Douglas-fir trees. Dispersal habitat are stands with adequate tree size and canopy cover to provide tree protection from avian predators and at least minimal foraging opportunities; dispersal habitat provides important linkage function among blocks of nesting habitat both locally and over the owl’s range. Because the range of the northern spotted owl lies approximately 1.5 miles or more west of the nearest proposed treatment unit, this project is considered outside of this species range with no suitable habitat and it was not considered further for analysis. Since there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects, the proposed project would have No Effect on northern spotted owl. Designated Critical Habitat Units for northern spotted owl: The Deschutes National Forest lies primarily in Critical Habitat Unit 7, East Cascades North. In addition, there is a small portion of Critical Habitat Unit 6, West Cascades South occurring on the southern end of the forest. Unit 6 is comprised of six subunits while Unit 7 is comprised of 9 subunits. Subunit WCS 5, West Cascades South 5 and Subunits ECN 8 (East Cascades North 8) and ECN 9 (East Cascades North 9) occur on forest. The nearest identified northern spotted owl critical habitat is 10 miles to the west, outside the nearest proposed treatment unit and was therefore not considered further for analysis. Since there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects, the proposed project would have No Effect on northern spotted owl critical habitat. GRAY WOLF, Canis lupis In 2011 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reissued the final rule to designate and removed the northern Rocky Mountains Distinct Population Segment (DPS) from the Endangered Species List. The northern Rocky Mountains DPS includes the eastern third of Oregon and Washington (Federal Register 2011). In the areas surrounding the northern Rocky Mountains DPS that don’t currently have wolves, Endangered Species Act protections are still in place, including parts of Oregon and Washington. Currently, lands within the boundaries of the Deschutes National Forest are outside the DPS unit, and therefore, Endangered Species Act protection is still in place. In November 2011, a radio-collared gray wolf, OR7, from the Imnaha Pack in northeast Oregon was documented to have traveled through the Deschutes National Forest. In early November 2015, a young female wolf (OR28) dispersed from the Mt. Emily pack in Umatilla County and established an Area of Known Wolf Activity (AKWA) in the Fort Rock and Silver Lake Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) of Klamath and Lake Counties. The following is used by USFWS to define occupied wolf range (J. Stephenson, Personal Communication, 07/07/16). The proposed UDR WUI Project does not meet the definition of occupied wolf range. Therefore, gray wolf was not carried forward for analysis. Because wolves are habitat generalists, maintain very large home ranges and have no known den sites or rendezvous sites on the Deschutes National Forest, gray wolf was not considered further for analysis. Since there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects, the proposed project would have No Effect on gray wolf. Occupied wolf range: Area of confirmed presence of resident breeding packs or pairs of wolves or area consistently used by > 1 resident wolf or wolves over a period of at least 1 month. Confirmation of wolf presence is to be made or corroborated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Exact delineation of area will be described by (1) 5-mile radius around all locations of wolves and wolf sign confirmed as described above (non-radio monitored), (2) 5-mile radius around radio locations of resident wolves when < 20 radio locations are available (for radio monitored wolves only), or (3) 3-mile radius around the convex polygon developed from >20 radio locations of a pack, pair, or single wolf taken over a period of > 6 months (for radio monitored wolves).

113 UDR Environmental Assessment

PACIFIC FISHER, Pekania pennanti Fishers primarily use mature, closed-canopy coniferous forests with some deciduous component, frequently along riparian corridors (Csuti et al. 2001). Weir and Corbould (2010) found that fishers were limited by the openness of the stand; one reason being that escape cover (i.e. trees for climbing) are far apart making fishers further susceptible to terrestrial predators. In Ruggiero et al. (1994), it is suggested fishers prefer closed-canopy (greater than 60%), late-successional forests with large physical structures (live trees, snags, and logs), especially if associated with riparian areas. A 2004 Species Assessment by the US Fish and Wildlife Service documents key aspects of fisher habitat as those associated with late- successional forests (i.e. high canopy closure, large trees and snags, large logs, hardwoods, and multiple canopy layers). Distribution of fishers is limited by elevation and snow depth (Krohn et al. 1997). Fishers generally avoid areas of high human disturbance, primarily high road density or recreational developments. Fishers are fairly large, weighing 3 to 13 lbs and 29 to 47 inches long. This may suggest a need of larger log sizes for dens than other animals with similar needs (i.e. marten). Aubry and Raley (2006) found in southwestern Oregon, fishers were found denning and resting at 4,000 feet elevation, more than 80% canopy closure, and more than 16 snags and 67 logs at least 20” dbh per acre; supporting the suggestion that this species utilizes large to very large structure. Denning and resting sites were also observed in large live trees (mostly Douglas-fir) with mistletoe brooms, limb clumping, rodent nests, or some other deformity. This habitat is not found within the project area and therefore this species was not considered for further analysis. Since there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects, the proposed project would have No Effect on pacific fisher. NORTHERN BALD EAGLE, Haliaeetus leucocephalus (FS sensitive) Bald eagles breed throughout Canada and Alaska, and in pockets throughout the US including Florida, the Great Basin, the Rocky Mountains, the northwest and prairie regions (Sibley 2000). Bald eagles were de-listed federally under the ESA on August 8, 2007. Breeding habitat most commonly includes areas close to (within 4 km) bodies of water that provide primary food sources including fish and waterfowl. Bald eagles usually nest in tall trees or on cliffs near water. Bald eagles preferentially roost in conifers or other sheltered sites in winter and typically select larger, more accessible trees. Communal roost sites used by two or more eagles are common. Winter roost sites vary in their proximity to food resources (up to 33 km) and may be determined to some extent by a preference for a warmer microclimate at these sites. Wintering areas are commonly associated with open water, though in some areas eagles use habitats with little or no open water if other food resources (e.g. rabbit or deer carrion) are readily available. Nesting and roosting eagles tend to avoid areas with nearby human activity (boat traffic, pedestrians) and development (buildings, campgrounds, trailheads). Major threats include habitat loss, disturbance by humans, biocide contamination, decreasing food supply, and illegal shooting (NatureServe 2015). Bald eagles are also susceptible to power line electrocutions (APLIC 2006). Bald eagles are known residents of the Deschutes National Forest often using ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir trees averaging 32 inch+ dbh with live, large, open limb structure for both nesting and winter roosting. Many nest sites are known along the length of the Deschutes River, although only one known site is within a ¼ mile of proposed treatment (unit 21). No proposed activities occur within bald eagle management areas as identified in the Forest Plan (WL-1).

114 UDR Environmental Assessment

Table 35: Summary of Suitable Habitat Acres for Bald Eagle (2015 Data) Acres of habitat in Acres of habitat in the Acres of habitat on the Proposed analysis area Deschutes National Treatment Units Forest 1,349 (1%) 42,551 (27%) 157,462 (100%) Proposed Treatments in Habitat (approximate acres): (sum of acres varies due to GIS data conversion from raster format) Maintenance Mow: 128 Thin, Maintenance Mow & Underburn: 447 Mow: 73 Thin & Mow: 279 Thin: 49 Thin, Mow & Underburn: 329 Thin & Maintenance Mow: 19 Underburn: 0

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION): The area will continue to support eagles for nesting and roosting with no disturbance beyond the existing baseline. The no action alternative would not contribute to the known threats of this species. Competition for growing resources will limit the development of large tree structure and may reduce the opportunity for future roosting and nesting along the Deschutes River and nearby riparian habitats. Overstocked conditions will increase the likelihood of insect, disease and wildfire damage. High intensity fire could result in the loss of large trees currently used or potentially used for nesting and roosting. A long time gap in large tree structure could result from wildfire disturbance, reducing suitability for bald eagles over many decades. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 (PROPOSED ACTION): The proposed treatments do not occur near any known nesting sites, with the exception of unit 21 which provides protection for nesting eagles with a timing restriction. The nest tree and adjacent canopy will not be modified with the current prescription to thin and mow. Of the 1,349 acres of suitable habitat proposed for treatment, most acres are targeted for thinning, mowing and underburning. Mowing treatments will not have any effect on potential habitat for bald eagles (healthy riparian/aquatic habitats and large tree structure). Similarly, underburning effects will be focused on understory structure, which will not influence the suitability of habitat for bald eagles. Incidental damage to overstory trees may occur from underburning, creating some snags from live leave trees. This is not expected to modify the potential use of large trees (live or dead) currently providing habitat. Incidental tree mortality as a result of underburning is anticipated to be greatest in small and medium size classes, limiting their development into future large structure. This effect will be small in scale, anticipated to be less than 5% (Newey 2015). Thinning treatments would encourage the growth of large trees into the future to provide habitat and would not target the removal of large trees currently providing habitat. Additionally, proposed fuels treatments will reduce the risk of high intensity fire, reducing the potential loss of existing large tree structure providing for nesting and roosting. The proposed action would not contribute to the known threats of this species. CUMMULATIVE EFFECTS: Many of the foreseeable future actions that overlap the anticipated effects of this project have similar objectives of improving forest health and reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire. These projects will generally retain the largest tree structure available, both live and dead, and

115 UDR Environmental Assessment

reduce competition for growing resources, resulting in an improved trajectory of these stands to provide large structure for nesting and roosting. Of the projects considered for cumulative effects, many do not occur close enough to foraging habitat to improve bald eagle habitat directly, limiting their influence and potential benefit for bald eagle. DETERMINATION: Alternative 2 (proposed action) is expected to have a Beneficial Impact (BI) on bald eagle. Treatment will not reduce the amount of currently suitable habitat and is expected to improve habitat quality in the future as large structure develops to provide nesting and roosting opportunities near aquatic and riparian habitats. The proposed project is consistent with management direction (WL-1). No proposed activities occur within bald eagle management areas, and known nest sites will be protected with timing restrictions (notably unit 21).

BUFFLEHEAD, Bucephala albeola (FS sensitive) Buffleheads occur in western North America from central Alaska south to central Oregon and west into the Rocky Mountains – with distribution becoming more sporadic and isolated in the southern and western portions of their range. In the central Cascades, they are uncommon breeders, although known nesting locations include Hosmer Lake, Crane Prairie Reservoir, Twin Lakes, Wickiup Reservoir, Davis Lake and along the Little Deschutes River. Buffleheads nest using natural cavities, and due to their small size can utilize northern flicker holes and artificial nest boxes. Females often nest in the same site in successive years. Buffleheads are diving ducks, feeding on both invertebrates and aquatic vegetation. Although population numbers are thought to be stable, Oregon populations may be more vulnerable due to their scattered distribution and small size. Potential threats include hunting pressure, human disturbance (recreation) and limited nesting habitat (cavities) (Marshall et al 2006 and NatureServe 2015). Bufflehead sightings have been documented along the Deschutes River near the project area, although there are no known nest sites. Nesting habitat is generally of poor quality as trees suitable for flicker cavity excavation (snags) are lacking in the project area (Mellen-McLean et al 2012) and human disturbance, as both residential and recreational, is frequent due to the close proximity of housing and development in the wildland-urban interface. Although nesting has been documented in central Oregon, the area is on the margin of breeding habitat, with better opportunities occurring farther north. Bufflehead use of central Oregon habitat is most likely to occur in winter or during migration. Table 36: Summary of Suitable Habitat Acres for Waterfowl (2011 Data) Acres of habitat in Acres of habitat in the Acres of habitat on the Proposed analysis area Deschutes National Treatment Units Forest 225 (<1%) 8,025 (9%) 86,389 (100%) Proposed Treatments in Habitat (approximate acres): (sum of acres varies due to GIS data conversion from raster format) Maintenance Mow: 8 Thin, Maintenance Mow & Underburn: 1

116 UDR Environmental Assessment

Mow: 3 Thin & Mow: 114 Thin: 12 Thin, Mow & Underburn: 74 Thin & Maintenance Mow: 0 Underburn: 0

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION): The area will continue to support bufflehead for wintering, migration and breeding with no disturbance beyond the existing baseline. The no action alternative would not contribute to the known threats of this species. Overstocked stands have a higher risk of insect and disease damage, which will produce more snags. Where currently available, large trees that are affected by insect and disease damage may produce large snags (>20” DBH) suitable for nesting, but replacements for those large snags would be lacking into the future as growing conditions would not encourage the development of large structure. High intensity fire could result in the loss of currently suitable snags. A long time gap in large tree structure could result from wildfire, reducing nesting potential for bufflehead over many decades. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 (PROPOSED ACTION): Snags and green tree replacements suitable for flicker excavation will be maintained to provide current and future nesting habitat. Of the 225 suitable habitat acres proposed for treatment, thinning, mowing and/or underburning treatments may occur. This treatment may reduce the abundance and future potential for small snag structure (>10” DBH) but will encourage the development of large trees which will provide large future snags (>20” DBH) to create nesting habitat. The area is most likely to be used by bufflehead in the winter or during migration – this use would require adequate feeding resources and areas to provide resting opportunity. This habitat would be abundant along the Deschutes River corridor and would not be impacted by the proposed project as wetland and riparian habitats are not targeted for treatment. Mowing treatments will not have any effect on potential habitat for bufflehead (healthy riparian/aquatic habitats and snags). Similarly, underburning effects will be focused on understory structure, which will not influence the suitability of habitat for bufflehead. Incidental damage to overstory trees may occur from underburning, creating some snags from live leave trees. This may provide potential nesting habitat on approximately 75 acres, but overstory mortality will be infrequent, anticipated to be less than 5% (Newey 2015). Additionally, proposed fuels treatments will reduce the risk of high intensity fire, reducing the potential loss of existing snags potentially providing for nesting habitat. CUMMULATIVE EFFECTS: Many of the foreseeable future actions that overlap the anticipated effects of this project have similar objectives of improving forest health and reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire. These projects will generally retain the largest tree structure available, both live and dead, and reduce competition for growing resources, resulting in an improved trajectory of these stands to provide large suitable snag habitat for primary excavators and secondary cavity users like bufflehead. Of the projects considered for cumulative effects, most do not occur close enough to water to improve bufflehead habitat directly. The indirect influence these projects have are the maintenance and improvement of woodpecker habitat to support healthy and robust woodpecker populations – some of which are primary excavators that are required to provide suitable nesting sites for bufflehead. DETERMINATION: Alternative 2 (proposed action) is expected to have a Beneficial Impact (BI) on bufflehead. Treatment will not reduce the amount of currently suitable habitat and is expected to improve habitat quality in the future as large snags develop in locations near aquatic and riparian habitats.

117 UDR Environmental Assessment

The proposed project is consistent with management direction (WL-39) and snag retention standards as outlined in the Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Tree and Log Implementation Strategy (USDA FS 1994b). For more information on project effects to snags, including DecAid analysis, see the snags and downed wood section of the UDR WUI Project Wildlife Report. LEWIS’ WOODPECKER, Melanerpes lewis (FS Sensitive) Lewis’ woodpecker occurs throughout western North America from southern Canada to northern Mexico using open canopy woodland habitat with large diameter dead and dying trees. In central Oregon, this habitat is largely provided by burned ponderosa pine forest. Lewis’ woodpeckers feed on flying insects and are not strong cavity excavators, often relying on soft snags in advanced decay or excavations from flickers and hairy woodpeckers. Nests in ponderosa pine have been documented in varying decay classes with a mean diameter of 26 inches. Prime foraging habitat includes abundant perching limbs, brushy understory and an open canopy of less than 30% cover (Marshall et al 2006 and Linder and Anderson 1998). Lewis’ woodpecker populations are in decline throughout their range. Common threats include loss of suitable habitat (limited snag resources and wildfire suppression), the effects of pesticides and competition with invasive species, most notably European starlings. There are no known observations of Lewis’ woodpecker within or directly adjacent to the project area. Habitat is of marginal quality, with a general deficiency of large snags (see DecAid analysis in USDA FS 2015a). The area has a long history of fire suppression, with only 6 notable fires in or near treatment units, all dating prior to 1960 with the exception of 2 (Wampus Butte fire, 1984, 217 acres and Pringle fire, 1995, 868 acres). Table 37: Summary of Suitable Habitat Acres for Lewis’ Woodpecker (2015 Data) Acres of habitat in Acres of habitat in the Acres of habitat on the Proposed analysis area Deschutes National Treatment Units Forest 76 (<1%) 4,830 (4%) 139,929 (100%) Proposed Treatments in Habitat (approximate acres): (sum of acres varies due to GIS data conversion from raster format) Maintenance Mow: 44 Thin, Maintenance Mow & Underburn: 2 Mow: 2 Thin & Mow: 14 Thin: 1 Thin, Mow & Underburn: 7 Thin & Maintenance Mow: 0 Underburn: 0

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION): High stand densities will continue to discourage use by Lewis’ woodpecker. Competition for growing resources would continue to stress trees, resulting in increased mortality and more abundant snags. Where currently available, large trees that are affected by insect and disease damage may produce large snags suitable for nesting, but replacements for those large snags would be lacking into the future. Beyond snag availability, other habitat components would discourage woodpecker use, notably closed canopies and dense stand conditions – which are contradictory to the preferred habitat of Lewis’ woodpecker. Open habitat and

118 UDR Environmental Assessment

forest edge would be reduced, farther limiting suitability as foraging habitat. The no action alternative would also produce greater risk of high-intensity fire effects. This could result in a flush of snags in the analysis area – although they will mostly be smaller size classes due to the lack of large structure on the landscape. Additionally, this flush of snags is expected to be short-lived (less than 25 years) with an extensive recovery period required before snag structure can again be provided, especially for larger size classes. Existing snags may also be consumed in the fire. Burned areas may provide open and edge characteristics favored by species such as Lewis’ woodpecker (as well as primary excavators like northern flicker), but habitat suitability is expected to slowly decline within approximately 25 years. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 (PROPOSED ACTION): Of the 76 acres of suitable habitat within treatment units, most occur in small and isolated patches – with only one unit having a considerable amount of habitat (unit 45, approx. 50 acres of habitat). This unit is proposed to have only maintenance mowing done. Mowing could cause disturbance of existing, but unknown nest sites within the unit and could result in reduced reproductive success or nest failure for one breeding season. This occurrence is expected to be limited in scope and scale as there is likely only a small overlap in timing between potential treatment and nesting season, the impact would likely only occur for one nesting season at any given site and treatment occurs over a very small portion of habitat (<1% Forest-wide). Mowing may also reduce prey populations, therefore foraging opportunities for Lewis’ woodpecker, through the removal of shrubby understory. This effect will also be limited in scope and scale, with a treatment cap of 50% of shrubs treated to a minimum height of approx. 8 inches in units that overlap suitable habitat. A timeframe of 5 years is expected for shrub recovery. Throughout the project area, implementation of the proposed action would retain the largest trees available on the landscape, reduce stand densities, open understories and grow larger trees faster than if left untreated. This will retain and promote the development of large snag habitat, which could benefit Lewis’ woodpecker. In reference to the DecAid analysis (USDA FS 2015a), proposed treatments would cause short-term reductions in small snag (>10” diameter) numbers, but will allow for the long-term development in large snag structure (>20” diameter). This may move current conditions away from the reference figures in the short-term for small snag habitat, with an improved trajectory for the large snag component to move closer toward the reference condition in the long-term, benefiting Lewis’ woodpecker by providing potential future nest sites. Implementation of the proposed action would also improve openings and edge habitat which may provide good forage opportunity for Lewis’ woodpecker. CUMMULATIVE EFFECTS: Many of the foreseeable future actions that overlap the anticipated effects of this project have similar objectives of improving forest health and reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire. These projects will generally retain the largest tree structure available, both live and dead, and reduce competition for growing resources, resulting in an improved trajectory of these stands to provide large snag habitat in the future. Thinning projects across the analysis area will improve growing conditions and encourage the development of large structure suitable for nesting (15% of the analysis area through commercial thinning and an additional 6% through precommercial thinning). See Tables 003-004 in the wildlife report, and Tables 8-9 of this document. Implementation of these actions is expected to be staggered, resulting in a mosaic of stand conditions and will likely improve small forest openings and edge habitat that supports foraging opportunity for Lewis’ woodpecker. Mowing and underburning treatments that reduce shrub densities may reduce prey populations across a large portion of the analysis area (11% mowing, 23% underburning). Implementation is expected to be staggered, with short-lived results (5-10 years), creating a mosaic of habitat conditions. DETERMINATION: Alternative 2 (proposed action) is expected to have a Beneficial Impact (BI) on Lewis’ woodpecker. Although there may be a short-term reduction in prey populations and potential disturbance to individual birds, the long term development of suitable nesting structure and

119 UDR Environmental Assessment

improvements to small openings and edge habitat will improve breeding and foraging opportunity for Lewis’ woodpecker. This improvement is expected over a very small portion of marginally suitable habitat. The proposed project is consistent with management direction and snag retention standards as outlined in the Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Tree and Log Implementation Strategy (USDA FS 1994b). For more information on project effects to snags, including DecAid analysis, see the snags and downed wood section of the UDR WUI Project Wildlife Report.

WHITE-HEADED WOODPECKER, Picoides albolarvatus (FS Sensitive) White-headed woodpeckers occur in the interior mountains of western North America from southern British Columbia to southern California, using open ponderosa pine habitat with low shrub cover and large snags. These woodpeckers are weak primary excavators, often only using soft snags. Their diet is made up of ponderosa pine seeds so they require stands of trees with large and abundant cones, but also feed on invertebrates and sap. (NatureServe 2015 and Marshall et al 2006). Primary threats include habitat degradation, by over-harvesting large trees and snags and fire suppression that has resulted in ponderosa pine forests transitioning into higher Douglas fir/true fir components. The following table summarizes white-headed woodpecker nesting habitat needs as described in DecAID (Table PPDF- S/L.sp-17, Mellen-Mclean 2012). Table 38 White-headed woodpecker nesting tolerance levels (TL) forsmall/medium ponderosa pine/Douglas fir forest habitats Snag 30% TL 50% TL 80% TL Density & Size >10” dbh 0* 3.9 11.9 (#/ac) >20” dbh 0.5 1.8 3.8 (#/ac) Snag DBH (in) 19.9 25.5 34.4 *Lower tolerance levels not well documented in the literature.

White-headed woodpecker occurrence has been documented within the project area. Most treatment units are likely more suitable as foraging habitat than nesting due to a deficiency in large snags.

Table 39: Summary of Suitable Habitat Acres for White-headed Woodpecker (2011 Data) Acres of habitat in Acres of habitat in the Acres of habitat on the Proposed analysis area Deschutes National Treatment Units Forest 1,564 (1%) 35,312 (16%) 221,851 (100%) Proposed Treatments in Habitat (approximate acres):

120 UDR Environmental Assessment

(sum of acres varies due to GIS data conversion from raster format) Maintenance Mow: 1002 Thin, Maintenance Mow & Underburn: 40 Mow: 183 Thin & Mow: 179 Thin: 1 Thin, Mow & Underburn: 117 Thin & Maintenance Mow: 0 Underburn: 0

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION): The no action alternative would result in densely stocked stands that discourage large tree growth and are susceptible to insect and disease damage. Weak trees will also produce fewer cones and seeds to provide for foraging white- headed woodpeckers. Competition for growing resources would continue to stress trees, resulting in increased mortality and more abundant snags. In reference to the DecAid analysis presented in the snag and downed wood section of this document, small snags (>10”) would develop in higher density – resulting in the current condition moving toward the reference condition in ponderosa pine. The same can be expected in the large snag (>20”) figures as well, although with smaller increases expected. Increases would mostly occur in small size classes because large structure is currently lacking on the landscape and would not develop under overstocked conditions. Woodpeckers that rely on large snags, such as white-headed woodpeckers, may benefit in the short-term as large trees are affected by insect and disease damage, although replacements for those large snags would be lacking into the future. Beyond snag availability, other habitat components would discourage white-headed woodpecker use, notably closed canopies and dense stand conditions – which are contradictory to the preferred habitat of this species. The no action alternative would also produce greater risk of high-intensity fire effects. This could result in a flush of snags in the analysis area – although they will mostly be smaller size classes due to the lack of large structure on the landscape. Additionally, this flush of snags is expected to be short-lived (less than 25 years) with an extensive recovery period required before snag structure can again be provided, up to several hundred years - especially for larger size classes. Existing snags may be consumed by fire resulting in a loss of nesting habitat. Low intensity wildfire could improve habitat for white-headed woodpecker; these fire conditions will help maintain open stand conditions, stimulate aspen growth, and reduce conifer encroachment on openings to maintain edge habitat. This could improve habitat quality and quantity by proving important nesting and foraging habitat components. However, high fuel levels and contiguous fuel distribution may not support low intensity wildfire in the analysis area. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 (PROPOSED ACTION): Of the 1,564 acres of suitable habitat within proposed treatment units, approximately 1,400 acres occur in Units 40 and 45-54. The proposed treatment in these units is mowing or maintenance mowing. This treatment will benefit white- headed woodpeckers by reducing the shrubby understory and lowering predation risk (Wightman et al, 2010). Disturbance of existing nest sites is possible during implementation and could result in reduced reproductive success or nest failure for one breeding season. This occurrence is expected to be limited in scope and scale as there is likely only a small overlap in timing between potential treatment and nesting season; the impact would likely only occur for 1-2 nesting seasons at any given site and treatment occurs over a very small portion of habitat forest-wide (<1%). Across the project area, implementation of the proposed action would retain the largest trees available on the landscape, reduce stand densities, open understories and grow larger trees faster than if left untreated. This may improve cone and seed production for improved forage (FEIS 2015) and will retain and promote the

121 UDR Environmental Assessment

development of large snag habitat (>20” DBH), which will benefit white-headed woodpecker by providing future nesting sites. Many of the impacts noted above as low-intensity fire effects will be mimicked by the proposed treatment, which could improve habitat quality by providing important nesting and foraging habitat components. In reference to the DecAid analysis presented in the snag and downed wood section of the wildlife report, proposed treatments would cause short-term reductions in small snag (>10” diameter) numbers, but will allow for the long-term development in large snag structure (>20” diameter). This may move current conditions away from the reference figures in the short-term for small snag habitat, with an improved trajectory for the large snag component to move closer toward the reference condition in the long-term which may improve future nesting opportunity. CUMMULATIVE EFFECTS: The proposed action complements similar efforts across the analysis area to restore large tree and snag structure and reduce shrub abundance and continuity. In combination, these effects improve approximately 11% of the analysis area through mowing and 23% through underburning. See Tables 003-004 in the wildlife report, and Tables 8 and 9 of this document. Additionally, thinning projects across the analysis area will improve growing conditions to encourage the development of large structure suitable for nesting and foraging (15% of the analysis area through commercial thinning and an additional 6% through precommercial thinning). Implementation of these actions are expected to be staggered, resulting in a mosaic of stand conditions but are expected overall to reduce predation risk and improve foraging and nesting opportunity for white-headed woodpecker. DETERMINATION: Alternative 2 (proposed action) is expected to have a Beneficial Impact (BI) on white- headed woodpecker. A reduction in shrub understory as a result of mowing treatment will reduce predation risk and improve habitat quality for white-headed woodpecker. Additionally, treatments will encourage large tree growth to provide good foraging and nesting opportunity in the future. The proposed project is consistent with management direction and snag retention standards as outlined in the Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Tree and Log Implementation Strategy (USDA FS 1994b). For more information on project effects to snags, including DecAid analysis, see the snags and downed wood section of the UDR WUI Project Wildlife Report. BAT GUILD (FS Sensitive) TOWNSEND’S BIG EARED BAT, Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend’s big-eared bats occur throughout western North America, from southern Canada to Southern Mexico using arid desert scrub and pine forest habitats. Females form maternity colonies in the spring and summer using mines, caves or buildings, while males roost individually. Mating occurs in autumn with pups born mid-April to late July. Winter hibernation occurs in caves and abandoned mines. Foraging can occur over large distances (up to 15 miles from roost sites). Water sources are a particularly important habitat component for bats, especially lactating females. Prey is comprised primarily of moths taken near foliage of trees and shrubs. Although Townsend’s big-eared bats occupy a large range and may have a substantial overall population, local populations tend to be small and vulnerable to disturbance from recreational caving, mine exploration/operation/reclamation, modification of foraging habitat (notably changes to forest structure, loss of wetland habitats, agricultural conversion of shrub and grassland communities and urbanization) and exposure to environmental toxins. Population trends indicate potential decline in some portions of the range. The Townsend’s big-eared bat is not currently known to be affected by white-nose syndrome. (NatureServe 2015 and Gruver and Keinath 2006). Townsend’s big-eared bats have documented occurrence within or nearby the project area. In addition, suitable habitat, including foraging, roosting and possible hibernation sites occur within and nearby the project area.

122 UDR Environmental Assessment

PALLID BAT, Antrozous pallidus Pallid bats are found in arid deserts and grasslands, often near rocky outcrops or water, but can also occur in open conifer forests. Pallid bats usually roost in rock crevices, buildings, bridges, caves, tree hollows or mines, often communally and typically using night roosts that are near, but separate from day roost sites. Breeding occurs in the fall and early winter, with young born May thru June with females forming small maternity colonies that sometimes include adult males. Winter behavior is poorly understood, but they likely hibernate on or near summer range. The pallid bat’s primary diet is insects, which they capture on the ground after an aerial search or in flight within a few meters of ground vegetation. Pallid bats may travel approximately 7 miles or more during foraging. Population trends are largely unknown. This species is not currently known to be affected by white nose syndrome. Pallid bats are vulnerable to changes in foraging habitat caused by invasive species, fire, grazing, pesticide use and agricultural or urban expansion. Human disturbance at roost sites or loss of large snags may also impact populations. Pallid bats are not known to occur in the project area, but suitable habitat for foraging, roosting and possibly hibernation within and adjacent. SPOTTED BAT, Euderma maculatum Spotted bats occur throughout inland western North America from southern Canada to central Mexico using a variety of habitats from desert to montane coniferous forest, including open ponderosa pine. Roosting habitat occurs in cracked/creviced rock outcrops and cliffs – sometimes high above the ground. Mating occurs in the late summer/fall, with pups born mid-June to early July. Maternity colonies are not known for this species, as spotted bats are generally solitary with the exception of small group formations in winter hibernation. Prey is comprised primarily of moths taken high above the ground. Foraging can occur over large distances (up to 24 miles from roost sites). Spotted bats hibernate, but winter distribution patterns and behaviors are not well documented or understood. Distribution is wide-spread but patchy. Population size and trend is unknown but probably stable or in slow decline, as this species is not particularly vulnerable to disturbance at roosting sites (due to their remote sometimes inaccessible locations) or foraging habitat (using a variety of habitats with extensive distribution). Threats are poorly understood but may include habitat alternation (loss of wetlands in particular or impacts from overgrazing, water diversion or land use changes for agriculture/urbanization) and exposure to environmental toxins. This species is not known to be affected by white-nose syndrome (NatureServe 2015 and Luce et al 2007). This species has not been documented within the project area or on the Deschutes National Forest, although suitable habitat (both roosting and foraging) occur throughout and adjacent. FRINGED MYOTIS, Myotis thysanodes Fringed myotis occur throughout the western United States from southern Canada to southern Mexico using mid-elevation desert, riparian, grassland and woodland/forest habitats. Females form nursery colonies, sometimes in numbers of several hundred. Males typically roost separately. Roost sites may include caves, mines, buildings or snags in early to mid-stages of decay. Breeding occurs in the fall with pups born mid-May to mid-July. Fringed myotis migrate but migration distances and destinations (hibernation sites) are largely unknown. Diet is mostly composed of moths and beetles captured in flight or gleaned from vegetation. Distribution is widespread but patchy, occurring in low numbers throughout their extensive range. Population trends are poorly known, but probable slow decline may be the result of roost loss/modification/disturbance, loss of large snag habitat and exposure to environmental toxins. This species is not known to be affected by white-nose syndrome (NatureServe 2015 and Keinath 2004). Fringed myotis has documented prescence on the Deschutes National Forest, but not within or adjacent to the project area – although suitable habitat is present.

123 UDR Environmental Assessment

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION): The project area would likely continue to provide foraging, roosting and possible hibernation habitat – although habitat quality is expected to decrease over time. Expected changes in forest structure as a result of no action include greater mortality across all size classes as trees grow denser and become stressed for growing resources. Denser stands are less likely to be used by bats as maneuverability is limited within them, resulting in difficult foraging conditions. Overstocked stands have an increased vulnerability to insect damage, which could produce a short and localized increase in prey populations for some bats, but would result in dead canopies that would provide limited foraging habitat long-term. This alternative would also continue to limit the amount of large tree and snag habitat available for roosting in the long- term. High fuel loading and fuels with high continuity are more likely to experience severe wildfire effects, which could convert currently suitable foraging habitat to an unsuitable condition. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 (PROPOSED ACTION): Known cave entrances have been adequately buffered from treatment. Changes in forest structure are not expected to result in a change to unsuitable conditions as prey availability and foraging opportunities will still be abundant after project implementation and roosting opportunities for species needing trees (both live and dead) will still be provided by retaining the largest trees currently available on the landscape. The proposed action will support the development of large tree structure (both live and dead) to provide future roosting habitat. Canopy habitat is likely to remain in a healthy condition and provide foraging opportunities for gleaning bats longer than if left untreated. Additionally, open forest structure will provide maneuverability within the stand to support successful foraging. Shrub habitat will be reduced through mowing and burning, which will likely reduce prey habitat and abundance, resulting in fewer foraging opportunities near ground level. Mowing restrictions (50-80% of each unit is treated to a minimum height of approximately 8 inches) will minimize these effects. This effect is also short term, with shrubs expected to return to comparable abundance within 5-10 years. The proposed action is not expected to result in a change to recreation opportunities and use and its potential to disturb roosting and hibernating bats. Roosting habitat, hibernation habitat and water sources are not targeted by proposed treatments and are not expected to experience any change in condition or potential for use. One exception may be proposed burning, which could impact hibernating cave bats if implemented anytime late October through April. The potential of smoke to cause extra arousals can be energetically costly for bats, which are already near the limit of their tolerances during hibernation. Prescribed fires during later winter and spring may reduce bat insect prey during the critical period when bats are emerging from hibernation, are migrating, and when females are pregnant. Spring burning near maternity sites may cause females to abandon young. These actions will occur over a small portion of habitat for far-ranging species with effects anticipated to be mostly short-term. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS: The negative impacts to bats associated with this project largely result from potential disturbance by prescribed fire, notably extra arousal from hibernation caused by smoke. Across the analysis area, a very large number of acres are anticipated to receive prescribed fire treatments (23%). See Tables 003-004 in the wildlife report, and Table 8-9 of this document. Hibernation habitat is potentially wide-spread, although largely undocumented, and likely occurs within or adjacent to many planned burn units. This will contribute to a loss of spring prey, extra energy expenditure and potential reductions in productivity and survivorship. Although this disturbance is very short in duration, expecting to occur only once in any specific location, the loss of one breeding season may be disproportionately impactful for slow breeders such as bats. Mowing will also cause a short term reduction in ground level foraging opportunity and is expected to occur over a large area (11%). Due to the short lifespan of this treatment (approximately 5 years) and the long implementation timeframe of planned projects, this implementation will create a mosaic of understory conditions. With

124 UDR Environmental Assessment

bats typically foraging over large areas this is not anticipated to be a substantial influence on the suitability of bat foraging habitat. DETERMINATION: Implementation of Alternative 2 (proposed action) May Impact Individuals or Habitat but will not Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species (MIIH) for Townsend’s big-eared bat, pallid bat, spotted bat and fringed myotis. Impacts are small in scale and short in duration, mostly focused on the reduction of ground level foraging opportunities and potential disturbance by prescribed fire. The proposed project is consistent with Forest Plan direction for Townsend’s big-eared bat (WL64-WL71 & CV1-CV8, USDA FS 1990). TERRESTRIAL MOLLUSK GUILD: (FS Sensitive) CRATER LAKE TIGHTCOIL, Pristiloma crateris The Crater Lake tightcoil is a terrestrial land snail that occupies perennially wet habitats in mature conifer forests, among rushes, mosses and other surface vegetation or under rocks and woody debris near wetlands, springs, seeps and riparian areas. Their habitat generally occurs in areas which remain under snow for long periods during the winter and includes uncompacted soil, litter, logs, and other woody debris in a perennially wet environment. Riparian habitats in the Eastern Oregon Cascades may be limited to the extent of permanent surface moisture, which is often less than 10 m. from open water. Many important facts remain unknown for this species, including basic range and occurrence information, population dynamics and population trends. Potential disturbances to this species include degradation of wetland habitat, compaction of snow and soil and disturbance of riparian vegetation and downed wood. These actions may be associated with water diversion for urban and agricultural use, summer and winter recreation, natural and prescribed fire and grazing (Duncan et al 2003). There are no known occurrences within or adjacent to the project area and habitat is of marginal quality due to the low elevation and lack of surface water and downed wood. SHINY TIGHTCOIL, Pristiloma wascoense Shiny tightcoil is a terrestrial land snail that occupies moderate to high elevation ponderosa pine and Douglas fir forest habitat with deciduous components and riparian influence. This species has been recorded in small and disjunct populations in the mountains of Washington, Oregon and Idaho. They feed on bacteria, fungi and yeasts that occur on wet rocks, wood and live or dead vegetation. They breed once per lifetime (approximately one year), unless breeding is unsuccessful, in which case they may overwinter and breed the following year. Threats to this species include grazing, timber harvest, recreation and water diversion for urban or agricultural use. These actions may potentially disturb ground vegetation and litter, compact snow and soil, and alter microsite temperature and humidity (Jordan 2010). This species is known to occur on the Deschutes National Forest. Although the project area may provide some habitat components used by shiny tightcoil (areas of riparian influence with wet rocks, wood and live or dead vegetation), these areas are not targeted for treatment. There is no recorded occupancy for this species within treatment areas. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION): High fuel loading and fuels with high continuity are a known result of the no action alternative. These conditions are more likely to produce severe wildfire effects and could convert currently suitable habitat to an unsuitable condition by altering shading, hydrology, water quality and quantity, through the consumption of downed wood and ground litter. Similarly, over stocked stands are more susceptible to insect and disease damage, which could result in the loss of riparian canopy and changes to understory vegetation components, often producing

125 UDR Environmental Assessment

more xeric understory conditions that would not be suitable for use by Crater Lake tightcoil or shiny tightcoil. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 (PROPOSED ACTION): Implementation of the proposed action may help sustain quality habitat in the long term by retaining healthy canopies to provide riparian shading. Although some tree removal (thinning) is proposed directly adjacent to riparian habitat, the large tree structure will remain and still provide adequate riparian shading. Direct trampling will be avoided as suitable habitat for these species does not overlap with areas targeted for treatment. Similarly, mowing and underburning treatments are not proposed in suitable habitat. Treatment areas are typically upland and too dry to receive use by these mollusk species. CUMMULATIVE EFFECTS: Because there are no direct or indirect effects anticipated as a result of the proposed project, there are no associated cumulative effects. DETERMINATION: Implementation of Alternative 2 (proposed action) is expected to have No Impact (NI) on Crater Lake tightcoil and shiny tightcoil. Habitat suitability would remain unchanged and the proposed actions would not contribute to the known threats of these species. SILVER-BORDERED FRITILLARY, Boloria selene atrocostalis (FS Sensitive) The silver-bordered fritillary occurs throughout Canada and the northern United States including the northeast, Midwest, Rocky Mountains and Pacific Northwest. They are associated with sunny, open riparian areas, bogs, and marshes dominated by Salix and larval foodplants (marsh violet, bog violet). Other important nectar sources for adults include mint and Verbena. The silver-bordered fritillary occur in either a single annual brood, flying early June to mid-August, or two annual broods starting as early as mid-May. Potential threats include degradation of wetland habitat (draining or succession), pesticide exposure, and possibly grazing and habitat infestation by non-native plants. The nearest documented occurrences are on the Prineville District BLM and Ochoco National Forest, approximately 50 miles to the northeast (Andrews 2010a and Kauffman and Brock 2003). DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION): In some ecotones between upland and riparian habitat, conifer encroachment may reduce the quantity of wet meadow habitat available for silver-bordered fritillary across the analysis area. Additionally, an increased potential for wildfire caused by high fuel levels with continuity could impact wet meadow habitat by heat and consumption and through potential alterations in hydrology, water quality and water quantity. Additionally, high intensity fires can result in increased potential for invasive weed infestation that may out-compete native wet meadow species. Silver-bordered fritillary would likely experience decreased reproduction and survivorship if this caused a reduction in host plant and nectar source abundance. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 (PROPOSED ACTION): In some locations, thinning may help reclaim small natural openings and reduce conifer encroachment, which could increase potential foraging opportunities for the silver-bordered fritillary. This effect is expected to be marginal as the proposed action does not target wet meadow habitat. Similarly, mowing and underburning treatments are not proposed in wet meadow habitat. Direct trampling will be avoided as suitable habitat for this species does not overlap with areas targeted for treatment. Treatment areas are typically upland and too dry to support the host plants used by this species. The proposed action does not contribute to the known threats for silver-bordered fritillary. CUMMUALTIVE EFFECTS: Because there are no direct or indirect effects anticipated as a result of the proposed project, there are no associated cumulative effects.

126 UDR Environmental Assessment

DETERMINATION: Implementation of Alternative 2 (proposed action) is expected to have No Impact (NI) on silver-bordered fritillary. Habitat suitability would remain unchanged and the proposed actions would not contribute to the known threats of this species. JOHNSON’S HAIRSTREAK, Callophrys johnsoni (FS Sensitive) Johnson’s hairstreak occur along the western coastal states and provinces of North America from British Columbia to central California using conifer forests which contain parasitic mistletoe (Arceuthobium). April-October caterpillars feed on mistletoe and secrete a sugary solution which is used by ants that in turn provide protection from predators. Adult butterflies nectar feed on a number of species, including Actostophylos, Ceanothus, Cornus, Taraxacum, Fragaria, Rorippa and Sprague. They also utilize mud puddles to obtain additional moisture. Adults fly mid-May to early September, with shorter seasons at higher elevation sites. Threats include habitat loss from logging and both natural and prescribed fire. Sightings are infrequent, possibly due to the fact that Johnson’s hairstreak reside in the forest canopy, making surveys difficult and population estimates and trends largely unknown. In Oregon, it has been found sparsely in the Cascades, Coast Range, Siskiyou Mountains, Blue Mountains and Wallowa Mountains (Andrews 2010b and Kauffman and Brock 2003). There are no documented occurrences within the project area, although suitable habitat is present, with mistletoe commonly occurring in both lodgepole and ponderosa pine DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION): Suitable habitat for this species would be maintained based on the widespread presence of dwarf mistletoe in all plant associations across the project area. The oldest and largest trees will continue to spread mistletoe to the understory trees and perpetuate the infestation while at the same time providing habitat for Johnson’s hairstreak. In contrast, high fuel loading with contiguous distribution will increase the likelihood of wildfire which may result in a spectrum of habitat loss from unsubstantial and short-term to long-term conversion to unsuitable habitat conditions. This could result the regeneration of stands unaffected by mistletoe or prolonged periods of time until mistletoe becomes established again during which habitat will not be suitable for Johnson’s hairstreak. DIRECT AND INDIERCT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 (PROPOSED ACTION): Commercial and noncommercial thinning would reduce but not eradicate mistletoe presence within treatment units by the direct removal of infested trees. Prescribed underburning and mowing may result in the reduction of adult nectar sources such as ceanothus and pussypaws. This effect will be limited by the mowing restrictions (50-80% of each unit is treated to a minimum height of approximately 8 inches) and the expected short-term effect of these treatments, with shrubs returning to comparable abundance within 5-10 years. In addition, these treatments may improve understory diversity in some locations to provide nectar sources not currently available. These impacts may result in reduced reproductive success and survivorship for Johnson’s hairstreak, with habitat quality being reduced on 4,153 acres of the analysis area. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS: The reduction of host plants and adult nectar sources caused by this project will contribute to a decline in suitable habitat across the analysis area by similar projects that aim to improve forest health. Typically, mistletoe infested trees are targeted for removal. This is expected to occur over a large portion of the analysis area (approximately 15% through commercial thinning and 6% through precommercial thinning)(See Tables 3-004 of the Wildlife Specialist Report.) Due to the long implementation timeframe of these projects, no substantial gap in suitability is expected as treatments will result in a mosaic of stand conditions and mistletoe is expected to continue to be prevalent across the landscape. Similarly, mowing and underburning, which may cause a short-term reduction in nectar source availability, is expected to occur over a large area (11% mowing and 23% underburning). Due to the short lifespan of these treatments (approximately 5 – 10 years) and the long implementation

127 UDR Environmental Assessment

timeframe of planned projects, these actions are expected to create a mosaic of understory conditions that will continue to provide foraging opportunity for Johnson’s hairstreak. DETERMINATION: Implementation of Alternative 2 (proposed action) May Impact Individuals or Habitat but will not Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species (MIIH) for Johnson’s hairstreak. The proposed action will reduce both host plant and adult nectar sources within treatment units. These impacts are expected to be small in scale and limited in duration. WESTERN BUMBLEBEE, Bombus occidentalis (FS Sensitive) Western bumble bees occur broadly across western North America from Alaska to central California using a variety of natural, agricultural, urban and rural habitats with abundant floral resources. They require suitable nesting and overwintering structure, such as rodent burrows, downed wood or bunchgrass. They are generalist foragers, but require sources of pollen/nectar spring thru fall. Threats include pathogens from commercial honey bees, environmental toxins and habitat alternations caused by natural and prescribed fire, grazing, conifer encroachment and agricultural or urban development. Population trends are declining, especially at the edges of its known range (Jepsen 2014). The species is known from several sites on the Deschutes National Forest. Local observations have been as recent as 2011 in the Sunriver area and at Sparks Lake. Habitat alterations including those that could destroy, fragment, alter, degrade or reduce the food supply produced by flowers, as well as destruction of nest sites and hibernation sites for overwintering queens, such as abandoned rodent burrows and bird nests, adversely affect these bees. Agriculture and urban development alter landscapes and habitat required by bumblebees (NatureServe 2015). When exotic plants invade, they may threaten bumblebees by competing with the native nectar and pollen plants relied upon by bumblebees. The invasion of exotic plants should be restricted as much as possible by controlling populations of invasive species (NatureServe 2015). Since there are flowering plants within the project area, it is assumed that it may potentially provide western bumblebee habitat. There are not many flowering shrubs within the project area, dominated by ceanothus and greenleaf manzanita. Habitat for nest sites and hibernation sites are also likely available within or adjacent to the project area. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION): The area will likely continue to support western bumble bee for both nesting and foraging with no disturbance beyond the existing baseline. The no action alternative would not contribute to the known threats of this species. Conifer encroachment may reduce foraging habitat as natural openings that are currently providing floral resources are reduced. In addition, overstocked forests typically have very limited understories that will provide little for foraging bumble bees. As trees are stressed and mortality increases in overstocked stands, higher accumulations of downed wood over time may provide improved nesting habitat, but only where occurrence is located near good foraging habitat. Another consideration is that high fuel loading with contiguous distribution will increase the likelihood of wildfire. In all but the most extreme cases, this could improve habitat for western bumble bee, providing good growing conditions for grasses and forbs – although nesting habitat in the form of downed wood may be reduced and the potential for noxious weed infestation could limit potential benefits. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 (PROPOSED ACTION): Implementation of the proposed action is anticipated to reduce some foraging potential for western bumble bee, as mowing will likely remove some sources of pollen and nectar with current potential to provide for western bumble bee – notably manzanita. Thinning, mowing and underburning treatments may also improve foraging habitat in some locations, maintaining conditions that will support a diversity of understory grasses and forbs in comparison to untreated, overstocked stands. Implementation of all treatments

128 UDR Environmental Assessment

has the potential to disturb nesting bees and overwintering queens by modifying near-ground structure, trampling or burning. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS: Potential disturbance to nesting bees and wintering queens are possible over a large portion of the analysis area. The proposed action will contribute to this by modifying near-ground structure. A reduction in nectar and pollen sources currently providing for bees will occur across the landscape through mowing (11% of the analysis area) and underburning (23% of the analysis area) treatments. See Tables 003-004 of the wildlife report, and Table 7-8 of this document. Due to the short lifespan of these treatments (approximately 5 – 10 years) and the long implementation timeframe of planned projects, these actions are expected to create a mosaic of understory conditions that will continue to provide foraging opportunities for the western bumble bee. Additionally, understory diversity is expected to increase as a result of foreseeable treatments to support bumble bee populations across the analysis area. DETERMINATION: Implementation of Alternative 2 (proposed action) May Impact Individuals or Habitat but will not Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species (MIIH), for western bumble bee. Proposed treatments have potential to disturb nesting bees and overwintering queens while reducing potential pollen and nectar sources in the short- term. MIS and Other Species of Concern The following tables are derived from the LRMP list of Management Indicator Species (USDA FS 1990 as amended), the Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the Eastslope Cascade Mountains/Columbia Plateau in Oregon and Washington (Altman 2000) and the Birds of Conservation Concern list (USDI FWS 2008). Highlighted Management Indicator Species will be carried forward for analysis. Management Indicator Species or habitat not known or suspected in or near the project area will not be carried forward for analysis and will be addressed only in Appendix 3 of the Wildlife Report. Landbird species listed in Table 39 only show species carried forward for analysis – the complete list of Landbird species considered can be found in the respective parent documents. Table 40: OCCURRENCE OF MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES FOR UDR WUI PROJECT Species Basic Habitat Description Known or Suitable Habitat Suspected to be Present in/near Present in/near Project Area Project Area MIS BIRDS Northern spotted owl* Old growth mixed conifer No No forest with Douglas fir & Strix occidentalis caurina true firs Northern bald eagle* Lakeside or riverside with Yes Yes large trees Haliaeetus leucocephalus American peregrine Riparian & cliff habitats No No falcon* Falco peregrinus anatum

129 UDR Environmental Assessment

Northern goshawk Mature & old growth Yes Yes forest Accipiter gentiles Cooper’s hawk Forest with high canopy Yes Yes closure & density Accipiter cooperi Sharp-shinned hawk Forest, variety of Yes Yes conditions suitable Accipiter striatus Great gray owl Mature & old growth Yes Yes forest with openings & Strix nebulosa meadows Great blue heron Riparian edge – lakes, Yes Yes streams and marshes Ardea herodias Golden eagle Large open areas with No No cliffs/outcrops Aquila chrysaetos Waterfowl Riparian edge, marshes, Yes Yes (See appendix 004 of the lakes, ponds & rivers wildlife report) Woodpeckers Variety of forest types Yes Yes (See appendix 005 of the with snags wildlife report) Red-tailed hawk Open country with forest Yes Yes edge Buteo jamaicensis Osprey Large snags near fish Yes Yes bearing water bodies Pandion haliaetus MIS MAMMALS North American High elevation mixed No No wolverine* conifer forest Gulo gulo American marten Mixed conifer or high Yes Yes elevation late Martes americana successional forest with down wood Elk Mixed habitats Yes Yes Cervus elephas Mule deer Mixed habitats Yes Yes Odocoileus hemionus

130 UDR Environmental Assessment

Townsend’s big-eared Caves, mines, bridges, No Yes bat* rock crevices and old buildings Corynorhinus townsendii MIS OTHER Snag and down wood Snag & down wood Yes Yes associated species & habitat *Species also analyzed as federally listed or sensitive

Table 41: LANDBIRD SPECIES WITH SUITABLE HABITAT IN/NEAR THE UDR WUI PROJECT Species Status Basic Habitat Description Bald Eagle BCC Lakeside or riverside with large trees Haliaeetus leucocephalus Black-backed CEFS Lodgepole pine, burned forest woodpecker Picoides arcticus Calliope BCC Montane forests and hummingbird meadows, willow thickets Selasphorus calliope Chipping sparrow CEFS Open understory ponderosa pine with regeneration Spizella passerina Eared Grebe BCC Marshes, ponds & lakes Podiceps nigricollis Flammulated owl CEFS, BCC Mixed conifer with grassy openings and dense thickets Psiloscops flammeolus Hermit thrush CEFS Multi-layered conifer with dense canopy Catharus guttatus Lewis’ woodpecker CEFS, BCC Riparian woodland – Cottonwood with snags Melanerpes lewis Pygmy nuthatch CEFS Mature ponderosa pine Sitta pygmaea Red-naped sapsucker CPFS Mature aspen with snags and regeneration Sphyrapicus nuchalis

131 UDR Environmental Assessment

White-headed CEFS, BCC Mature ponderosa pine woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus Williamson’s CEFS, BCC Mature/old growth conifer sapsucker forest with open canopy Sphyrapicus thyroideus CEFS – Cascades East Slope Focal Species; BCC – Birds of Conservation Concern NORTHERN GOSHAWK, Accipiter gentiles Northern goshawk generally occur in low density throughout North America and circumpolar through Europe and Asia in boreal and temperate forests. In Oregon and Washington goshawks occur in suitable habitat in all forest zones, except they may be absent from the northern Oregon Coast Ranges. They are more common on the east side of the Cascades in both states (Marshall et al 2006 and Wahl et al 2005). Goshawks inhabit mature forests of various cover types including aspen, lodgepole and ponderosa pine, often with closed canopies, open understories, high basal areas, and high densities of large trees. Individuals feed primarily on birds (small and medium-sized and grouse) and small mammals (rodent/rabbit/hare). In addition to forested habitat, they may use marshes, meadows and riparian zones for foraging (NatureServe 2015 and Kennedy 2003). Regardless of the cover type, goshawks require large blocks of forest for nesting and foraging. Documented breeding season home ranges average about 6,000 acres (Reynolds et al 1992). Goshawks tend to select nest trees on shallow slopes, flat benches in steep country, and fluvial pans on small stream junctions. Goshawk breeding territories typically contain several nest sites, which may be used in alternating fashion as breeding pairs return to the same territory year after year. During winter some goshawks may travel short distances to lower elevations and more open or riparian habitat types (Wisdom et al 2000). Threats include timber harvest, fire suppression, grazing, and insect and tree disease outbreaks that can result in the deterioration or loss of nesting habitat (NatureServe 2015). Known or suspected predators include martens, fishers, black bears and wolverines. Northern goshawk occurrence has been documented within the project area, including documented reproduction, although not within or directly adjacent to any proposed treatment units. Surveys have been recently conducted (2015), focusing on the best habitat within treatment units with no new territories discovered (Bend-Fort Rock District Files). Table 42: Summary of Suitable Habitat Acres for Northern Goshawk (2015 Data) Acres of habitat in Acres of habitat in the Acres of habitat on the Proposed analysis area Deschutes National Treatment Units Forest 780 (<1%) 65,748 (13%) 491,537 (100%) Proposed Treatments in Habitat (approximate acres): (sum of acres varies due to GIS data conversion from raster format) Maintenance Mow: 168 Thin, Maintenance Mow & Underburn: 133 Mow: 57 Thin & Mow:154

132 UDR Environmental Assessment

Thin: 21 Thin, Mow & Underburn:193 Thin & Maintenance Mow: 6 Underburn: 6

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION): Areas that currently provide suitable goshawk habitat will most likely have increased tree mortality over time due to a decrease in tree vigor among all size classes which will result in the gradual loss of the existing large-tree component of goshawk habitat. Overstocked stands are also more vulnerable to insect damage, which could result in canopy loss and the conversion of suitable habitat to an unsuitable condition. In addition, high fuel loading with contiguous distribution will increase the likelihood of wildfire which may result in a spectrum of habitat loss from unsubstantial and short-term to long-term conversion to unsuitable habitat conditions. All of these scenarios may result in a reduction of foraging and breeding opportunities for goshawks. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 (PROPOSED ACTION): Proposed treatments on approximately 780 acres of habitat include thinning, mowing and underburning. These treatments will aid in maintaining large trees by reducing their susceptibility to fire and insect damage and by removing competition for space and nutrients. This should result in reducing the risk of habitat degradation in existing suitable habitat and facilitating the development of future nesting habitat. Post treatment, overstory structural diversity will largely remain, but complexity and abundance of understory structure will be reduced through thinning, mowing, and burning. This may open subcanopy habitat for easier flight and hunting approach, but may impact prey habitat resulting in fewer hunting opportunities. A minimum 10% of untreated areas averaged across the project area will provide small patches of dense clumps in goshawk habitat. These areas will have a higher stocking rate and will provide some diversity of canopy cover across the landscape as these retention clumps could benefit some prey species. Additionally, proposed fuels treatments will reduce the risk of high intensity fire, reducing the potential loss of existing structure that currently may provide for nesting and foraging. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS(See Table 30 and Table 31): The loss of understory structure is anticipated over a large portion of the analysis area through treatments such as underburning (expected over 23% of the analysis area), ladder fuel reduction/precommercial thinning (6% of the analysis area) and mowing (11% of the analysis area). See Tables 8 and 9. The proposed project will contribute to this loss and result in less prey habitat and possible reductions in hunting opportunity for northern goshawk. Some of these treatments have a short lifespan (5-10 years expected for burning and mowing) and are expected to have implementation occur over a long period of time, resulting in a mix of understory conditions. This consideration, factored in with the large area that goshawks use for foraging, reduce the likelihood of impacts across the analysis area. Nesting structure is expected to improve in the long term within the analysis area as treatments such as thinning (15% of the area expected to receive commercial treatment and 6% precommercial) will encourage large tree growth and development by reducing competition for growing resources. IMPACT STATEMENT: Implementation of the proposed action will result in a Small Negative Impact (SNI) to goshawk populations with continued viability expected on the Deschutes National Forest. The proposed actions are mostly expected to impact prey populations through the loss of understory structure, resulting in a reduction of foraging suitability for goshawk. Nesting structure is expected to remain and improve over time as large trees are retained and smaller trees are expected to grow into larger size classes. These impacts will only occur on a small portion of habitat (<1% Forestwide). Because this project impacts less than 1% of suitable habitat across the Deschutes National Forest, the overall direct, indirect and cumulative effects will result in a small negative trend of habitat. The loss of

133 UDR Environmental Assessment

habitat will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. The UDR WUI Project is consistent with the Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of northern goshawk is expected on the Deschutes National Forest. The proposed project is consistent with management direction applicable to northern goshawk (WL6- WL12). COOPER’S HAWK, Accipiter cooperi Cooper’s hawk was chosen as an MIS for the Deschutes National Forest for providing stand diversity and retention of small blocks of habitat within 50 – 80 year old black bark pine stands and mixed conifer stands (USDA FS 2012). An analysis of Cooper’s hawk habitat in Oregon concluded that nesting occurred in stands that resembled even-aged, 2nd-growth stands in larger older trees with deep crowns (Reynolds et al 1982). Their diet is mostly composed of small to medium sized birds. We know little of preferences for stands of differing densities, ages, tree sizes, or edge versus deep forests by Cooper’s hawks (Reynolds 1989). Cooper’s hawks appear to use forest habitats opportunistically providing that the available types are not too dense for flight below or within the canopy (Reynolds 1989). Breeding occurs in the spring with a single brood. Replacement clutches may be laid if nesting fails early in the breeding season. Young leave the nest approximately 4 weeks after hatching (NatureServe 2015). The Cooper’s hawk is a partial migrant; with some individuals staying in the breeding area year-round while others travel seasonally either short or long distances. Populations in the northern portion of the breeding range are thought to be more migratory than populations to the south (Palmer 1988). Cooper’s hawk occurrence has been documented within the analysis area. Existing habitat is likely suitable for both foraging and nesting, although no nests have been documented within or directly adjacent to treatment units (Bend-Fort Rock District Files). Table 43: Summary of Suitable Habitat Acres for Cooper’s Hawk (2015 Data) Acres of habitat in Acres of habitat in the Acres of habitat on the Proposed analysis area Deschutes National Treatment Units Forest 633 (<1%) 48,808 (16%) 300,285 (100%) Proposed Treatments in Habitat (approximate acres): (sum of acres varies due to GIS data conversion from raster format) Maintenance Mow: 162 Thin, Maintenance Mow & Underburn:100 Mow: 54 Thin & Mow: 109 Thin: 7 Thin, Mow & Underburn: 154 Thin & Maintenance Mow: 4 Underburn: 6

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION): The project area will likely continue to support Cooper’s hawk for nesting and foraging with no disturbance beyond the existing baseline. Overstocked stands may become more susceptible to insect damage, which could reduce canopy covers and lessen habitat quality for Cooper’s hawk. Loss of canopy cover increases exposure of Cooper’s hawks to predation and reduces their competitive advantage over other predators – increasing competition for prey resources. High fuel loading with contiguous distribution will increase the likelihood of wildfire which may result in a spectrum of habitat loss from unsubstantial and short-term

134 UDR Environmental Assessment

to long-term conversion to unsuitable habitat conditions – caused mostly by a loss of nesting structure and closed forest canopy. This could result in a loss of nesting and foraging opportunities for Cooper’s hawks. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 (PROPOSED ACTION): Proposed treatments on approximately 633 acres of Cooper’s hawk habitat includes thinning, mowing and underburning. These treatments will aid in maintaining large trees and healthy canopy cover by reducing the susceptibility of forest stands to fire and insect damage and by removing competition between trees for space and nutrients. This should result in reducing the risk of habitat degradation (loss of canopy cover) in existing suitable habitat and facilitating the development of future nesting habitat. A minimum 10% of untreated areas averaged across the project area will provide small patches of dense clumps in Cooper’s hawk habitat. These areas will have a higher stocking rate and will provide some diversity of canopy cover across the landscape and could benefit some prey species. Post treatment, overstory structural diversity will largely remain, but understory complexities will be reduced through mowing and burning. This may open subcanopy habitat for easier flight and hunting approach, but may impact prey habitat resulting in fewer hunting opportunities. Understory treatments such as mowing and burning (especially spring burning) may impact prey habitat and result in fewer foraging opportunities for Cooper’s hawk. In some locations, thinning treatments could reduce canopy cover below those preferred by Cooper’s hawk, resulting in reduced habitat quality. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS(See Table 30 and Table 31): The loss of understory structure is anticipated over a large portion of the analysis area through treatments such as underburning (expected over 23% of the analysis area), ladder fuel reduction/precommercial thinning (6% of the analysis area) and mowing (11% of the analysis area). . The proposed project will contribute to this loss and result in less prey habitat and a possible reduction in hunting opportunities for Cooper’s hawks. Some of these treatments have a short lifespan (5-10 years expected for burning and mowing) and are expected to have implementation occur over a long period of time, resulting in a mix of understory conditions and diluted effects. Thinning treatments will open canopy structure to allow for easier flight and hunting approach, but may also result in increased competition from other predatory birds and increase predation potential at nest sites. This is expected mostly from commercial thinning treatments which are expected to occur on 15% of the analysis area and will be contributed to by the proposed action. IMPACT STATEMENT: The proposed action will have a Small Negative Impact (SNI) on the continued viability of Cooper’s hawk on the Deschutes National Forest. Impacts will be short-term and focused mostly on reduced foraging opportunity and reduced canopy cover, increasing potential predation and competition. This will occur over a very small portion of suitable habitat forest wide (<1%). Because this project impacts less than 1% of suitable habitat across the Deschutes National Forest, the overall direct, indirect and cumulative effects will result in a small negative trend of habitat (increase in disturbance). The loss of habitat will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. The UDR WUI Project is consistent with the Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of Cooper’s hawk is expected on the Deschutes National Forest. The proposed project is consistent with management direction applicable to Cooper’s hawk (WL13- WL20). SHARP-SHINNED HAWK, Accipiter striatus The sharp-shinned hawk was chosen as an MIS for providing stand diversity and retention of small blocks of habitats within 40 – 60 year old ponderosa pine stands and mixed conifer stands with a dense canopy (USDA FS 2012). Small birds comprise the majority of sharp-shinned hawk prey items in Oregon. Their dominant prey items include hummingbirds, flycatchers, chickadees and titmice, nuthatches,

135 UDR Environmental Assessment

creepers, wrens, warblers, and finches (Reynolds et al 1982). Nest sites in eastern Oregon are often in even-aged stands of white fir, Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, or aspen. Stand structure used for nesting differs from that of goshawk and Cooper’s hawk in that it prefers the youngest stands, usually even-aged and 25-50 years old. Nesting occurs slightly later than other accipiters (beginning late April-early May). Incubation lasts 30-32 days, followed by a nestling stage of 21-24 days. Post fledging juveniles remain in close proximity to the nest for another 30-40 days. Sharp-shinned hawks are the most migratory of the accipiter species (Marshall et al 2006). Threats to this species include habitat loss from timber harvest and wildfire. Sharp-shinned hawk occurrence has been documented within the analysis area. Existing habitat is likely suitable for both foraging and nesting, although no nests have been documented within or directly adjacent to treatment units (Bend-Fort Rock District Files). Table 44: Summary of Suitable Habitat Acres for Sharp-shinned Hawk (2015 Data) Acres of habitat in Acres of habitat in the Acres of habitat on the Proposed analysis area Deschutes National Treatment Units Forest 1,030 (<1%) 70,762 (15%) 485,226 (100%) Proposed Treatments in Habitat (approximate acres): (sum of acres varies due to GIS data conversion from raster format) Maintenance Mow: 240 Thin, Maintenance Mow & Underburn: 195 Mow: 82 Thin & Mow: 192 Thin: 19 Thin, Mow & Underburn: 244 Thin & Maintenance Mow: 17 Underburn: 6

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION): The project area will likely continue to support sharp-shinned hawks for nesting and foraging with no disturbance beyond the existing baseline. Overstocked stands may become more susceptible to insect damage, which could reduce canopy covers and lessen habitat quality for sharp-shinned hawks. Loss of canopy cover increases exposure of sharp- shinned hawks to predation and reduces their competitive advantage over other predators – increasing competition for prey resources. High fuel loadings with contiguous distribution will increase the likelihood of wildfire which may result in a spectrum of habitat loss from unsubstantial and short-term to long-term conversion to unsuitable habitat conditions – caused mostly by a loss of nesting structure and closed forest canopy. This could result in a loss of nesting and foraging opportunities for sharp- shinned hawks. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 (PROPOSED ACTION): Proposed treatments on approximately 1,030 acres of sharp-shinned hawk habitat includes thinning, mowing and underburning. These treatments will aid in maintaining large trees and healthy canopy cover by reducing the susceptibility of forest stands to fire and insect damage and by removing competition between trees for space and nutrients. This should result in reducing the risk of habitat degradation (loss of canopy cover) in existing suitable habitat and facilitating the development of future nesting habitat. A minimum 10% of untreated areas averaged across the project area will provide small patches of dense clumps in sharp- shinned hawk habitat. These areas will have a higher stocking rate and will provide some diversity of

136 UDR Environmental Assessment

canopy cover across the landscape and could benefit some prey species. Post treatment, overstory structural diversity will largely remain, but understory complexities will be reduced through mowing and burning. This may open subcanopy habitat for easier flight and hunting approach, but may impact prey habitat resulting in fewer hunting opportunities. Understory treatments such as mowing and burning (especially spring burning) may impact prey habitat and result in fewer foraging opportunities for sharp- shinned hawks. In some locations, thinning treatments could reduce canopy cover below those preferred by sharp-shinned hawk, resulting in reduced habitat quality. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS See Table 30 and Table 31: The loss of understory structure is anticipated over a large portion of the analysis area through treatments such as underburning (expected over 23% of the analysis area), ladder fuel reduction/precommercial thinning (6% of the analysis area) and mowing (11% of the analysis area). The proposed project will contribute to this loss and result in less prey habitat and a possible reduction in hunting opportunities for sharp-shinned hawks. Some of these treatments have a short lifespan (5-10 years expected for burning and mowing) and are expected to have implementation occur over a long period of time, resulting in a mix of understory conditions and diluted effects. Thinning treatments will open canopy structure to allow for easier flight and hunting approach, but may also result in increased competition from other predatory birds and increase predation potential at nest sites. This is expected mostly from commercial thinning treatments which are expected to occur on 15% of the analysis area and will be contributed to by the proposed action. IMPACT STATEMENT: The proposed action will have a Small Negative Impact (SNI) on the continued viability of sharp-shinned hawk on the Deschutes National Forest. Impacts will be short-term and focused mostly on reduced foraging opportunity and reduced canopy cover, increasing potential predation and competition. This will occur over a very small portion of suitable habitat forest wide (<1%). Because this project impacts less than 1% of suitable habitat across the Deschutes National Forest, the overall direct, indirect and cumulative effects will result in a small negative trend of habitat. The loss of habitat will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. The UDR WUI Project is consistent with the Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of sharp-shinned hawk is expected on the Deschutes National Forest. The proposed project is consistent with management direction applicable to sharp-shinned hawk (WL21-WL29). GREAT GRAY OWL, Strix nebulosa Great gray owls were chosen as an MIS to monitor habitat comprised of forests 30 acres and larger adjacent to riparian and meadow ecosystems. Great gray owls use mature coniferous forests within close proximity (0.1 to 0.2 mi) of an opening, typically a wet meadow (Marshall et al 2006, Van Riper et al 2006, Hayward and Verner 1994 and Duncan 1987). A study in the Cascades found the openings great gray owl use range in size, anywhere from 15-250 acres (Bryan and Forsman 1987). Other components of suitable habitat include prey abundance (vole and/or gopher), meadow vegetation (height and cover), meadow moisture, forest canopy cover, and snag presence (Bull and Henjum 1990 and Whitfield and Gaffney 1997). Nests are often built in large, broken treetops, old nests of other large birds, or debris platforms from dwarf mistletoe. Threats include habitat loss through logging of mature forest. Impacts to prey species may occur from overgrazing meadows or conifer encroachment of meadow habitat (NatureServe 2015). Great gray owl occurrence has been documented within the analysis area, although no nest sites or reproduction has been documented. Openings large enough to support great gray owl foraging are limited or absent in most of the project area. Surveys have been recently conducted (2015), following the R6 survey protocol with no new territories discovered (Bend-Fort Rock District Files).

137 UDR Environmental Assessment

Table 45: Summary of Suitable Habitat Acres for Great Gray Owl (2011 Data) Acres of habitat in Acres of habitat in the Acres of habitat on the Proposed analysis area Deschutes National Treatment Units Forest 627 (<1%) 19,856 (8%) 242,384 (100%) Proposed Treatments in Habitat (approximate acres): (sum of acres varies due to GIS data conversion from raster format) Maintenance Mow:85 Thin, Maintenance Mow & Underburn: 123 Mow: 7 Thin & Mow: 225 Thin: 3 Thin, Mow & Underburn: 139 Thin & Maintenance Mow: 18 Underburn: 6

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION): The project area will likely continue to support great gray owls, although habitat suitability is limited due to the lack of large openings. A decrease in tree vigor among all size classes due to competition for space and nutrients will result in the gradual loss of the existing large-tree structure. This will reduce the nest site potential for great gray owls. In addition, high fuel loading with contiguous distribution will increase the likelihood of wildfire which may result in a spectrum of habitat loss from insignificant and short-term to long-term conversion to unsuitable habitat conditions. Small scale, low severity fires could help maintain foraging habitat by creating openings and controlling conifer encroachment. Larger scale and higher severity fires may result in habitat conversion to unsuitable conditions, mostly due to the lack of suitable nesting habitat. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 (PROPOSED ACTION): Proposed treatments on approximately 627 acres of great gray owl habitat include thinning, mowing and underburning. These treatments will aid in maintaining large trees by reducing their susceptibility to fire and insect damage and by removing competition for space and nutrients. This will provide good nesting structure for great grey owl when situated near openings that can provide for foraging opportunities. Although existing openings are not proposed for treatment, underburning and mowing may help reclaim and accentuate these openings that may be experiencing conifer encroachment. This increase in edge habitat could result in increased foraging success for great gray owl, although most of these openings are small in size and treatment is proposed over a very small portion of suitable habitat forest wide (<1%). CUMULATIVE EFFECTS( See Table 30 and Table 31): Many of the foreseeable future actions that overlap the anticipated effects of this project have similar objectives of improving forest health and reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire. These projects will generally retain the largest tree structure available, both live and dead, and reduce competition for growing resources resulting in an improved trajectory of these stands to provide large structure in the future. Where large structure develops in close proximity to meadow habitat, habitat suitability will improve for great gray owl. Improvements to foraging habitat (forest openings and edges) across the analysis area may occur to varying degrees through mowing, underburning and thinning treatments. These will likely occur over a large portion of the analysis area (commercial thinning expected over 15% of the analysis area, precommertcial thinning 6%, underburning 25% and mowing 11%) and could result in retention or expansion of small openings/edge habitat. The proposed action will contribute to these effects, although implementation is likely to be

138 UDR Environmental Assessment

staggered and occur over a long time frame – resulting in a mosaic of conditions across the analysis area. IMPACT STATEMENT: Implementation of the proposed action may result in Improved conditions, and will not contribute toward a negative trend in viability on the Deschutes National Forest (IC) for great gray owl populations on the Deschutes National Forest. The proposed treatments will not change the condition of any currently suitable habitat to unsuitable, and will encourage the development of future large structure habitat to provide nesting opportunity. Increased edge habitat may result in improved foraging success within treatment units. The UDR WUI Project will improve conditions for great gray owl in the project area. Therefore, the UDR WUI Project will not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Deschutes National Forest for the great grey gray owl. The proposed project is consistent with management direction applicable to great gray owl (WL30- WL34). GREAT BLUE HERON, Ardea herodias The great blue heron occurs throughout Central and North America from Panama to southern Canada using a variety of habitats from shallow marshes, lakes, streams, and oceans to pastures and dry fields (mainly in winter). Herons are highly adaptable and may be found hunting in urban settings such as landscape ponds in city parks and yards (Marshal et al 2006). Great blue herons are fairly common. Winter ice often precludes presence or causes a reduction in numbers at high elevation lakes. They feed predominantly on fish, and, to a lesser degree amphibians, aquatic invertebrates, reptiles, mammals, and birds. They nest in colonies (rookeries) that are determined primarily by proximity to available food. They can nest on a variety of substrates, but most often in trees. Great blue heron occurrence has been documented within the analysis area. Existing habitat is likely suitable for both foraging and nesting, although no nests have been documented within or directly adjacent to proposed treatment units (Bend-Fort Rock District Files). Table 46: Summary of Suitable Habitat Acres for Great Blue Heron (2015 Data) Acres of habitat in Acres of habitat in the Acres of habitat on the Proposed analysis area Deschutes National Treatment Units Forest 31 (<1%) 10,841 (6%) 196,519 (100%) Proposed Treatments in Habitat (approximate acres): (sum of acres varies due to GIS data conversion from raster format) Maintenance Mow: 2 Thin, Maintenance Mow & Underburn: 4 Mow: 0 Thin & Mow: 20 Thin: 0 Thin, Mow & Underburn: 0 Thin & Maintenance Mow: 0 Underburn: 0

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION): The project area will likely continue to support great blue heron for potential nesting and foraging with no disturbance beyond the existing

139 UDR Environmental Assessment

baseline. The no action alternative would not contribute to the known threats of this species. Forest structure changes as a result of no action will likely not render stands unsuitable for great blue heron use. This use would likely be for nesting, which is probably driven more by proximity to good foraging habitat than stand structure. No changes would be expected to foraging habitat, although some wet meadows may experience conifer encroachment resulting in reduced suitability. A large fire event could render both nesting and foraging habitat unsuitable, which has an increased likelihood with the no action alternative. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 (PROPOSED ACTION): Implementation of the proposed action will likely not alter the potential of the project area to provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat. Treatment is proposed on 31 acres of mapped suitable habitat that occurs in small isolated patches mostly in the southern portions of the project area. These patches range in size from a fraction of an acre up to approximately 10 acres. The proposed actions of Alternative 2 are not expected to contribute to the known threats of this species. Forest structure changes as a result of any proposed treatment will likely not render stands unsuitable for great blue heron use. This use would likely be for nesting, which is probably driven more by proximity to good foraging habitat than stand structure. No changes would be expected to foraging habitat as these areas are not targeted by the proposed treatments. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS( See Table 30 and Table 31): Because there are no direct or indirect effects anticipated as a result of the proposed project, there are no associated cumulative effects. IMPACT STATEMENT: Implementation of the proposed action will result in No impact (NI) on the viability of great blue heron on the Deschutes National Forest. Changes in stand structure as a result of treatment are not expected to render them unsuitable for nesting and treatments do not target foraging habitat – resulting in no change in suitability. The UDR WUI Project will not impact great blue heron or its habitat in the project area. Therefore, the UDR WUI Project will not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Deschutes National Forest for great blue heron. The proposed project is consistent with management direction applicable to great blue heron (WL35- WL36). WATERFOWL GUILD The waterfowl species considered for analysis have been stratified by the types of habitat each species utilizes to help focus the effects analysis of management actions as outlined in the Deschutes National Forest Management Indicator Species Report (USDA FS 2012, Ehrlich 1988 and Marshall et al 2006). For a complete list of waterfowl species considered, see Appendix 004 of the Wildlife BE. Of the 19 species carried forward for analysis, 6 groups will be analyzed as follows: Generalists *CANADA GOOSE, Branta canadensis

Perching Ducks *WOOD DUCK, Aix Sposa

Dabbling/Puddle Ducks GADWALL, Anas strepera AMERICAN WIGEON, Anas americana MALLARD, Anas platyrhynchos BLUE-WINGED TEAL, Anas discors *CINNAMON TEAL, Anas cyanopera NORTHERN SHOVLER, Anas clypeata

140 UDR Environmental Assessment

NORTHERN PINTAIL, Anas acuta GREEN-WINGED TEAL, Anas crecca

Bay Ducks *CANVASBACK, Aythya valisineria REDHEAD, Aythya americana RING-NECKED DUCK, Aythya collaris LESSER SCAUP, Aythya affinis

Bucephala Ducks COMMON GOLDENEYE, Bucephala clangula *BUFFLEHEAD, Bucephala albeola BARROW’S GOLDENEYE, Bucephala islandica

Mergus Ducks *HOODED MERGANSER, Lophodytes cucullatus COMMON MERGANSER, Mergus merganser

*Group Representative as Identified in the Deschutes National Forest Management Indicator Species Report (USDA FS 2012)

GENERALISTS: Preferred habitat includes all wetland types, rivers, lakes/reservoirs, agricultural and urban areas. Species is very common with increasing trends in many areas. Habitat on the Deschutes National Forest supports breeding, migration and resident/year-round use. Canada geese usually build nests on the ground, near water. They dabble and ground glean for both plant matter and invertebrates. PERCHING DUCKS: Preferred habitat includes small water bodies, slow streams, wooded swamps, sloughs, marshes and agricultural areas. Nesting occurs in tree cavities and boxes. Population trends are increasing. Habitat on the Deschutes National Forest supports breeding and migration. Threats include habitat destruction and hunting. Wood ducks are dabblers, using the water surface to forage for aquatic invertebrates, but also forage on terrestrial plant matter and insects. DABBLING/PUDDLE DUCKS: These species primarily use surface water for foraging on aquatic plants and invertebrates, but also consume terrestrial plant matter and insects. Preferred habitats include marshes, flooded meadows, canals, lakes and ponds. The Deschutes National Forest provides breeding, migration and resident habitat for these species. Nests are constructed on the ground, typically near water but occasionally longer distances away. Nests are often concealed by riparian vegetation, grasses or shrubs. BAY DUCKS: Preferred habitat includes large marshes, lakes, backwaters of rivers and bays. These species forage by diving for both plant matter and aquatic invertebrates. Nests are constructed in emergent vegetation over shallow water or on dry ground concealed by riparian vegetation. The Deschutes National Forest supports both breeding and migration habitat for these species. BUCEPHALA DUCKS: Preferred habitat includes lakes, flooded meadows, and rivers. Nesting occurs in tree cavities, sometimes provided by old woodpecker holes. May also use nest boxes. These species forage by diving for aquatic invertebrates. The Deschutes National Forest provides breeding and migration habitat for these species. MERGUS DUCKS: These species prefer wooded ponds, lakes and wetlands with adjacent trees to provide nesting cavities. Occasionally nest sites may be provided in bank holes, root wads or boulder piles. The

141 UDR Environmental Assessment

Deschutes National Forest provides breeding and migration habitat for these species. They forage by diving for small fish and aquatic invertebrates. Table 47: Summary of Suitable Habitat Acres for Waterfowl (2011 Data) Acres of habitat in Acres of habitat in the Acres of habitat on the Proposed analysis area Deschutes National Treatment Units Forest 225 (<1%) 8,025 (9%) 86,389 (100%) Proposed Treatments in Habitat (approximate acres): (sum of acres varies due to GIS data conversion from raster format) Maintenance Mow: 8 Thin, Maintenance Mow & Underburn:1 Mow: 3 Thin & Mow: 114 Thin: 12 Thin, Mow & Underburn: 74 Thin & Maintenance Mow: 0 Underburn: 0

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION): Large snags may become more rare on the landscape as existing snags are lost and large replacement trees are lacking. This would result in the loss of potential nesting habitat for perching, Bucephala, and Mergus ducks who rely on tree cavities, sometimes excavated by woodpecker species. Conifer encroachment may continue into wet meadow and riparian habitats, resulting in the loss of foraging habitat for some species whose diets are partially composed of terrestrial plants and invertebrates (Canada goose, perching and dabbling ducks). This may also alter the suitability of nesting habitat for dabbling and bay ducks. An increase in the potential for wildfire could result in changed hydrology, water quality and quantity, the structure/distribution/abundance of riparian vegetation and snag availability and development. This could reduce habitat suitability for all waterfowl species considered by limiting available nesting sites and altering foraging opportunities. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 (PROPOSED ACTION): Proposed treatments occur on approximately 225 acres of mapped suitable habitat and include thinning, mowing and underburning. Implementation of the proposed action will encourage the growth of large trees as large replacement snags. Because a majority of the proposed treatment units occur near the Deschutes River corridor and in close proximity to wetland habitat, treatment will likely support the long-term development of suitable habitat for waterfowl species that nest in cavities, including perching, Bucephala, and Mergus ducks. Large existing snags will not be removed and the largest live trees available as snag replacements will be retained – preserving existing large structure and promoting future development. The positive effects anticipated for woodpecker populations as a result of the proposed treatment will also help produce nesting habitat as many cavity nesting ducks require primary excavators to create nesting opportunities. Mowing and underburning treatments may alter ground nesting opportunities by reducing ground level cover, especially for ducks that may nest some distance from water such as dabbling ducks that could occur within treatment units. Disturbance at potential nest sites could result in reduced nesting success or nest abandonment. The potential for this impact is very limited due to a small overlap in timing between potential treatment and nesting and restrictions on mowing treatment (50-80% of units treated to a minimum height of approximately 8 inches, see project design criteria).

142 UDR Environmental Assessment

Additionally, this impact would likely only occur for one to two nesting season at any given site and occurs over a very small portion of habitat forest-wide (<1%). The proposed treatments will also help reduce conifer encroachment, which could benefit foraging habitat for waterfowl species whose diets are partially composed of terrestrial plants and invertebrates (Canada goose, perching and dabbling ducks) and nesting habitat for dabbling and bay ducks. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS( See Table 30 and Table 31): Many of the foreseeable future actions that overlap the anticipated effects of this project have similar objectives of improving forest health and reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire. These projects will generally retain the largest tree structure available, both live and dead, and reduce competition for growing resources, resulting in an improved trajectory of these stands to provide large suitable snag habitat for primary excavators and secondary cavity users like perching, Bucephala, and Mergus ducks. Of the projects considered for cumulative effects, most do not occur close enough to water to improve waterfowl habitat directly. The indirect influence these projects have are the maintenance and improvement of woodpecker habitat to support healthy and robust woodpecker populations – some of which are primary excavators that are required to provide suitable nesting sites for waterfowl. IMPACT STATEMENT: Implementation of the proposed action may result in Improved conditions, and will not contribute toward a negative trend in viability on the Deschutes National Forest (IC) for waterfowl species. Although some negative impacts are possible (disturbance at inland nest sites), these are limited in both scope and scale. Positive benefits of maintaining and developing large snag habitat within close proximity of wetlands will occur on approximately 225 acres to benefit cavity nesting waterfowl. The UDR WUI Project will improve conditions for waterfowl in the project area. Therefore, the UDR WUI Project will not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Deschutes National Forest for waterfowl. The proposed project is consistent with management direction applicable to waterfowl (WL39). WOODPECKER GUILD LEWIS’ WOODPECKER, Melanerpes lewis Lewis’ woodpeckers use riparian woodlands with large cottonwood snags and ponderosa pine with patches of burned old forest structure. This species is highly associated with post-fire environments and thrives in pine forest remnants created by stand-replacing fires. Suitable conditions for nesting include abundant arthropod populations, shrubby understories, open canopies, and nest cavities created by stronger excavators. Average diameter nest trees were 26 inch DBH in one Oregon study from the eastside of Mt. Hood. Their diet is largely composed of insects foraged opportunistically by flycatching and gleaning. Seasonal fruits and acorns may contribute to the diet of some populations where available (Marshall et al 2006). Table 48: Summary of Suitable Habitat Acres for Lewis’ Woodpecker (2015 Data) Acres of habitat in Acres of habitat in the Acres of habitat on the Proposed analysis area Deschutes National Treatment Units Forest 76 (<1%) 4,830 (4%) 139,929 (100%) Proposed Treatments in Habitat (approximate acres): (sum of acres varies due to GIS data conversion from raster format)

143 UDR Environmental Assessment

Maintenance Mow: 44 Thin, Maintenance Mow & Underburn: 2 Mow: 2 Thin & Mow: 14 Thin: 1 Thin, Mow & Underburn: 7 Thin & Maintenance Mow: 0 Underburn: 0

WILLIAMSON’S SAPSUCKER, Sphyrapicus thyroideus Williamson’s sapsuckers breed in mid to high elevation conifer forests, with open canopy and large dead trees suitable for cavity nesting. Tree species does not seem to be as important as tree size in the selection of nest sites, although ponderosa pine seems to be the most commonly used in Oregon. As a weak excavator, snags that provide for nesting opportunity must be soft and well decayed. Tree diameters used for nesting may be as small as 12 inch DBH, but are typically larger averaging 27 inch DBH in one Oregon study from the Blue Mountains. Williamson’s sapsucker diet consists of conifer sap, phloem fibers, and insects attracted to sap wells and gleaned from the bark of trunks and limbs or taken on the ground (Marshall et al 2006). Table 49: Summary of Suitable Habitat Acres for Williamson’s Sapsucker (2015 Data) Acres of habitat in Acres of habitat in the Acres of habitat on the Proposed analysis area Deschutes National Treatment Units Forest 1,457 (1%) 39,368 (15%) 267,710 (100%) Proposed Treatments in Habitat (approximate acres): (sum of acres varies due to GIS data conversion from raster format) Maintenance Mow: 938 Thin, Maintenance Mow & Underburn: 38 Mow: 159 Thin & Mow: 175 Thin: 1 Thin, Mow & Underburn: 111 Thin & Maintenance Mow: 0 Underburn: 0

RED-NAPED SAPSUCKER, Sphyrapicus nuchalis Red-naped sapsuckers utilize riparian habitats, especially those with an aspen component, excavating nest sites from trees with heartwood decay. Tree diameters used for nesting averaged 10.8 inch DBH and measured 47.9 feet tall in one Oregon study from Hart Mountain and 15.2 inch diameter, 53.1 foot height in another study from Paisley and Lakeview RDs, Fremont NF. Sapsucker diets consist of sap, cambium and soft inner bark. Insects and fruits may be eaten opportunistically (Marshall et al 2006). In ponderosa pine, red-naped sapsucker nest tree tolerances range from 11.8 inch DBH (30% TL), 20.3 (50%) and 31.9 (80%) (Mellen-McLean 2012). See Appendix 002. RED-BREASTED SAPSUCKER, Sphyrapicus ruber

144 UDR Environmental Assessment

East of the Cascades, the red-breasted sapsucker uses aspen-ponderosa pine forests with large tree structure. Preference is shown for stands with dense midstory and understory structure and in close proximity to water. Nest trees seem to be chosen based on size and not species. Sap wells are created on both hardwoods and conifers for feeding, often including arthropods attracted to the sap. Cambium and inner bark also contribute to their diet, with smaller seasonal contributions of fruits, nuts and other plant matter (Marshall et al 2006). DOWNY WOODPECKER, Picoides pubescens The downy woodpecker is commonly associated with riparian hardwoods in eastern Oregon, less commonly mixed conifer and ponderosa pine. In central Oregon, habitat is provided mostly by aspen. Their diet is composed of insects, with small amounts of bark, sap, cambium and fruit (Marshall et al 2006). Table 50: Summary of Suitable Habitat Acres for Downy Woodpecker (2015 Data) Acres of habitat in Acres of habitat in the Acres of habitat on the Proposed analysis area Deschutes National Treatment Units Forest 144 (<1%) 15,254 (10%) 155,581 (100%) Proposed Treatments in Habitat (approximate acres): (sum of acres varies due to GIS data conversion from raster format) Maintenance Mow: 26 Thin, Maintenance Mow & Underburn: 0 Mow: 91 Thin & Mow: 23 Thin: 0 Thin, Mow & Underburn: 0 Thin & Maintenance Mow: 0 Underburn: 0

HAIRY WOODPECKER, Picoides villosus Hairy woodpeckers use mixed conifer and ponderosa pine forests. Mature, large structure is preferred where available, but habitat use may include all age classes. Use in young tree stands favors thinned areas, exhibiting a preference for open stand structure. Hairy woodpeckers will also use burned areas. For nesting, light to moderate decay is preferred, taking 1 to 3.5 weeks to excavate. Tree sizes used for nesting in one Oregon study from the Blue Mountains averaged 17 inch DBH and 49 feet tall. Another Oregon study from Paisley and Lakeview RDs (Fremont NF), averaged 14.4 inch DBH and 56.8 feet tall. Diets consist mostly of insect, with a small amount of sap, nuts and other plant matter (Marshall et al 2006). In ponderosa pine, hairy woodpecker nest tree tolerances range from 10.8 inch DBH (30% TL), 15.4 (50%) and 22.3 (80% TL). Foraging tolerances ranged from 8.3 inch DBH (30% TL), 11.7 (50% TL) and 17.0 (80% TL). Snag density tolerances were 17 snags per acre (50% TL) and 44.4 (80% TL) in small size classes. Large snag density tolerance levels and low tolerance levels for small snags were not well documented in the literature (Mellen-McLean 2012). See Appendix 002.

145 UDR Environmental Assessment

Table 51: Summary of Suitable Habitat Acres for Hairy Woodpecker (2015 Data) Acres of habitat in Acres of habitat in the Acres of habitat on the Proposed analysis area Deschutes National Treatment Units Forest 2,593 (<1%) 106,512 (15%) 699,894 (100%) Proposed Treatments in Habitat (approximate acres): (sum of acres varies due to GIS data conversion from raster format) Maintenance Mow: 1107 Thin, Maintenance Mow & Underburn: 340 Mow: 269 Thin & Mow: 399 Thin: 31 Thin, Mow & Underburn: 368 Thin & Maintenance Mow: 7 Underburn: 0

WHITE-HEADED WOODPECKER, Picoides albolarvatus White-headed woodpeckers reside in forests east of the Cascades using habitat with large, open ponderosa pine, low shrub levels and large snags. The white-headed woodpecker is a primary cavity excavator of soft snags. A study on the Deschutes National Forest estimated average nest tree size is to be 26.2 inch DBH, with a preference for stands containing a high density of large diameter trees. White- headed woodpeckers primarily glean insects from bark and feed on ponderosa pine seeds throughout the winter. Large diameter and old-growth ponderosa pine may be more important to white-headed woodpeckers because these trees have a greater bark foraging area, higher insect abundance, and greater and more frequent cone production than smaller trees (Marshall et al 2006). In ponderosa pine, white-headed woodpecker nest tree tolerances range from 19.9 inch DBH (30% TL), 25.5 (50%) and 34.4 (80% TL). Snag density tolerances were 3.9 snags per acre (50% TL) and 11.9 (80% TL) in small size classes. Low tolerance levels for small snags were not well documented in the literature. Large snag density tolerances were 0.5 snags per acre (30% TL), 1.8 (50% TL) and 3.8 (80% TL) (Mellen-McLean 2012). See Appendix 002 of the Wildlife report. Table 52: Summary of Suitable Habitat Acres for White-headed Woodpecker (2011 Data) Acres of habitat in Acres of habitat in the Acres of habitat on the Proposed analysis area Deschutes National Treatment Units Forest 1,564 (1%) 35,312 (16%) 221,851 (100%) Proposed Treatments in Habitat (approximate acres): (sum of acres varies due to GIS data conversion from raster format) Maintenance Mow: 1002 Thin, Maintenance Mow & Underburn: 40 Mow: 183 Thin & Mow: 179 Thin: 1 Thin, Mow & Underburn: 117

146 UDR Environmental Assessment

Thin & Maintenance Mow: 0 Underburn: 0

BLACK-BACKED WOODPECKER, Picoides arcticus Black-backed woodpeckers use recently burned forest habitats and lodgepole pine, sometimes associated with mature trees or beetle killed stands. They often rely on heartrot for excavation of nest cavities and typically use smaller diameter nest trees than other cavity nesters. They primarily feed on larvae of wood-boring beetles, but also may feed on fruit, mast and cambium as available (Marshall et al 2006). In lodgepole pine, black-backed woodpecker nest tree tolerances range from 8.8 inch DBH (30% TL), 10.7 (50%) and 13.5 (80% TL). Foraging tolerances range from 12 inch DBH (30% TL), 14.8 (50%) and 19.2 (80% TL). Snag density tolerances were not well documented in the literature (Mellen-McLean 2012). See Appendix 002. Table 53: Summary of Suitable Habitat Acres for Black-backed Woodpecker (2015 Data) Acres of habitat in Acres of habitat in the Acres of habitat on the Proposed analysis area Deschutes National Treatment Units Forest 1,628 (<1%) 75,942 (12%) 625,429 (100%) Proposed Treatments in Habitat (approximate acres): (sum of acres varies due to GIS data conversion from raster format) Maintenance Mow: 644 Thin, Maintenance Mow & Underburn: 277 Mow: 37 Thin & Mow: 267 Thin: 7 Thin, Mow & Underburn:343 Thin & Maintenance Mow: 0 Underburn: 6

NORTHERN FLICKER, Colaptes auratus Northern flickers are generally abundant in open forests and forest edges adjacent to open country and typically avoid dense stand conditions. This species also uses post-fire environments. The northern flicker nests in forested areas with large diameter snags of moderate to heavy decay, in cavities excavated mostly by the male taking an average of 12 days. The northern flicker is a unique species as it forages almost exclusively on the ground during the summer specializing on ants and beetle larvae. Foraging is focused more on dead and down woody material in the fall, reflecting a decrease in ground insect availability (Marshall et al 2006). In ponderosa pine, white-headed woodpecker nest tree tolerances range from 17.2 inch DBH (30% TL), 21.8 (50%) and 28.8 (80% TL). Foraging tolerances range from 18.2 inch DBH (30% TL), 21.8 (50%) and 27.2 (80% TL). Snag density tolerances were not well documented in the literature (Mellen-McLean 2012). See Appendix 002. Table 54: Summary of Suitable Habitat Acres for Northern Flicker (2015 Data) Acres of habitat in Acres of habitat in the Acres of habitat on the Proposed analysis area Deschutes National Treatment Units Forest

147 UDR Environmental Assessment

1,776 (1%) 47,242 (18%) 269,917 (100%) Proposed Treatments in Habitat (approximate acres): (sum of acres varies due to GIS data conversion from raster format) Maintenance Mow: 1081 Thin, Maintenance Mow & Underburn: 97 Mow: 179 Thin & Mow: 186 Thin: 1 Thin, Mow & Underburn: 185 Thin & Maintenance Mow: 0 Underburn: 0

THREE-TOED WOODPECKER, Picoides dorsalis The three-toed woodpecker has been identified as a “bark beetle specialist” found in high elevation forests near the Cascade crest. This woodpecker is highly associated with post-fire environments but is also found in unburned forests. The three-toed woodpecker and black-backed woodpecker are sympatric and have overlapping ranges. One way this woodpecker competes with other woodpecker species, specifically the black-backed woodpecker, is by utilizing higher elevation habitat. Three-toed woodpeckers occupy areas between 4500-5600’ elevation while the black-backed woodpecker occupied lower elevations. Source habitats were defined as late-seral subalpine and montane forests including old forests of lodgepole pine, grand-fir/white-fir, Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir, whitebark pine, and mountain hemlock. In the western half of its North American range, three-toed woodpeckers prefer mature, unlogged conifer forests as well as conifer forests that have undergone some form of disturbance (e.g. burn, flood, windthrow). This species uses higher elevation habitats of mature lodgepole pine stands or stands with a lodgepole component, although forest type may not be as important as the presence of bark beetles. Because of the lower elevation of proposed treatment units, the UDR WUI Project is marginal habitat for three-toed woodpecker.

Management for three-toed woodpeckers is tied to the maintenance of decay and disease. This species of woodpecker used stands with a mean diameter of 8”dbh for nesting with a mean nest tree diameter of 11”dbh suggesting selection for single-storied mature/overmature stands. Nests were in lodgepole pine stands and appeared to have heartrot. Both live and dead trees were used for nesting. Three-toed woodpeckers forage in mixed conifer, mixed conifer dominated by lodgepole pine, grand fir forest types containing lodgepole pine, and lodgepole pine forest types. Three-toed woodpeckers primarily forage on dead trees (88-95% of the time) that are recently dead (<3 years).

Potential threats to this species include timber harvesting (removal of habitat), forest fragmentation, fire suppression, salvage logging, and suppression logging. Timber harvesting or the removal of old lodgepole pine forests and fragmentation results in reduced food availability and may contribute to population declines due to this woodpecker’s association with unpredictable disturbances and having large home ranges. Silvicultural practices include those aimed at maximizing wood production and harvesting trees before they are susceptible to bark beetle attacks, and salvage logging of beetle-killed, fire-killed, and wind-killed trees. These practices have reduced the occurrence of beetles in some areas and may alter three-toed woodpecker distributions.

148 UDR Environmental Assessment

Table 55 Summary of Suitable Habitat Acres for Three-toed Woodpecker (2015 Data) Acres of habitat in Acres of habitat in the Acres of habitat on the Proposed Treatment analysis area Deschutes National Forest Units 957 (<1%) 20,836 (4%) 539,767 (100%) Proposed Treatments in Habitat (approximate acres): (sum of acres varies due to GIS data conversion from raster format) Maintenance Mow: 455 Thin, Maintenance Mow & Underburn: 95 Mow: 15 Thin & Mow: 156 Thin: 0 Thin, Mow & Underburn: 230 Thin & Maintenance Mow: 0 Underburn: 6

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION): The no action alternative would result in densely stocked stands that discourage large tree growth and are susceptible to insect and disease damage. Competition for growing resources would continue to stress trees, resulting in increased mortality and more abundant snags. In reference to the DecAid analysis presented in the snag and downed wood section of this document, small snags (>10”) would develop in higher density – resulting in the current condition moving toward the reference condition in both ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine habitats. The same can be expected in the large snag (>20”) figures as well, although with smaller increases expected. Increases would mostly occur in small size classes because large structure is currently lacking on the landscape and would not develop under overstocked conditions. This may provide better for the snag habitat component of some species, notably black-backed woodpecker, three toed woodpecker and Williamson’s sapsucker that are the most likely species to use small snags. Woodpeckers that rely on large snags may benefit in the short-term as large trees are affected by insect and disease damage, although replacements for those large snags would be lacking into the future. Beyond snag availability, other habitat components would discourage woodpecker use, notably closed canopies and dense stand conditions – which are contradictory to the preferred habitat for all woodpecker species considered. Open habitat and forest edge would be reduced, farther limiting suitability for species such as Lewis’ woodpecker and northern flicker. Similarly, aspen habitats may experience encroachment by conifer species, reducing the future development of large aspen structure and resulting in habitat loss for species such as red-naped sapsucker, red-breasted sapsucker and downy woodpecker.

The no action alternative would also produce greater risk of high-intensity fire effects. This could result in a flush of snags in the analysis area – although they will mostly be smaller size classes due to the lack of large structure on the landscape. Additionally, this flush of snags is expected to be short-lived (less than 25 years) with an extensive recovery period required before snag structure can again be provided, especially for larger size classes. Existing snags may be consumed in the fire and foraging opportunity on live trees, especially for sap eaters, will be lost. Species that use recently burned areas such as black- backed woodpecker, three toed woodpecker and hairy woodpecker, may find a short-lived increase in foraging opportunity. Additionally, this habitat could provide open and edge characteristics favored by species such as Lewis’ woodpecker and northern flicker, but habitat suitability is expected to slowly decline within approximately 25 years.

Low intensity wildfire could improve habitat for many woodpecker species; these fire conditions will help maintain open stand conditions, stimulate aspen growth, and reduce conifer encroachment on openings to maintain edge habitat. This could improve habitat quality and quantity for all woodpecker

149 UDR Environmental Assessment

species by proving important nesting and foraging habitat components. However, high fuel levels and contiguous fuel distribution may not support low intensity wildfire in the analysis area.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 (PROPOSED ACTION): Proposed treatments occur on approximately 76 to 2,593 acres of suitable woodpecker habitat depending on the species, and include thinning, mowing and underburning. Implementation of the proposed action would retain the largest trees available on the landscape, reduce stand densities, open understories and grow larger trees faster than if left untreated. This will retain and promote the development of large snag habitat, which will benefit all woodpecker species, notably white-headed woodpecker. Many of the impacts noted above as low-intensity fire effects will be mimicked by the proposed treatment, which could improve habitat quality and quantity for all woodpecker species by providing important nesting and foraging habitat components. In reference to the DecAid analysis presented in the snag and downed wood section of this document, proposed treatments would cause short-term reductions in small snag (>10” diameter) numbers, but will allow for the long-term development in large snag structure (>20” diameter). This may move current conditions away from the reference figures in the short-term for small snag habitat, with an improved trajectory for the large snag component to move closer toward the reference condition in the long-term. This is anticipated to occur in both lodgepole and ponderosa pine habitats. Woodpecker species most tolerant of nesting in small snags (notably black-backed woodpecker, three-toed woodpecker and Williamson’s sapsucker) may experience a short-term reduction in the abundance of nesting habitat. Primary excavators, such a northern flicker, hairy woodpecker and white-headed woodpecker would benefit in the long-term due to their preference for larger snags and will create nesting opportunities for many other woodpeckers (and other birds and mammals) that are secondary cavity users. Woodpeckers that feed on sap or use aspen habitat (red- naped sapsucker, red-breasted sapsucker and downy woodpecker) would benefit from treatment in several units containing an aspen component (notably unit 41 and 34 on 30 acres), as conifer thinning, mowing and underburning may encourage aspen growth and development of large aspen structure to provide for foraging and nesting opportunity. Disturbance of existing nest sites is possible within all treatment units and could result in reduced reproductive success or nest failure for 1-2 breeding seasons. This occurrence is expected to be limited in scope and scale as there is likely only a small overlap in timing between potential treatment and nesting season, the impact would likely occur for only a few nesting seasons at any given site and treatment occurs over a very small portion of habitat forest-wide (<1%).

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS( See Table 30 and Table 31): The proposed action complements similar efforts across the analysis area to restore large tree and snag structure. In combination, these effects are fairly substantial. Thinning projects across the analysis area will improve growing conditions to encourage the development of large structure suitable for nesting and foraging (15% of the analysis area through commercial thinning and an additional 6% through precommercial thinning). See Tables 004-005. Implementation of these actions are expected to be staggered, resulting in a mosaic of stand conditions but will likely improve foraging and nesting opportunity for most woodpecker species. In reference to the DecAid analysis presented in the snag and downed wood section of this document, treatments across the analysis area are expected to cause short-term reductions in small snag (>10” diameter) numbers, but will allow for the long-term development in large snag structure (>20” diameter). This may move current conditions away from the reference figures in the short-term for small snag habitat, with an improved trajectory for the large snag component to move closer toward the reference condition in the long-term. This is anticipated to occur in both lodgepole and ponderosa pine habitats.

150 UDR Environmental Assessment

IMPACT STATEMENT: Implementation of the proposed action may result in Improved conditions, and will not contribute toward a negative trend in viability on the Deschutes National Forest (IC) for woodpecker species. Although some negative impacts are possible (disturbance at existing nest sites and short-term loss of small snag habitat), these are anticipated to be limited in both scope and scale and are outweighed by the positive benefits of maintaining and developing large snag habitat in the long-term. The UDR WUI Project will improve conditions for woodpeckers in the project area. Therefore, the UDR WUI Project will not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Deschutes National Forest for woodpeckers. The proposed project is consistent with management direction applicable woodpeckers (WL37-WL38) and snag retention standards as outlined in the Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Tree and Log Implementation Strategy (USDA FS 1994b).

RED-TAILED HAWK, Buteo jamaicensis The Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA FS 1990 and USDA FS 2012) determined the red-tailed hawk to be a non-game species of special interest and was chosen as MIS for large trees in mixed structural habitat. Red-tailed hawks generally nest in the largest, tallest tree available that provides unobstructed views within their territory (DeGraaf et al 1991, DeGraaf and Rappole 1995 and Las Sorete et al 2004). In Oregon red-tailed hawks are a common year-round resident. During spring and fall migrating red-tailed hawks fly thru Oregon, but usually stay near mountain tops or ridges. In winter, resident red-tailed hawks are located in lower elevations both west and east of the Cascades (Gilligan et al 1994 and Marshall et al 2006). Red-tailed hawks generally forage in open to semi open habitats, e.g. clearcuts, grasslands, meadows, forest edges, and agricultural lands. Red-tailed hawks hunt from perches, waiting for their prey, or by soaring and stooping for prey (Timossi and Barrett 1995, Preston 1980 and Tesky 1994). Most common prey species include rodents, rabbits, birds, and reptiles (Johnsgard 1990 and NatureServe 2015). However, red-tailed hawks are known to eat other vertebrates (e.g. fish, amphibians) carrion, and some invertebrates (NatureServe 2015, Timossi and Barrett 1995 and Johnsgard 1990). Within the analysis area, red-tailed hawk habitat is likely suitable for both breeding and foraging, although suitability is limited due to a lack of open habitat types used for foraging. Red-tailed hawks have been documented in the area although no known nest sites occur within or directly adjacent to proposed treatment units (Bend-Fort Rock District Files). Table 56: Summary of Suitable Habitat Acres for Red-tailed Hawk (2015 Data) Acres of habitat in Acres of habitat in the Acres of habitat on the Proposed analysis area Deschutes National Treatment Units Forest 315 (<1%) 21,627 (12%) 187,700 (100%) Proposed Treatments in Habitat (approximate acres): (sum of acres varies due to GIS data conversion from raster format) Maintenance Mow: 159 Thin, Maintenance Mow & Underburn: 19 Mow: 73 Thin & Mow: 12

151 UDR Environmental Assessment

Thin: 11 Thin, Mow & Underburn: 30 Thin & Maintenance Mow: 0 Underburn: 0

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION): The area will likely continue to support red-tailed hawk for nesting and foraging with no disturbance beyond the existing baseline. Suitable nesting structure will continue to be provided, although development of larger trees will not occur or will develop slowly due to competition for growing space and nutrients in overstocked stands. In addition, high fuel loading with contiguous distribution will increase the likeliness of wildfire which may result in a spectrum of habitat loss from unsubstantial and short-term to long-term conversion to unsuitable habitat conditions. This could result in a loss of nesting and foraging opportunity for red- tailed hawk. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 (PROPOSED ACTION): Treatment is proposed on approximately 315 acres of mapped suitable habitat, most of which occurs in small isolated pockets scattered throughout the project area. Proposed treatment in red-tailed hawk habitat is mostly mowing and maintenance mowing. The proposed treatments are not expected to result in the conversion of suitable habitat to unsuitable conditions. Nesting structure is expected to remain available post- treatment with large trees becoming more common in the future to provide higher quality nesting habitat. Foraging habitat is largely unaffected, as openings are not the target of proposed treatments. Edge habitat may increase, which could benefit red-tailed hawk by providing more perching, nesting, and foraging opportunity. This could cause increased nesting success and survivorship. These impacts will occur in marginally suitable habitat, which currently lacks large amounts of open foraging area and over a very small portion of habitat forest wide (<1%). CUMULATIVE EFFECTS: Because there are no direct or indirect effects anticipated as a result of the proposed project, there are no associated cumulative effects. IMPACT STATEMENT: The proposed action is expected to have No Impact (NI) to the viability of red- tailed hawk on the Deschutes National Forest. Both nesting and foraging habitat will remain suitable with possible, although very small scale, improvements to habitat quality through an increase in edge habitat and open foraging conditions. The UDR WUI Project will not impact red-tailed hawk or its habitat in the project area. Therefore, the UDR WUI Project will not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Deschutes National Forest for red-tailed hawk. The proposed project is consistent with management direction applicable to red-tailed hawk (WL2- WL5). OSPREY, Pandion haliaetus The osprey was chosen as an MIS due to its dependence on fish species and use of snags and trees surrounding large lakes. Key habitat components for management include retaining large-diameter snags and dead-topped live or dead trees for nesting and roosting, located in or near clear, unobstructed fish-bearing large lakes and rivers. Additionally, cliffs and rock pinnacles and even bare ground on predator-free islands have been documented as nesting habitat. Artificial structures are also commonly used including utility poles, wharf pilings, windmills, microwave towers, chimneys, cell towers, off-shore duck blinds, buoys, and channel markers (Marshall et al 2006 and NatureServe 2016). The tree species used for nesting does not appear to be important (Vana-Miller 1987). Rather, large- diameter dead or live trees that provide a flattened basket at least 12 inches (0.3 meters) at diameter

152 UDR Environmental Assessment

breast height (dbh) with at least one strong branch close to the nest to support perching and fledglings are preferred (Lind 1976). The nest is usually at or a few feet below the top of the snag/tree and is situated in the tallest location available. Breeding pairs will return to the same nest site in consecutive years. A clutch of 1-4 eggs is laid mid-April to mid-May. A clutch of 1-4 is incubated, mainly by the female (male provides food), for 5-6 weeks. Young fledge in around 50-60 days after hatching and are dependent on their parents for food up to several additional weeks. Osprey are migratory, with Western populations wintering in Mexico, Central America, and northwestern South America. Threats include pesticide exposure (especially in wintering habitat), electrocution and entanglement (fishing nets and lines) or activities that impact prey populations (NatureServe 2015). Within the analysis area, osprey habitat is likely suitable for both breeding and foraging. Osprey have been documented in the area although no known nest sites occur within or directly adjacent to proposed treatment units (Bend-Fort Rock District Files). Table 57: Summary of Suitable Habitat Acres for Osprey (2015 Data) Acres of habitat in Acres of habitat in the Acres of habitat on the Proposed analysis area Deschutes National Treatment Units Forest 2,073 (<1%) 60,632 (11%) 574,210 (100%) Proposed Treatments in Habitat (approximate acres): (sum of acres varies due to GIS data conversion from raster format) Maintenance Mow: 401 Thin, Maintenance Mow & Underburn: 626 Mow: 91 Thin & Mow: 468 Thin: 49 Thin, Mow & Underburn: 378 Thin & Maintenance Mow: 19 Underburn: 6 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION): The area will likely continue to support osprey for nesting and roosting with no disturbance beyond the existing baseline. The no action alternative would not contribute to the known threats of this species. Increased tree mortality over time due to a decrease in tree vigor among all size classes will result in the gradual loss of the existing large-tree structure. In addition, high fuel loading with contiguous distribution will increase the likeliness of wildfire which may result in a spectrum of habitat loss from insignificant and short-term to long-term conversion to unsuitable habitat conditions. This could result in a loss of nesting and roosting opportunity for osprey. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 (PROPOSED ACTION): Treatment is proposed on approximately 2,073 acres of mapped suitable osprey habitat. Proposed treatments include thinning, mowing and underburning. The proposed treatments do not occur near any known nesting sites. Of the 2,073 acres of suitable habitat proposed for treatment, most acres are targeted for thinning and mowing. Mowing treatments will not have any effect on potential habitat for osprey (healthy riparian/aquatic habitats and large tree structure). Thinning treatments would encourage the growth of large trees into the future to provide habitat and would not target the removal of large trees currently providing habitat. Foraging habitat is not targeted by any proposed treatment. The proposed action would not contribute to the known threats of this species.

153 UDR Environmental Assessment

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS: Because there are no direct or indirect effects anticipated as a result of the proposed project, there are no associated cumulative effects. IMPACT STATEMENT: Implementation of the proposed action would result in No Impact (NI) to the viability of osprey on the Deschutes National Forest. No known nest sites occur within close proximity to treatment units. Nesting structure will continue to be provided after treatment and into the future. Foraging habitat is not targeted by any treatment and will not be altered. The UDR WUI Project will not impact osprey or its habitat in the project area. Therefore, the UDR WUI Project will not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Deschutes National Forest for osprey. The proposed project is consistent with management direction applicable to osprey (WL2-WL5). AMERICAN MARTEN, Martes americana The Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan established Old Growth Management Areas (MA- 15) to provide habitat for the marten and other old growth associated species. In all, 32,800 acres were allocated with the intention to maintain landscape ecology needs, preserve aesthetic or social old growth values, and provide old-growth habitat for wildlife. It was estimated that over the long-term (projected as remaining after 5 decades) old-growth forest would amount to approximately 270,200 acres (USDA FS 1990). Martens are closely associated with forested habitats that have complex physical structure near the ground (Bull et al. 2005, Slauson 2003, and Slauson et al 2007). Open areas, such as regeneration logging units, recent severely burned areas, and natural openings are avoided, especially during the winter. Martens cross and re-cross their own tracks to investigate micro habitat features, such as stumps, logs, and brush piles that might contain food. They often use fallen logs as runways (Clark et al 1987). Marten diet consists of small mammals, birds, insects, and carrion with berries and other plant matter eaten in season (NatureServe 2015). Forested riparian habitats are used at disproportionately higher rates than they are available, indicating their importance as travel corridors (Bull et al 2005 and Buskirk et al 1989). Martens tend to be wide-ranging within their home range during the snow-free portions of the year, using a variety of habitats. They also are more active during summer than winter (Bull and Heater 2001), but they do not hibernate. Summer rest sites may be in hollow trees, squirrel nests, mistletoe brooms, ground burrows, and stumps (Clark et al 1987). During winter, martens are highly associated with late-successional forest habitat (Buskirk and Ruggerio 1994 and Bull and Heater 2005). A variety of structures are used for dens, with trees, logs, and rocks accounting for 70 percent of the reported den structures. In virtually all cases of dens in trees, snags, or logs, dens were found in large structures characteristic of late-successional forests. Raphael and Jones (1997) found that down wood and slash piles were important resting and denning structures in lodgepole pine forests of the eastern Cascades in central Oregon. Within the analysis area, pine marten habitat is likely suitable for both breeding and foraging. Marten have been documented in the area although no known den sites occur within or directly adjacent to proposed treatment units (Bend-Fort Rock District Files). Table 58: Summary of Suitable Habitat Acres for American Marten (2015 Data) Acres of habitat in Acres of habitat in the Acres of habitat on the Proposed analysis area Deschutes National Treatment Units Forest 711 (<1%) 49,366 (10%) 474,478 (100%)

154 UDR Environmental Assessment

Proposed Treatments in Habitat (approximate acres): (sum of acres varies due to GIS data conversion from raster format) Maintenance Mow: 142 Thin, Maintenance Mow & Underburn: 0 Mow: 20 Thin & Mow: 157 Thin: 93 Thin, Mow & Underburn: 250 Thin & Maintenance Mow: 0 Underburn: 6

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION): Reference conditions for downed wood and snags within the analysis area indicate limited potential to support American marten. For small downed wood (>5”) in lodgepole pine, 30,50 and 80 percent tolerance levels for marten are 11.3% cover, 24.7% cover and 44.6% cover respectively. Only 5% of the lodgepole pine habitat within the analysis area had a reference condition over 10% - indicating limited potential to provide adequate habitat for pine marten. The same is true for large lodgepole snags (>20”) with 30, 50 and 80 percent tolerance levels being 3.7, 4.0 and 4.5 snags per acre respectively. Reference conditions indicate less than 10% of the lodgepole pine habitat can provide these levels (Mellen-McLean 2012). Please refer to the DecAid discussion in the snags and downed wood section of the wildlife report. Tree mortality among all size classes would increase over time as overstocked stands become stressed and more vulnerable to insect damage. This will result in increased snags and downed wood, but mostly in small size classes which have less value as marten habitat – especially for denning potential. This may result in more foraging opportunity as small snags and downed wood could help support prey populations, but will limit the potential development of good denning habitat. In addition, high fuel loading with contiguous distribution will increase the likeliness of wildfire which may result in a spectrum of habitat loss from unsubstantial and short-term to long-term conversion to unsuitable habitat conditions. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 (PROPOSED ACTION): Suitable habitat is limited within the project area with proposed treatment only covering 711 acres. Proposed treatment on these acres includes thinning, mowing and underburning. Mowing and underburning will reduce understory complexity, which will reduce prey habitat quality and result in a reduction in foraging potential for American marten. Long term, larger trees will be able to provide better habitat, especially when some of these large trees eventually die and can provide large snag and log features to support both forage and denning needs. These effects will occur over a very small portion of suitable habitat forest wide (<1%) and occur in habitat that is marginally suitable. The proposed action will move the current condition even farther from reference figures for downed wood and snag abundance, focusing mostly on smaller size categories. This reduction will occur in favor of the development of large tree structure in the future to provide higher quality habitat. Downed wood may be consumed in underburn treatments. This is less likely to affect large logs, which are of more concern due to their rarity and usefulness as wildlife habitat. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS( See Table 30 and Table 31): Projects across the analysis area are expected to result in reduced complexity and abundance of understory structure. The proposed action contributes to this impact and results in reduced prey habitat and foraging opportunity for American marten. Treatments such as underburning (expected over 23% of the analysis area), and mowing (11%) will occur over a large portion of the analysis area. Most of the effects are expected to be short-lived (5-15 years). One exception is the potential loss of downed wood that may be consumed in underburn treatments. This will likely impact smaller logs which create less quality habitat than large logs, especially when they

155 UDR Environmental Assessment

occur in limited densities. The analysis area is expected to move the current condition even farther from reference figures for downed wood and snag abundance, focusing mostly on smaller size categories. This reduction will occur in favor of the development of large tree structure in the future to provide higher quality habitat for American marten. IMPACT STATEMENT: Implementation of the proposed action will result in a Small Negative Impact (SNI) to the continued viability of American marten on the Deschutes National Forest. This impact is mostly short-term and focused on the reduction of stand complexity at ground level to achieve project objectives. This may result in a reduction in the quality of prey habitat and reduced foraging opportunity for American marten. This effect will occur over a small area of poor quality habitat, lessening the degree of impact. Because this project impacts less than 1% of suitable habitat across the Deschutes National Forest, the overall direct, indirect and cumulative effects will result in a small negative trend of habitat. The loss of habitat will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. The UDR WUI Project is consistent with the Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of American marten is expected on the Deschutes National Forest. The proposed project is consistent with management direction applicable to American marten (WL61- WL63). BIG GAME GUILD ELK, Cervus elephas Elk have limited distribution across western North America and are often associated with semi-open forests and forest edges adjacent to parks, meadows, and alpine tundra. Elk are both grazers and browsers. Both grasses and shrubs compose most of the winter diet while forbs become increasingly important in late spring and summer. Elk tend to inhabit higher elevations during the spring and summer and migrate to lower elevations for winter. Threats to elk include loss of winter range habitat quality and quantity and severed migration corridors. Hunting and collisions with vehicles will reduce numbers locally. Disturbance on summer ranges, especially calving and young-rearing areas, may lead to indirect effects on populations. Cover is an important component of elk habitat and provides both thermal and hiding properties. During summer it provides cooler, shaded areas for elk to bed during the heat of the day. During winter it provides a warmer, protected environment out of the cold, wind, rain, or snow. Adequate cover reduces the energy used by elk and contributes to over winter survival. Hiding cover is also referred to as security cover and allows elk to escape and hide from intrusions or disturbances. These intrusions can be human (hunters, vehicles, hikers, etc.) or natural (predators). Factors affecting elk security are topographic relief, vegetation density, and proximity to human activity. Hiding cover becomes more important if other components that provide security are absent or where predator numbers or human intrusions are high. Inadequate security or hiding cover can cause stress, interfere with movement patterns and habitat use, make elk more vulnerable to predators and harvest by hunters, or other sources of mortality that can lead to abandonment of traditionally used areas. Regulating hunters can sometimes help, however this provides little benefit if predation and/or other human disturbance are occurring (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2003). Table 59: Summary of Suitable Habitat Acres for Elk (Hiding Cover in KEA) Acres of habitat in Acres of habitat in the Acres of habitat on the Proposed analysis area Deschutes National Treatment Units Forest

156 UDR Environmental Assessment

105 (1%) 6,779 (32%) 20,991 (100%) Proposed Treatments in Habitat (approximate acres): (sum of acres varies due to GIS data conversion from raster format) Maintenance Mow: 7 Thin, Maintenance Mow & Underburn: 0 Mow: 40 Thin & Mow: 13 Thin: 29 Thin, Mow & Underburn: 0 Thin & Maintenance Mow: 0 Underburn: 2

Table 60: Summary of Suitable Habitat Acres for Elk (Thermal Cover in KEA) Acres of habitat in Acres of habitat in the Acres of habitat on the Proposed analysis area Deschutes National Treatment Units Forest 24 (<1%) 4,759 (37%) 12,936 (100%) Proposed Treatments in Habitat (approximate acres): (sum of acres varies due to GIS data conversion from raster format) Maintenance Mow: 1 Thin, Maintenance Mow & Underburn: 0 Mow: 14 Thin & Mow: 0 Thin: 0 Thin, Mow & Underburn: 0 Thin & Maintenance Mow: 0 Underburn: 4

Although there is no land management allocation specific to elk, the Deschutes LRMP identified 11 key elk habitat areas (KEHA) totaling 59,825 acres that contain guidance for managing elk habitat. Three of these occur within the analysis area (Kiwa Butte, Ryan Ranch and Fall River), with two overlapping proposed treatment units as shown in Table 58. Table 61: Summary of Proposed Treatment in Key Elk Areas KEY ELK AREA (KEA) TOTAL ACRES TREATMENT ACRES IN KEA Ryan Ranch 21,470 (100%) 677 (3%) Fall River 11,501 (100%) 105 (1%)

Within the Ryan Ranch Key Elk Area, most treatment unit acres are proposed for only mowing (670 acres) with a cap of 50% maximum treatment area. Less than 1 acre of treatment units proposed for thinning overlap the key elk area. Additionally, 6.6 acres of underburning are proposed in Unit 41, with the objective of improving aspen habitat.

157 UDR Environmental Assessment

Within the Fall River Key Elk Area, thinning and mowing are proposed on 56.2 acres. This habitat is of poor quality habitat due to its locations directly adjacent to highways, private housing developments, campgrounds and other infrastructure. Treatment farther from private boundaries and infrastructure (Unit 25, 48.8 acres) has a limited thinning prescription to only include ladder fuels within the dripline of dominate trees with the objective of maintaining good cover distribution for elk while encouraging the development of large tree structure. MULE DEER, Odocoileus hemionus Mule deer occur throughout the western half of North America and occupy a diversity of ecosystems from grassland to alpine tundra. In eastern Oregon, mule deer once ranged into sagebrush plains in canyons or rimrock, but they now are confined mainly to open woods or isolated mountain ranges. In winter, they descend to lower elevations (Csuti et al. 1997). In the spring, browse contributes half of the diet, and forbs and grasses make up the remainder. During the summer months, grass consumption declines in favor of forbs. Winter diets of mule deer consist mainly of browse from a variety of trees and shrubs with some forbs. Browse consumption increases and forb use declines throughout the fall and into winter. Preferred summer habitat provides adequate forage to replace body reserves lost during winter. Summer habitat also includes areas specifically used for reproductive purposes. These areas must have an adequate amount of succulent vegetation, offering highly nutritional forage. In addition, areas used for reproduction should provide isolation from other deer, security from predators and minimal competition from other ungulates. Summer habitat areas are common throughout Eastern Oregon, and can be found in areas varying from lowland agricultural lands to high elevation mountain areas. Winter habitat is found predominately in lower elevation areas of Eastern Oregon. These areas usually have minimal amounts of snow cover and provide a combination of geographic location, topography, and vegetation that provides structural protection and forage. Due to the low nutritive values of available forage during the winter, deer are forced to rely on their body reserves acquired during the summer for winter survival (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2003). Table 62: Summary of Suitable Habitat Acres for Mule Deer (Hiding Cover – All Range) Acres of habitat in Acres of habitat in the Acres of habitat on the Proposed analysis area Deschutes National Treatment Units Forest 870 (<1%) 89,298 (11%) 848,570 (100%) Proposed Treatments in Habitat (approximate acres): (sum of acres varies due to GIS data conversion from raster format) Maintenance Mow: 42 Thin, Maintenance Mow & Underburn: 58 Mow: 40 Thin & Mow: 290 Thin: 29 Thin, Mow & Underburn: 350 Thin & Maintenance Mow: 2 Underburn: 2

158 UDR Environmental Assessment

Table 63: Summary of Suitable Habitat Acres for Mule Deer (Thermal Cover – Winter Range) Acres of habitat in Acres of habitat in the Acres of habitat on the Proposed analysis area Deschutes National Treatment Units Forest 0 (0%) 3,092 (12%) 24,695 (100%) Proposed Treatments in Habitat: None

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION): Hiding cover and thermal cover will increase in the short-term as stands become denser. This can provide good movement corridors, security habitat for spring fawning and calving, and reduce disturbance and provide refuge during winter months when energy conservation is crucial. Small forest openings and edge habitat will be reduced as conifers encroach upon meadow and wetland areas, reducing the quality and abundance of forage habitat. In addition, overstocked stands will often have limited understory diversity to contribute quality forage for elk and deer. In the long-term, as stands mature and stand densities increase so does the risk of insect, disease, and wildfire disturbance which has been identified as a major factor contributing to the loss of hiding cover and thermal cover across the Forest. A high severity or stand-replacing fire event will remove most of the structure, which may prolong the development of ungulate habitat for several decades. Shrubs such as Ceanothus, provide good forage opportunity and may increase with wildfire disturbance. This forage is beneficial to deer for approximately 10 to 15 years, after which nutrient levels diminish. Stands of older shrubs may contribute to hiding cover, but in many areas with broken terrain and low precipitation, shrubs may not be robust enough to provide this structure. Natural regeneration will be unpredictable, being dependent on an adequate number of trees surviving potential disturbance events and having heavy seed crops and favorable weather during the growing seasons shortly following disturbance events. In some locations, shade-tolerant species (such as fir or Douglas fir) may become established in the understory and provide for hiding cover. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 (PROPOSED ACTION): Forest stands within the project area tend to produce an understory dominated by shrubs - mostly bitterbrush, snowbrush (Ceanothus) and manzanita. Generally, timber harvest opens up treated stands, reducing tree canopy cover, reducing understory shading and encouraging the growth of shrub fields. Although young shrubs provide good nutrition for deer, these shrubs are not preferred forage by elk and many of these areas are avoided. Mowing treatments may temporarily reduce shrub cover, but generally effects do not last more than 5-10 years. Prescribed fire with frequent reentry can reduce shrub densities and promote forage such as Idaho fescue, elk and Ross’s sedge and a diversity of forb species that may provide higher quality forage for elk. This treatment is proposed on 1,496 acres. Both mowing and underburning of shrubs will result in shrub cycling, reducing the amount of late seral shrubs that have low nutrient levels and stimulating the growth and development of new early seral vegetation. This is expected to occur in a mosaic pattern that will provide the benefits of both early and late seral shrubs. This will occur on approximately 4,101 acres. Hiding cover will be reduced, mostly though the removal of small and medium sized trees on approximately 2,276 acres. This removal is focused away from key elk areas. This effect will be reduced with retention standards (10% of each treatment units) which will leave dense patches distributed across the landscape and the consideration of stocking levels expected to provide hiding cover (as described in Smith & Long 1987) in portions of key elk areas and other areas identified for maintaining

159 UDR Environmental Assessment

important hiding cover, notably Unit 25 and Unit 20. Additionally, higher treatment limits have been set in important ungulate habitat such as KEA and movement corridors (maximum 50%) in hopes that large shrubs and small trees that would otherwise be reduced through mowing treatment will be retained to provide low level cover. This cover will be particularly beneficial for night bedding and security for does and fawns. Thinning treatments will maintain fully stocked stands in the overstory with fewer understory replacement trees. Although this treatment will likely reduce hiding cover, the boles of the over story and residual understory will continue to provide some screening for ungulates, especially as boles grow large over time. Stand densities will remain that are capable of breaking up long site distance, providing screening for animals moving between areas with higher quality hiding cover. Rock outcrops and topographic features will also aid in providing some screening cover as animals move through the landscape. There is the possibility that prescribed fire (1,496 acres) could remove some hiding cover areas and reduce downed woody debris levels. Burning prescriptions, pre-ignition, and fuels reduction should reduce the chance of this occurrence; however, it is not eliminated. Downed wood that is on the ground is at risk of being consumed by the proposed prescribed fire treatments and result in lost hiding cover. Thermal cover stands provide high amounts of overstory canopy cover greater than or equal to 40%. Mowing, underburning and ladder fuel reduction treatments are not anticipated to affect thermal cover because the overstory canopy would not be reduced (approximately 2,056 acres). Studies conducted in northeastern Oregon have found no measurable benefits of thermal cover for deer (and elk) in winter or summer range (Johnson et al 2005 and Coe and Woodward 2013). Instead, quality hiding cover, particularly near suitable foraging areas, provides the most benefit during winter and summer, as it protects them from predators and other disturbances including recreational disturbance. Additionally, bitterbrush, as the primary forage for deer in winter months and is not shade tolerant. Thermal cover stands lack bitterbrush due to shading from their high canopy closure. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS( See Table 30 and Table 31): Improvements to ungulate habitat across the analysis area may occur to varying degrees through mowing, underburning and thinning treatments. These will likely occur over a large portion of the analysis area (commercial thinning expected over 15% of the analysis area, precommercial thinning 6%, underburning 25% and mowing 11%) and could result in improved forage quality/quantity and improved small openings/edge habitat. See Tables 8 and 9. The proposed action will contribute to these effects, although implementation is likely to be staggered and occur over a long time frame – resulting in a mosaic of conditions across the analysis area. Impacts expected as a result of foreseeable future treatments in the analysis area are largely focused on a loss of hiding cover. This will result mostly from midstory treatments (notably ladder fuel reduction/precommercial thinning, expected on 6% of the analysis area). Impacts to hiding cover are particularly noteworthy due to a high potential for disturbance in this area from year-round recreation use and high route densities. Disturbance may cause additional stress and energy expenditure from animals, and result in altered movement patterns, and reduced reproduction and survival rates. IMPACT STATEMENT: Implementation of the proposed action may result in Improved conditions, and will not contribute toward a negative trend in viability on the Deschutes National Forest (IC) for elk and mule deer. The proposed action will improve small openings and edge habitat, encourage a diversity of nutrient rich forage while still maintaining a suitable level of hiding and thermal cover, especially in important ungulate habitats such as KEAs and movement corridors. The UDR WUI Project will improve conditions for elk and mule deer in the project area. Therefore, the UDR WUI Project will not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Deschutes National Forest for elk and mule deer.

160 UDR Environmental Assessment

The proposed project is consistent with management direction applicable to big game (WL42-WL44; WL47-WL52; WL54-WL60). Landbirds The appropriate Bird Conservation Plan and BCC species list for the project area was reviewed. Those species and habitats that are within the project area have been incorporated into this report with effects disclosed below in Table 61. Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) have been developed based on similar geographic parameters as shown below on Figure 48. One BCR encompasses the project area, BCR9 – Great Basin. The Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the East-Slope of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington (Altman 2000) has been reviewed with project consistency noted below in Table 61. Figure 44: Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs)

Table 64: Landbirds Considered for Analysis and Disclosure of Effects Species Status Basic Habitat Consistent with Habitat Description CEFS Increased, Conservation Decreased, or Strategy Unchanged (Y/N/NA) (+/-/=)

Bald Eagle BCC Lakeside or riverside NA = with large trees Haliaeetus leucocephalus

161 UDR Environmental Assessment

POTENTIAL EFFECTS: The proposed treatments will not change the condition of any currently suitable habitat to unsuitable, and will encourage the development of future large structure habitat to provide nesting and roosting opportunity for bald eagle. No proposed activities occur within bald eagle management areas, and known nest sites will be protected with timing restrictions (notably unit 21). Black-backed CEFS Lodgepole pine, Y + woodpecker burned forest Picoides arcticus

POTENTIAL EFFECTS: The proposed action may result in a short-term loss of available nesting and foraging habitat with long-term improvement in habitat quality expected as large structure is encouraged to develop as a result of treatment. CONSERVATION STRATEGY: (Old Growth Lodgepole Pine) Maintain 40% unsalvaged in burns and beetle killed forest. Exempt areas from commercial or salvage timber management and manage these areas to retain any late successional characteristics as long as possible. Calliope BCC Montane forests and NA + hummingbird meadows, willow thickets Selasphorus calliope POTENTIAL EFFECTS: The proposed action may result in short-term disturbance to individual birds but result in improved habitat quality as forest openings and edges are maintained. Open canopy conditions may result in more diverse understory to provide for foraging opportunity. Chipping sparrow CEFS Open understory N + ponderosa pine with Spizella passerina regeneration POTENTIAL EFFECTS: Although the proposed action will result in open stand conditions favorable to chipping sparrow, mowing and burning may occur during the nesting season and result in localized disturbance that may cause reduced nesting success and survivorship for 1-2 breeding seasons at any given location. The proposed action is not consistent with the conservation strategy to “conduct understory removal and burning outside the nesting season” (Altman 2000). CONSERVATION STRATEGY: (Ponderosa Pine) Use understory prescribed burning and/or thinning when and where appropriate to reduce fuel loads and accelerate development of late-seral conditions; Retain all large trees, especially ponderosa pine >20 in dbh; initiate snag creation and recruitment where necessary; retain all existing snags and broken top trees >10 in dbh in harvest units; implement road closures where necessary to limit access to snags; where mechanized harvest activities are occurring, minimize actions that increase susceptibility to invasion of exotic and noxious weeds and erosion; discontinue

162 UDR Environmental Assessment firewood cutting or restrict to trees <15 in dbh where snag objectives are not being met; permit stand-replacing wildfires to burn where possible. (Open Understory/Regenerating Pines) Evaluate historical plant communities and current landscape conditions when assessing where restoration activities should occur; conduct understory removal and burning outside the nesting season; conduct thinning and/or overstory removal to provide suitable open conditions. Eared Grebe BCC Marshes, ponds & NA = lakes Podiceps nigricollis POTENTIAL EFFECTS: The proposed action will not alter currently suitable habitat and is not anticipated to influence nesting or foraging opportunities for this species. Wetland areas are not the focus of proposed treatment. Flammulated owl CEFS, BCC Mixed conifer with NA + grassy openings and Psiloscops dense thickets flammeolus POTENTIAL EFFECTS: Flammulated owl does have potential to occur within the project area, although the CEFS priority habitat for this species is mixed conifer, which will not be impacted by the proposed action. Therefore the conservation strategy is not applicable. Within treatment units, conifer encroachment into small forest openings will be reduced and dense thickets will remain with in treatment units through retention criteria – resulting in improved habitat conditions. CONSERVATION STRATEGY: (Mixed Conifer) Use understory prescribed burning and/or thinning when and where appropriate to reduce fuel loads and accelerate development of late seral conditions; retain all large trees, especially ponderosa pine >18 in dbh; initiate snag creation and recruitment where necessary; retain all snags and broken top trees >10 in dbh in harvest units; implement road closures where necessary to limit access to snags; minimize actions that increase susceptibility to invasion of exotic and noxious weeds and erosion; discontinue firewood cutting or restrict to trees <15 in dbh where snag objectives are not being met; permit stand-replacing wildfires to burn where possible. (Grassy Openings & Mixed Thickets) Target conservation efforts near grassland or dry meadow openings; avoid insect control spraying near known nest areas or suitable habitat; in restoration efforts, leave patches of dense sapling thickets to function as roost sites; retain large >12in dbh snags during sivicultural practices; where snags with nesting cavities are a limiting factor and the habitat is otherwise suitable, create snags by fungal, inoculation, topping, girdling, etc; where dense roosting thickets are limited within potential or suitable habitat, avoid forest practices that remove brush from the understory; where grassy openings in potential or suitable habitat are being encroached on by shrubs and trees, initiate actions such as manual removal and prescribed fire to maintain these openings; eliminate or restrict fuelwood cutting and application of pesticides in suitable or potential flammulated owl habitat; use nest boxes as a short-term supplement where restoration activities are occurring. Hermit thrush CEFS Multi-layered conifer NA - with dense canopy Catharus guttatus

163 UDR Environmental Assessment

POTENTIAL EFFECTS: Hermit thrush does have potential to occur within the project area, although the CEFS priority habitat for this species is mixed conifer, which will not be impacted by the proposed action. Therefore the conservation strategy is not applicable. The proposed action will not improve habitat quality for hermit thrush within treatment units, as the proposed treatments will reduce multi-layered structure and dense canopy conditions. CONSERVATION STRATEGY: (Mixed Conifer) Use understory prescribed burning and/or thinning when and where appropriate to reduce fuel loads and accelerate development of late seral conditions; retain all large trees, especially ponderosa pine >18 in dbh; initiate snag creation and recruitment where necessary; retain all snags and broken top trees >10 in dbh in harvest units; implement road closures where necessary to limit access to snags; minimize actions that increase susceptibility to invasion of exotic and noxious weeds and erosion; discontinue firewood cutting or restrict to trees <15 in dbh where snag objectives are not being met; permit stand-replacing wildfires to burn where possible. (Multilayered & Dense Canopy) Retain tracts of forest as unmanaged or lightly managed to ensure structural diversity. Lewis’ woodpecker CEFS, BCC Riparian woodland – NA + Cottonwood with Melanerpes lewis snags POTENTIAL EFFECTS: Lewis’ woodpecker does have potential to occur within the project area, although the CEFS priority habitat for this species is oak-pine woodland, which will not be impacted by the proposed action. Therefore the conservation strategy is not applicable. The proposed action is expected to produce large tree and snag structure for future nesting habitat. This will produce high quality habitat long- term, but short-term impacts to prey populations are expected through mowing and burning actions. CONSERVATION STRATEGY: (Oak-Pine Woodland) Encourage judicious use of low intensity prescribed fire to exclude Douglas-fir encroachment, stimulate oak and pine sprouting and contribute to multi-aged stands. (Large Conifer Trees & Snags) Eliminate or minimize pesticide spraying near nesting birds which may reduce insect prey base; prohibit salvage logging of fire-burned trees where they occur; if snags are limiting, create suitable snags through girdling, topping, etc; if nest cavities are limiting, initiate fungal inoculations to provide nest sites; use underburning or other techniques to promote a shrubby understory for insect production – minimize brush control; use thinning of young pines in dense stands to open canopy and encourage development of large trees; selective logging can be used to increase suitability of habitat as long as sufficient large living and dead trees are retained; limit or prohibit fuelwood cutting in areas where Lewis’ woodpecker is known or suspected of nesting. Pygmy nuthatch CEFS Mature ponderosa N + pine Sitta pygmaea POTENTIAL EFFECTS:

164 UDR Environmental Assessment

The proposed action may result in a short-term, localized disturbance to individual birds using the area during project implementation, but will encourage the future development of large tree and snag structure to improve habitat quality for pygmy nuthatch. CONSERVATION STRATEGY: (Ponderosa Pine) Use understory prescribed burning and/or thinning when and where appropriate to reduce fuel loads and accelerate development of late-seral conditions; Retain all large trees, especially ponderosa pine >20 in dbh; initiate snag creation and recruitment where necessary; retain all existing snags and broken top trees >10 in dbh in harvest units; implement road closures where necessary to limit access to snags; where mechanized harvest activities are occurring, minimize actions that increase susceptibility to invasion of exotic and noxious weeds and erosion; discontinue firewood cutting or restrict to trees <15 in dbh where snag objectives are not being met; permit stand-replacing wildfires to burn where possible. The proposed action is not consistent with the conservation strategy due to differing snag retention standards and large ponderosa pine diameter thresholds (20” vs 21”). Additionally, potential impacts from firewood cutting are not addressed in the proposed action. (Large Trees) Manage for large diameter trees through wider tree spacing and longer rotation periods; eliminate or restrict fuelwood cutting in suitable or potential habitat; retain all snags >10 in dbh and all ponderosa pine trees >17 in dbh. Red-naped sapsucker CPFS Mature aspen with NA + snags and Sphyrapicus nuchalis regeneration POTENTIAL EFFECTS: Red-naped sapsucker does have potential to occur within the project area, although the CEFS priority habitat for this species is aspen, which is not targeted by the proposed treatment. Therefore the conservation strategy is not applicable. Several units do have a minor aspen component which will benefit from conifer thinning and result in improved current conditions and future development of both foraging and nesting habitat (approx. 30 acres). CONSERVATION STRATEGY: (Aspen – Large Trees with Regeneration) Asses the potential for use of fire in restoration of aspen stands; manual treatment (thinning) may be needed in many areas prior to introducing fire; maintain all snags and initiate active snag creation where snags are limiting and restoration leading to recruitment of saplings is underway; eliminate or modify grazing to ensure succession and recruitment of young aspen; where starling competition for nest cavities is significant, starling control measures may be necessary. White-headed CEFS, BCC Mature ponderosa N + woodpecker pine Picoides albolarvatus POTENTIAL EFFECTS: The proposed action may result in a short-term, localized disturbance to individual birds using the area during project implementation, but will encourage the future development of large tree and snag structure to improve habitat quality for white-headed woodpecker.

165 UDR Environmental Assessment

CONSERVATION STRATEGY: (Ponderosa Pine) Use understory prescribed burning and/or thinning when and where appropriate to reduce fuel loads and accelerate development of late-seral conditions; Retain all large trees, especially ponderosa pine >20 in dbh; initiate snag creation and recruitment where necessary; retain all existing snags and broken top trees >10 in dbh in harvest units; implement road closures where necessary to limit access to snags; where mechanized harvest activities are occurring, minimize actions that increase susceptibility to invasion of exotic and noxious weeds and erosion; discontinue firewood cutting or restrict to trees <15 in dbh where snag objectives are not being met; permit stand-replacing wildfires to burn where possible. The proposed action is not consistent with the conservation strategy due to differing snag retention standards and large ponderosa pine diameter thresholds (20” vs 21”). Additionally, potential impacts from firewood cutting are not addressed in the proposed action. (Old Forest with Large Snags) Inventory and identify stands meeting desired conditions and stands that can be managed to meet desired conditions within the next 25 years; where aforementioned stands occur on private lands, initiate actions to provide incentives for conservation; conduct management such as thinning, planting, snag creation or prescribed burning as appropriate to meet desired conditions; appropriate timber harvests to achieve desired conditions might include partial cuts, group selection cuts and shelterwood prescriptions, but not clearcuts or overstory removal; manage fro large diameter trees through wider tree spacing and longer rotation periods; eliminate or restrict fuelwood cutting in suitable or potential white-headed woodpecker habitat; retain all snags and high cut stumps >10 in dbh and all ponderosa pine trees >17 in dbh; where snags are targeted for removal for safety reasons, cut them high enough to allow for their potential use by white-headed woodpeckers; all soft snags that are not hazards should be retained; retain broken topped snags, leaning logs and high stumps for potential nesting; retain or provide downed woody debris for foraging sites. Williamson’s CEFS, BCC Mature/old growth NA + sapsucker conifer forest with open canopy Sphyrapicus thyroideus POTENTIAL EFFECTS: Williamson’s sapsucker does have potential to occur within the project area, although the CEFS priority habitat for this species is mixed conifer, which will not be impacted by the proposed action. Therefore the conservation strategy is not applicable. The proposed action may result in a short- term, localized disturbance to individual birds using the area during project implementation, but will encourage the future development of large tree and snag structure to improve habitat quality for Williamson’s sapsucker. CONSERVATION STRATEGY: (Mixed Conifer) Use understory prescribed burning and/or thinning when and where appropriate to reduce fuel loads and accelerate development of late seral conditions; retain all large trees, especially ponderosa pine >18 in dbh; initiate snag creation and recruitment where necessary; retain all snags and broken top trees >10 in dbh in harvest units; implement road closures where necessary to limit access to snags; minimize actions that increase susceptibility to invasion of exotic and noxious weeds and erosion; discontinue firewood cutting or restrict to trees <15 in dbh where snag objectives are not being met; permit stand-replacing wildfires to burn where possible.

166 UDR Environmental Assessment

(Large Snags) In managed forests, extend rotation ages to provide snags of sufficient size - retain these snags and recruit replacement snags in each harvest entry; in harvest units and riparian buffer zones, retain the largest live trees, particularly dying or defective trees, through rotations as recruitment snags for potential nest sites if nesting is documented in logged stands; retain known or suitable nesting and roosting snags from all harvest and salvage activities and restrict access for fuelwood cutters; if snags have not been retained or are insufficient in number, create snags through blasting tops or inoculation with heart rot if size of trees meets species requirements. CEFS – Cascades East Slope Focal Species; BCC – Birds of Conservation Concern Snags and Downwood Dead wood (standing or down) plays an important role in overall ecosystem health, soil productivity and habitat for numerous wildlife species. Many bird and mammal species rely on dead wood for dens, nests, resting, preening, roosting, perching, courtship, drumming, hibernating and/or feeding for all or parts of their life cycle. Snags come in all sizes and go through breakdown and decay processes that change their characteristics and potential uses for wildlife through time. Not every stage of the snag’s decay is utilized by the same species, but rather a whole array at various stages or conditions. Snags are the main contributors to down wood which provide organic and inorganic nutrients in soil development, microhabitats for invertebrates, plants, amphibians, and other small vertebrates, and structure for riparian associated species in streams and ponds. Size, distribution, and orientation may be more important than tonnage or volume. Small logs provide escape cover or shelter for small species; however, larger sized logs are generally used by more species than smaller logs (Bull et al. 1997). Use by species differs in relation to size, decay class, and purpose of use, as well as many other factors. The Decision Notice for the Continuation of Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem, and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales (known as the Eastside Screens) addresses the need for project design to include the principles of landscape ecology and conservation biology (USDA FS 1995). Screen 3, the Wildlife Screen, represents direction and parameters based on general scientific principles and concepts. The purpose of the Wildlife Screen is to maintain options in the short-term for the conservation of wildlife species associated with late and old structural stages in eastern Oregon and Washington. This direction generally equates to approximately 2.25 snags per acre for the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer and 1.8 snags per acre in lodgepole pine. This direction is applicable to the proposed UDR WUI Project. Specifically the direction for snags and down woody material are: 1) maintaining snags and green tree replacements (GTRs) ≥15 inches DBH at 100% maximum potential population (MPP) for all vegetation types except lodgepole pine; 2) for lodgepole pine, maintain snags and green tree replacements >10 inches DBH at 100% MPP; and 3) down logs ranging between 3 and 20 pieces per acre depending upon vegetative series (Table 006). The down log criteria are not intended to preclude the use of prescribed fire as an activity fuels modification treatment. Fire prescription parameters will ensure that consumption will not exceed 3 inches total (1.5 inches per side) of diameter reduction in the featured large log sizes below. Table 65: LRMP Down Wood Requirements (USDA FS 1994b) Timber Sale Activities Tree Species Pieces per acre Diameter Small End Piece Length Total Lineal Length Ponderosa pine 3-6 12 Inches >6 feet 20-40 feet Mixed conifer 15-20 12 inches >6 feet 100-140 feet

167 UDR Environmental Assessment

Lodgepole pine 15-20 8 inches >8 feet 120-160 feet Prescribed Fire Parameter Consumption will not exceed 3 inches total (1 ½ inches per side) of diameter reduction in the featured large log sizes above.

LRMP Snag and Green Tree Replacement (GTR) Requirements (USDA FS 1994b) Habitat Type Ponderosa Pine Mixed Conifer Lodgepole Pine (>15in DBH) (>15 in DBH) (>10in DBH) 100% MPP 4 snags per acre 4 snags per acre 6 snags per acre GTRs (at 13-19 in DBH residual 8 trees per acre 8 trees per acre 6 trees per acre stand)

Additionally, portions of the project area fall under guidance from the Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River and State Scenic Waterway Comprehensive Management Plan (USDA FS 1996). This applies to Units 10, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 42, and 44. Units covered by direction from the Newberry National Volcanic Monument Comprehensive Management Plan (USDA FS 1994a) includes only unit 24. Snag and downed wood retention guidelines in these documents are generally consistent with the Eastside Screen direction noted above, with two exceptions. The wild and scenic river guideline V5 (USDA FS 1996, page 30) calls for retention of all snags and downed trees within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas. Application of project design criteria will ensure consistency by retaining all snags in these areas (using INFISH Criteria). Additionally, wild and scenic river retention recommendations for downed wood (USDA FS 1996, V15, page 32) describe high volumes that may not be currently available (especially in previously treated stands), may be outside of site potential, and are inconsistent with fuels reduction objectives in the wildland-urban interface. The Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Tree and Log Implementation Strategy (WLTL) provides guidance and options for meeting the snag, green tree replacements (GTRs), and down log objectives on the forest, regardless of management direction (USDA FS 1994b). This strategy focuses on the treatment unit as the area of accountability for meeting WLTL objectives. It states that “Snags, GTRs, and down logs will not be provided on every acre in the forested ecosystem. A mosaic distribution of WLTL resources on the landscape maintaining viable populations and ecological functions is the desired condition.” Current literature and research at the time, as well as the NWFP and Eastside Screen requirements were used to develop the number of hard snags (recent dead standing snag) needed by each species to support various percentages of their population. These were developed for each vegetative series and for areas west and east of the Northwest Forest Plan boundary. Habitat requirements, including snag and down woody material levels, were described in the LRMP and amended Eastside Screens for a variety of wildlife species using information known at the time. However, more recent empirical studies indicate that snag numbers and sizes selected by some wildlife species are far higher than those calculated using the maximum potential population method (Bull et al. 1997, Rose et al. 2001). This suggests that the LRMP direction (WL-37 S&G) for primary excavators may

168 UDR Environmental Assessment

not represent the most current knowledge of managing for cavity nesters and that these snag levels, under certain conditions, may not be adequate for some species, particularly for secondary cavity nesters and post-fire conditions. The DecAID Advisor (Mellen-McLean et al 2012) was used as the best available science for the UDR WUI Project snag analysis. DecAID is a web-based advisory tool that helps managers evaluate effects of forest conditions and existing or proposed management activities on organisms that use snags and down wood. It is a summary, synthesis, and integration of published scientific literature, research data, wildlife databases, forest inventory databases, and expert judgment and experience. DecAID is used to estimate sizes and densities of dead wood that provide habitat for many species and ecological processes. It 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. The terms Historical Range of Variability (HRV), Natural Conditions, and Historical Conditions in DecAID are sometimes used interchangeably to indicate conditions which occurred on the landscape prior to the influence of European settlement. Because it is difficult to determine the actual snag and down wood levels prior to European settlement, the term Reference Condition is used in DecAID when referring to the use of vegetation inventory data reported in DecAID based on data from unharvested plots. When using the natural condition of snag and down wood distribution represented by the summary of forest inventory data from unharvested inventory data in DecAID, caution should be used due to years of fire exclusion. The vegetation data can help determine the natural range of variability for dead wood, which can be used as a proxy for HRV. It is assumed that adequate habitat will be provided because species which survived those levels of habitat in the past are present today. The more that current conditions deviate from HRV, the less likely it is that adequate habitat occurs on the landscape to sustain those species. Snag and down wood levels are best analyzed at scales of subwatersheds or greater (Mellen-McLean et al 2012). Snags and down wood will be addressed as they relate to size, density, and distribution by habitat type for the entire analysis area, which is considered the zone of influence for measuring cumulative effects. Because the proposed treatment units are spread geographically over a large area, a collection of HUC12 subwatersheds were used to define the analysis boundary, as shown in Figure 38. This includes portions of 5 watersheds (Fall River – Deschutes, Middle Little Deschutes, Long Prairie, Lower Little Deschutes and North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River) represented by 14 subwatersheds that total 279,011 acres. This was done to make the most coherent analysis area possible that would accurately depict the geography and conditions of the proposed treatment areas and describe potential effects at the landscape scale. In addition, this provides enough of each habitat type analyzed (12,800 acres minimum) to meet the best available science criteria for describing the project effects to dead wood using the DecAID tool. The analysis area is composed of three major wildlife habitat types (WHTs): ponderosa pine/Douglas fir (PPDF), lodgepole pine (LP) and eastside mixed conifer/east Cascades/Blue Mountains (EMC_ECB) as shown below in Table 63. These are generally distributed as low elevation (PPDF), mid-elevation (LP) and high elevation (EMC_ECB) within each subwatershed. Because there are no proposed actions in the mixed conifer habitat type, it was not considered in detail for this analysis. The acres listed below by watershed represent only the portions included in the subwatershed analysis area. Table 66: WILDLIFE HABITAT TYPES (WHTs) BY WATERSHED FOR THE UDR WUI PROJECT WATERSHED PPDF Acres LP Acres

169 UDR Environmental Assessment

(% of Total) (% of Total) Fall River-Deschutes River 29,371 (30%) 24,842 (63%) Long Prairie 3,288 (3%) 1,946 (5%) Lower Little Deschutes River 21,536 (22%) 6,293 (16%) Middle Little Deschutes River 514 (<1%) 376 (1%) North Unit Diversion Dam – 42,642 (44%) 5,776 (15%) Deschutes River TOTAL 97,351 (100%) 39,233 (100%) The inventory data within DecAID was used to provide further analysis and characterization into the historic range of variation for snag and downed wood densities and distributions. The historic range of variation was determined in each applicable habitat type and used to determine the reference condition for which to compare against the current condition using the 2012 GNN regional vegetation updates and weighted averages of each habitat type by watershed. In DecAID, a tolerance level as it relates to wildlife data is defined as follows: “Tolerance levels are estimates of the percent of all individuals in the population that are within some specified range of values” (Mellen-McLean et al 2012). DecAID is not a viability model and tolerance levels should not be interpreted as population viability thresholds. DecAID tolerance levels may be interpreted as three levels of assurance: low (30% tolerance level), moderate (50% tolerance level), and high (80% tolerance level) (Mellen-McLean et al 2012). The higher the tolerance level, the higher the assurance that snag habitat is being provided. Tolerance levels are shown on the following graphs indicating wildlife habitat needs. Labels shown in pink indicate post disturbance requirements. Additional summaries with applicable cumulative species curves may be found in Appendix C. The Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Tree and Log Implementation Strategy (USDA FS 1994b) estimates tree growth rates for both ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine vegetative series. On most treatment acres, the majority of leave trees will be approximately 8 inches DBH or greater. To develop into larger size classes (>20” DBH for ponderosa pine and >12” DBH for lodgepole pine), trees will likely need 5-85 years of growth in ponderosa pine and 14-57 years of growth for lodgepole pine. Current Condition ― Snags For snags >10 inch DBH within the analysis area, the current condition in ponderosa pine has approximately 11% greater area with no snags as compared to the reference condition, as shown below. All other density categories are slightly below reference conditions, most notably the 8-12 snags per acre category which is currently 1% compared to the 8% reference. For lodgepole pine, high densities of small snags are notably limited in all categories of 6 snags or greater per acre. A sizable difference is noted in the category lacking any small snags, which accounts for 64% of the lodgepole pine habitat within the project area.

170 UDR Environmental Assessment

Figure 45 Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir; Snags >10”

Figure 46 Lodgepole Pine; Snag >10”

171 UDR Environmental Assessment

For snags >20 inch DBH within the analysis area, all density categories for ponderosa pine are below the reference condition as shown below. The 85% area lacking any large snags is above the reference condition of 65%. Large lodgepole pine snags were historically rare and continue to be so at an even greater amount (57% historically compared to 83% current), with most deficiencies occurring in the mid density categories of 2-10 snags per acre. Figure 47 Ponderosa pine/Douglas-Fir; Large Snags >20”

172 UDR Environmental Assessment

Figure 48 Lodgepole Pine; Large Snags >20”

Current Condition – Down Wood Within the analysis area, small downed wood in ponderosa pine is occurring in greater abundance (above 2% cover) as compared to the reference condition. For lodgepole pine, small downed wood is lacking in the mid-abundance category (2-4% cover) and exceed those of the reference condition for all other categories. This indicates that most sites have either too much or too little abundance of small downed wood as compared to the reference, with a deficiency in the moderate category as shown below.

173 UDR Environmental Assessment

Figure 49 Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir; Down Wood >5”

Figure 50 Lodgepole Pine; Down Wood >5”

For large downed wood, reference figures indicate the rarity of large logs in ponderosa pine, especially over 2% cover as shown below. The current condition is even farther reduced, and exceeds both the

174 UDR Environmental Assessment

reference condition and the forest wide figure for areas with no large logs at all (84% compared with the 68% reference). Similarly, large logs in lodgepole pine were also historically rare and are currently even farther reduced (79% current compared to 62% reference). Low abundance (0-4% cover) is slightly exceeding reference conditions, with most deficiency occurring in moderate abundance (4-6% cover). Figure 51 Ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir; Down Wood >20”

Figure 52 Lodgepole Pine, Down Wood >20”

175 UDR Environmental Assessment

In summary, current conditions in comparison to reference conditions are summarized below. Small snags are analyzed as >10” DBH; large snags are >20” DBH; small downed wood is >5”; and large downed wood is >20”. Ponderosa pine stands in the analysis area exhibit: . A general lack of large snags; . A deficiency of small snags in high density; . An abundance of high density, small downed wood; . And a lack of large logs, even in low abundance. Lodgepole pine stands within the analysis area exhibit conditions where: . Large snags are very rare; . High density patches of small snags are lacking; . The absence of small snags is common; . Small downed wood is occurring in both excess and in shortage but lacking in mid-abundance; . With large logs being very rare, especially above 4% cover. Direct and Indirect effect of Alternative 1 (No Action) There are no known direct impacts to snags, down wood, or green tree replacements (GTRs) under Alternative 1 (No Action). Currently, there are a limited number of large snags on the landscape. Increased fuel loadings and continuity from fire suppression has increased the risk of large fires. These large stand replacement events create snags; however, this pulse of snags is short lived (less than 25 years) followed by a long lag time until snags are again available on the landscape (Mellen-McLean et al 2012). In addition, there are limited large trees to provide future large snag habitat. Without fire disturbance, snags are expected to increase over time as insects and disease in overly dense stands continue to cause tree mortality consistent with increasing levels of inter-tree competition. Down wood levels are expected to increase as snags continue to fall in the future in the absence of fire. Although a steady recruitment of new snags and logs are expected, they would generally be <20 inches DBH, which creates lower quality habitat for some wildlife species compared to large logs. Green tree replacements would also remain at existing levels across the landscape and all trees would continue to be available for use as green tree replacements. There are also limited large trees ≥ 21inches DBH available for future large down wood recruitment. Increased stand densities perpetuate the problem of losing large structure over time, which many wildlife species require for suitable nesting and foraging habitat. In dense stands, increased competition for nutrients will require a longer period of time for the smaller trees to become large trees and become suitable habitat for some wildlife. Fewer large snags and logs could result in more competition for existing sites between species, and generally lead to greater predation risks and less survivorship and recruitment. Direct and Indirect effect of Alternative 2 Large snags are not proposed for removal as part of any UDR WUI Project treatments. Proposed treatments such as non-commercial thinning and ladder fuel reduction across all habitat types (ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine treatment proposed on approximately 532 acres) may have some beneficial impacts to these habitat components in the long-term by creating stand conditions that would accelerate and develop larger tree structure and future snags and logs, than if these small trees were not thinned. In areas identified for thinning (approximately 2,276 acres), canopies will be opened up and stand densities reduced to lessen the risk of a large-scale disturbance events (insects, disease, or fire). Thinning is expected to reduce down wood and small snag recruitment in the short-term; however in the long-term it is anticipated that there will be more large trees that can be recruited into large snags

176 UDR Environmental Assessment

and large down wood. Small snags will continue to be lacking in high density patches for both habitat types (ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine) and will be farther reduced through proposed treatments on approximately 1,744 acres. This will occur in favor of the development of future large snags and logs. Trees will likely need 5-85 years of growth in ponderosa pine and 14-57 years of growth for lodgepole pine to reach adequate size classes. Each unit identified for thinning will leave 10% in retention clumps. These areas will have a higher stocking rate, higher abundance of small downed wood and will provide some diversity of canopy cover across the landscape. Within the areas that have prescribed fire treatment proposed (approximately 1,496 acres), there is also potential of changing green trees into snags and snags into down wood. Burning prescriptions and pre- ignition fuels reduction should reduce the chance of this occurrence; however, it is not eliminated. In addition, down wood that is on the ground is at risk of being consumed by the proposed prescribed fire treatments. This is less likely to affect large logs, which are of more concern due to their rarity and usefulness as wildlife habitat. Reductions in high abundance of small downed wood in both ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine would move current conditions into closer alignment with reference conditions. Cumulative Effects Extensive harvest activities, primarily clearcutting, occurred in the analysis area during the 1920s and 1930s followed by thinning and other harvest activities thru the 1990s. These activities removed most or all overstory trees and likely retained minimal snag and down wood habitat. The analysis area includes areas both east and west of the owl line, although the project area itself is completely east of the owl line. Sales planned west of the owl line after 1994 utilized the Northwest Forest Plan standards and guidelines and followed Late-Successional Reserve Assessment guidelines by plant association group. These guidelines ranged from 4 to 13 snags per acre depending on the plant association group, and 120 linear feet of down wood at least 16 inches in diameter and 16 feet long. Sales planned after 1995 east of the owl line utilized the Eastside Screens, which calls for 2.25 snags ≥ 20 inches DBH per acre and 20 to 40 lineal feet per acre in ponderosa pine and 100 to 140 lineal feet per acre in mixed conifer. It is assumed that harvest units occurring within this time frame retained 1 to 4 snags per acre. Ongoing vegetation management projects in the analysis area generally focus on reducing understory vegetation to reduce risk of loss from wildfire. It is assumed that existing large snags and large downed wood will not be commonly impacted as a direct result of these projects. However, small snags and down wood may be reduced depending on treatments proposed. Past wildfires within the analysis area have created pulses of higher snag and down wood densities than would normally occur with natural succession (notably Finley Butte, White, Sutilet, Round Swamp, Edison Ice Cave 1, Awbrey Hall and Lost Man fires). However, these high density snag areas are short- lived with most snags falling down within 25 years. Fuels reduction projects include mowing, burning, and thinning stands from below. Burning varies but may include underburning, jackpot burning of concentrations, pile burning, or some combination of these activities. A reduction in down woody material is usually associated with these activities with some incidental snag loss. Material impacted primarily includes smaller size classes (<15inches DBH) and those in more advanced decayed stages (Decay Classes 3-5). These treatments, however, may reduce the risk of loss to existing large snags and logs by reducing ground and ladder fuels. Other actions considered to impact snags and downed wood within the analysis area include insect and disease damage, firewood cutting and danger tree removal along roads, high use recreation areas, and facilities. Danger tree removal occurs approximately 160 feet (one site potential tree height) on either side of roads and from high use areas. Snag levels continue to decline around these facilities. Danger

177 UDR Environmental Assessment

tree removal has increased in recent years due to an increase in recreational trails, facilities, and parking areas. CONCLUSION: The proposed action would influence a small portion of the analysis area (2%) and an even smaller portion of Forest-wide habitat (<1%) resulting in a small negative impact locally with limited effect across the analysis area and Forest-wide. This action would mostly reduce small snags and small downed wood within treatment units in favor of future large snags and large downed wood. In some locations, the proposed actions are maintenance treatments where small snags and downed wood are not currently available for further reduction. In addition, because many of the treatments are proposed adjacent to private property with wildfire concerns, these areas are not likely to be managed to provide high densities of either snags or downed wood. The proposed project is consistent with management direction. Consistency with Old Growth and Connectivity Corridors Standards and Guidelines OLD GROWTH: Approximately 42 acres of proposed treatment occur in old growth management allocations (Unit 34, proposed for thin and mow treatment). Standard & Guideline Meets/Does Rationale Not Meet/Not Applicable M15-4 There will be no programed harvest or Meets Proposed treatment will wood removal in these areas during this planning preserve and encourage the period, however, vegetative manipulation development of future large including removal may occur to perpetuate or structure enhance old growth characteristics. M15-5 If the structure of an old growth area is NA Standard & Guideline is beyond significantly altered through a catastrophic event the scope of this project such as fire, windstorm or insect epidemic, another stand would be substituted that meets the minimum requirements for the indicator species. The original area could then be salvaged and reforested. M15-6 firewood cutting and gathering is not NA Standard & Guideline is beyond permitted the scope of this project M15-19 Prescribed fire is not appropriate in NA Prescribed fire is not proposed lodgepole pine stands. In ponderosa pine and as a treatment within the old mixed conifer stands, prescribed fire may be growth management unit used to achieve desired old growth characteristics. It may also be used to reduce unacceptable fuel loadings that potentially could result in high intensity wildfire. M15-20 Prescribed fire is the preferred method Meets Prescribed fire was not chosen of fuel treatment. However, if prescribed fire as a treatment method due to cannot reduce unacceptable fuel loadings, other difficult terrain such as lava methods will be considered.

178 UDR Environmental Assessment

outcrops and for other resource protection needs.

Old Growth Management Areas (MA15, USDAFS 1990) are intended to provide “habitat for plant and animal species associated with old growth forest ecosystems.” The distribution and minimum size of old growth areas for ponderosa pine forest is based upon the habitat needs of northern goshawk (analyzed separately in this document as a Management Indicator Species). In summary, the proposed actions are mostly expected to impact prey populations for goshawk through the loss of understory structure, resulting in a reduction of foraging suitability. Nesting structure is expected to remain and improve over time as large trees are retained and smaller trees are expected to grow into larger size classes. The proposed project is consistent with management direction applicable to northern goshawk (WL6-WL12) and old growth (M15-4,5,6 and M15-19,20). MOVEMENT CORRIDORS: Approximately 230 acres of proposed treatment occur in designated movement corridors (including units 32, 34, 39, 47, 48, 50, 53 and 54). Proposed treatments include mowing, maintenance mowing and a small amount of thinning (<40 acres). Standard & Guideline Meets/Does Rationale Not Meet/Not Applicable Meets Proposed treatments within connectivity corridors are Eastside Screen Direction: maintain or enhance largely mowing and the current level of connectivity between LOS maintenance mowing stands and between all Forest Plan designated prescriptions. Many of these Old Growth habitats by maintaining stands units have a higher retention between them that serve the purpose of standard for mowing connection as described below: treatments (50%). A small 1. LOS and Old Growth stands need to be amount of thinning is proposed connected with each other inside the watershed (<40 acres) but is not expected as well to like stands in adjacent watersheds in a to reduce canopy cover below contiguous network pattern by at least 2 standard and will perpetuate different directions; the future development of large 2. Maintain connectivity stands in which medium tree structure and healthy diameter of large diameter trees are common canopy cover. and canopy closures are within the top one-third of site potential. Stand widths should be at least 400 feet wide in their narrowest point; 3. The length of connection corridors depends on the distance between LOS/Old Growth stands but should be as short as possible; 4. Harvesting within connectivity corridors is permitted in that all of the above criteria can be met, and some amount of understory is left in patches or scattered to assist in supporting stand density and cover

179 UDR Environmental Assessment

Retention standards (10% of each treatment units) will leave dense patches distributed across the landscape, contributing to hiding cover in and between movement corridors. Additionally, higher treatment limits have been set in movement corridors (maximum 50%) in hopes that large shrubs and small trees that would otherwise be reduced through mowing treatment will be retained to provide low level cover. See project design criteria. Thinning treatments will maintain fully stocked stands in the overstory with fewer understory replacement trees. Although this treatment will likely reduce hiding cover, the boles of the over story and residual understory will continue to provide some screening for ungulates, especially as boles grow large over time. Stand densities will remain that are capable of breaking up long site distance, providing screening for animals moving between areas with higher quality hiding cover. Rock outcrops and topographic features will also aid in providing some screening cover as animals move through the landscape. The proposed action is consistent with the Eastside Screen direction for movement corridors (USDA FS 1995). Soils The long-term sustainability of forest ecosystems depends on the productivity and hydrologic functioning of soils. Ground-disturbing management activities may adversely affect the natural capability of soils and their potential responses to use and management. Disturbances may reduce the soil’s ability to supply nutrients, moisture, and air to support soil microorganisms and vegetation growth. The productivity and resilience of a soil is directly tied to the physical properties of the soil and the amount of fine organic matter and coarse woody debris retained or removed from the site. Forest soils are a non-renewable resource as measured by human lifespans, so maintenance and enhancement of soil productivity is an integral part of National Forest management. Therefore, an evaluation of the potential effects on soil productivity is essential for integrated management of forest resources. This report summarizes the potential effects to short- and long-term soil productivity resulting from proposed and connected actions within the UDR WUI Fuels Reduction Project (hereafter referred to as UDR WUI). Interpretations and descriptions contained in this specialist report rely heavily on local information derived from the Deschutes National Forest Soil Resource Inventory (Larsen 1976) and digital spatial data in the Forest’s corporate Geographic Information System (GIS). These sources were used along with topographic maps, aerial photographs, silvicultural reports, field-based reconnaissance and sampling, various related project reports, and agency directives to characterize local conditions and analyze the likely environmental consequences of the Alternatives. Actions addressed in this report include those associated with proposed tree thinning activities, mechanical fuels reduction including mowing and/or mastication, and prescribed burning. System road usage and temporary road construction are also addressed. The effects analysis section assumes that the project design criteria, mitigations, best management practices, and operating restrictions specified in Chapter 2 of this Environmental Analysis are fully implemented. These measures are designed to avoid, minimize or mitigate potential impacts and to ensure that the project would comply with all pertinent laws, regulations, and policies. Scope and Scale of Analysis There are three geographic scales for the spatial scope of the soils analysis of this project. From largest to smallest, they are: • Planning Area – The UDR WUI Fuels Reduction Project was developed to address specific fuels concerns near private lands and critical egress routes. Because the planned activity units are scattered over a large area, a larger planning area wasn’t designated. General environmental

180 UDR Environmental Assessment

and landscape characterization is presented for the area north of Wickiup Reservoir to Lava Butte and east to the Highway 97 corridor. • Project Area – The area where specific activities are proposed. Includes both the actions associated with designated treatment units as well as other connected actions outside of those units such as system road improvements, temporary road construction, log haul, habitat enhancement, or sale area improvement projects. • Activity Area – The 4,151-acre area of direct ground impacting activity, consisting of the smaller, forest stand-scale units delineated in the proposed action, either individually or collectively. An activity area is defined as “the total area of ground impacted by an activity, and is a feasible unit for sampling and evaluating” (FSM 2520 and Forest Plan, page 4-71, Table 4-30, Footnote #1). Activity areas are the analysis areas for direct, indirect and cumulative effects to soil resources. These are appropriate boundaries because actions outside the unit boundaries would have little or no effect on soil productivity within the units, and actions within the unit boundaries would have little or no effect on soil productivity elsewhere. For this project, activity areas consist of specific forest stand-level units of Forest Service ownership adjacent to or in close proximity to private residences and critical egress routes. The temporal scope of the analysis considers short-term and long-term effects. Analysis of short-term effects looks at changes to soil properties that would generally recover or revert to pre-existing conditions within five years of completing proposed activities. Long-term effects are those that would substantially remain for five years or longer in the absence of restoration treatments. This analysis considers the effectiveness and probable success of implementing management requirements, Best Management Practices (BMPs), and Project Design Criteria (PDCs) that are designed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potentially adverse soil impacts. The following indicators are used to compare alternatives: 1. Change in the extent of detrimental soil conditions following proposed harvest, fuel reduction, and mitigation treatments within individual harvest units or other activity areas. 2. Amount of continuity of surface organic matter (duff and litter layers) and coarse woody debris (CWD) that would likely be retained to protect mineral soils from erosion and moisture loss and provide for short- and long-term nutrient cycling. 3. The probable success in project design and implementation of management requirements and mitigation measures that would be applied to minimize adverse effects to soil productivity in the activity areas. Unit-specific mitigation measures, PDC’s, and BMP’s can be found in Section 3.1. Soils - Management Direction for Soil Resource Protection Regulatory Framework Several pieces of legislation provide thematic guidance and overarching intent for the protection and enhancement of soil resources when managing Forest Service lands. Region- and Forest-level policies provide specific guidance for how these directives are to be achieved (discussed in sections 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 below). The most relevant Acts are: • The Organic Administration Act of 1897 (16 USC 473-475) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to establish regulations to govern the occupancy and use of National Forests and “…to improve and protect the forests (…) for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States.”

181 UDR Environmental Assessment

• The Bankhead-Jones Act of 1937 authorizes and directs a program of land conservation and land utilization, in order to rehabilitate damaged lands, and thus assist in controlling soil erosion, preserving natural resources, mitigating floods, conserving surface and subsurface moisture, protecting the watersheds of navigable streams, and protecting public lands, health, safety, and welfare. • The Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 mandates that Forest Service and other federal land management agencies should engage in “coordinated mangement of the resources without impairment of the productivity of the land”. • The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act (RPA) of 1974 requires “the maintenance of productivity of the land and the protection and, where appropriate, improvement of the quality of the soil and water resources”. • The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 mandates “environmental protection to ensure timber harvesting will occur only where water quality and fish habitat are adequately protected from serious detriment; ensure clear-cutting and other harvesting will occur only where it may be done in a manner consistent with the protection of soil, watersheds, fish, wildlife, recreation, aesthetic resources and regeneration of the timber resource”. To comply with NFMA, the Chief of the Forest Service has charged each Forest Service Region with developing soil quality standards for detecting soil disturbance and indicating a loss in long-term productive potential. These standards are built in to Forest Plans. Region 6 Soil Quality Standards and Guidelines The objective of the Region 6 Soil Quality Standards and Guidelines (FSM 2500, R6 Supplement 2500.98- 1) is to provide guidance to help meet direction in the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) and other legal mandates. The Regional policy requires that land management activities be planned and implemented so that soil and water quality are maintained or improved. They describe conditions detrimental to soil productivity and outline direction to limit the extent of these conditions to less than 20% of an activity area. Detrimental soil conditions are described in the Soil Quality Standards as follows: • Detrimental compaction in volcanic ash/pumice soils is defined as an increase in soil bulk density of 20% or greater over the undisturbed level. • Detrimental puddling occurs when the depth of ruts or imprints is six inches or greater. • Detrimental displacement is the removal of more than 50 percent of the A horizon from an area greater than 100 square feet and at least five feet in width. • Detrimental burn damage occurs when the mineral soil surface has been substantially changed in color, e.g. oxidized to a reddish color, and the next one-half inch blackened from organic matter charring by heat conducted through the top layer. The area must be greater than 100 square feet and at least five feet in width. • Detrimental surface erosion occurs when visual evidence of surface loss is present in areas greater than 100 square feet, where rills or gullies are present, or where water quality is degraded from sediment or nutrient enrichment. • Detrimental mass wasting is defined as visual evidence of landslides associated with land management activities and/or that degrade water quality. Mass wasting is an uncommon occurrence on the Deschutes National Forest. The Soil Quality Guidelines further specify that organic matter must be maintained in amounts sufficient to provide for short- and long-term nutrient and carbon cycles and to avoid detrimental physical or biological soil conditions; and that soil moisture regimes remain unchanged (except for activities that restore natural water tables). The Soil Quality Standards must be used to guide the selection and design

182 UDR Environmental Assessment

of management practices and prescriptions at the watershed scale. While the standards allow for up to 20% of an activity area to be in a detrimental soil condition after harvest activities, it is expected that the scope and severity of those impacts will not result in an irretrievable commitment of the soil resource— that is, impacts should not result in thresholds being crossed that permanently impair soil productivity or preclude the recovery of productive capacity within reasonable time frames. While system roads and landings are considered part of the permanent infrastructure, skid trails are still considered part of the productive land base and are expected to be left in a productive state or placed on a reasonable trajectory to recovery (internal communication with Regional Soil Scientist). Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan The Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (Deschutes National Forest, 1990) specifies that management activities be prescribed to promote maintenance or enhancement of soil productivity. This is accomplished by following Forest-wide standards and guidelines to ensure that soils are managed to provide sustained yields of managed vegetation without impairment of the productivity or ecosystem functions of the land. Applicable Standards and Guides include: • SL-1: Management activities will be prescribed to promote maintenance or enhancement of soil productivity. The potential for detrimental soil damages will be specifically addressed through project environmental analysis. Alternative management practices will be developed and mitigation measures implemented when activities will result in detrimental soil compaction, puddling, displacement, or soils with severely burned surfaces or those with accelerated erosion. • SL-2: The Forest will have and use appropriate contract and permit language to meet Standards and Guides. • SL-3: Leave a minimum of 80 percent of an activity area in a condition of acceptable productivity potential for trees and other managed vegetation following land management activities. Include all system roads, landings, spur roads, and skid roads or trails to evaluate impacts. Soil monitoring, to include statistical methods, will be required on all sensitive soil areas. • SL-4: Any sites where this direction cannot be met will require rehabilitation. Measures may include tillage, smoothing, fertilizing, or spreading of biologically-rich organic materials. • SL-5: The use of mechanical equipment in sensitive soil areas will be regulated to protect the soil resource. Operations will be restricted to existing roads and trails wherever feasible. • SL-6: In order to minimize soil erosion by water and wind, the following ground cover objectives should be met within the first two years after an activity is completed:

Minimum Percent Effective Ground Cover2 Surface Soil Erosion Potential1 1st year 2nd year Low 20-30 31-45 Moderate 31-45 46-60 High 46-60 61-75 Severe 61-75 76-90 1Erosion potential can be obtained by referencing the Deschutes National Forest Soil Resource Inventory (Larsen 1976)

183 UDR Environmental Assessment

2Effective ground cover includes all living or dead herbaceous or woody materials and rock fragments greater than three-fourths of an inch in diameter in contact with the ground surface. Includes tree or shrub seedlings, grass, forbs, litter, woody biomass, chips, etc. Analysis Methods Soil types within the planning area are mapped in the Deschutes National Forest Soil Resource Inventory (SRI) (Larsen 1976). A broad-scale initial GIS-based analysis was used to identify potentially-sensitive soil types and determine the likely extent of existing detrimental soil condition. Representative units were field-verified, assessed for several potential risks, hazards, and sensitivities, and are summarized in this document. Soil mapping lines were adjusted and updated in some instances. The extent of detrimental soil impacts persisting from previous management activities was characterized via transect sampling and general field observations. All assessments are supported through image interpretation and GIS analysis. Soil properties can vary within a mapping unit and on-site investigations are often required to refine or modify interpretations. The project Soil Scientist has adjusted the management interpretations to reflect the existing and likely ground conditions at the time of activities considering project design criteria (PDCs), mitigation measures, best management practices (BMPs), and operating restrictions, as outlined in Chapter 2. Priority stands were chosen for field evaluation and validation of soil mapping units, slopes, hydrologic characteristics, and other features. Appropriate map changes were made to reflect field observations. With updated and validated soil mapping, pertinent management interpretations should be more accurate and therefore provide high confidence when determining levels of risk. Stands were also chosen based on treatment type and past harvest history for field estimates of existing soil disturbance conditions. Field reconnaissance focused on stands where a mechanical overstory treatment is proposed. Soil disturbance condition was assessed using visual observations on the ground, and quantitative estimates were made using historic air photos, GIS mapping, and LiDAR-derived bare earth models. Field reconnaissance was conducted during the summer and fall of 2015. Five field days were spent investigating site-specific soil conditions and conducting disturbance monitoring. Investigations were focused on potential treatment units and haul routes, and examined landforms, soil types, and site conditions (physical properties, existing disturbance, hydrologic conditions, topography, road conditions, streamcourses, wet areas, and restoration opportunities). Specific harvest and road development concerns associated with the proposed action were examined, including: • seasonal high water tables • displacement and compaction hazard • near-surface rock content and depth to bedrock • surface organic (O horizon) and topsoil (A horizon) thicknesses • surface erosion and delivery potential • unique features such as rock outcrops, wet areas, wetlands, seeps and springs • proximity to riparian areas • potential effects to soil productivity and hydrologic conditions Field notes regarding specific concerns and recommendations were taken. These observations, notes, and maps are available in the Project Files. In general, the field investigations confirmed most of the SRI mapping and characterization of landforms and soils. The proposed actions for each unit (treatment type, road development, operating season)

184 UDR Environmental Assessment

were considered, and used to inform site-specific recommendations, design criteria, mitigations, and best management practices that are included in this report. Affected Environment The UDR WUI project proposes treatment on roughly 4,151 acres lying primarily within the Lapine basin on mixed glacial and volcanic terrain. Forest stand composition varies from nearly pure lodgepole pine to mixed ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine. Project units lie within four different 10th-field watersheds. From north to south they are: North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River (HUC# 1707030104) (encompasses Deschutes River Woods Unit 24; Ryan Ranch Aspen Unit 41; Sunriver units 45-54; and Spring River units 28 and 29), Fall River-Deschutes River (HUC# 1707030103) (encompasses Spring River unit 20; Deschutes River Recreation Homesites/Sundance/River Meadows/Cougar Grove units 10-13, 16-18, 30, 31, 35-39; Foster Road/Forest River Acres units 19, 42, and 44; Fall River Unit 34; Pringle Falls/Wild River units 25-27, and Haner Park unit 21), Lower Little Deschutes River (HUC# 1707030207) (encompasses Lazy River unit 32; Newberry Estates unit 40, Ponderosa Pines unit 3 and parts of units 1, 2, 4, and 5), and Middle Little Deschutes River (HUC# 1707030203) (encompasses parts of Ponderosa Pines units 1, 2, 4, and 5, and all of units 6, 7, 8 and 9). The project area is spread out along a 25-mile-long area starting just north of Lava Butte at the northeast end and ending at Wickiup Dam at the southwest end. One large mowing unit (Unit 40, Newberry Estates) is located east of Highway 97 near La Pine. Climate The climate of the area is characterized by warm, dry summers and cold, wet winters. Data logged at the Wickiup Dam NOAA Cooperative Station (WRCC 2015) shows an average annual precipitation of 21 inches rain equivalent, with much of that falling as snow from November to April. Frost can occur at any time of the year. “Freeze-free” season probabilities are, on average, a 70% chance that there will be 60 consecutive days between last spring and first fall occurrence of a temperature below 32 degrees F. There is a 70% chance that there will be 105 consecutive days between last spring and first fall occurrence of 28 degrees F. Because the project area is located largely in the La Pine basin, cold air draining from the slopes of the Cascades often pools in the low-lying areas and results in freezing temperatures, even during the summer months. Extreme daily fluctuations in temperature and poorly- developed soil profiles result in marginal productivity in some areas. Adequate canopy cover, surface organic matter, and coarse woody debris need to be retained to moderate soil microclimate and improve resiliency. Landforms and Topography The UDR WUI project units lie on glaciovolcanic plains within the Deschutes River drainage system (most units are located in close proximity to Fall River, Spring River, Deschutes River, or Little Deschutes River). While most surface soils are derived from volcanic ash and pumice from the eruption of Mt. Mazama approximately 7,700 years ago and appear fairly homogenous, the underlying materials are varied and complex. The area is essentially a basin lying between the Cascade arc to the west and the Newberry Caldera to the east that was alternately filled with basaltic/andesitic lavas and glaciofluvial materials during the Pleistocene epoch (often referred to as the glacial period, covering the time from approximately 10,000 years to 2.5 million years before present). Overlapping shield volcanoes, buttes, cinder cones, and their expansive lava flows form the basement rocks for the majority of the area. Higher landscape positions are still dominated by these volcanic rocks. Lower-lying areas have been filled in by tens to hundreds of meters of sandy and gravelly outwash material from melting glaciers. The northern-most unit in the project area is located along the north edge of the Lava Butte flow, a young vegetated basaltic lava flow that emanated from Lava Butte around 6,100 years ago (well after

185 UDR Environmental Assessment

the Mt. Mazama eruption). The lava flowed westward and filled in the ancestral Deschutes River channel, damming the river and creating Lake Benham. The lake stretched as much as 30 miles upriver to the present-day site of the La Pine State Recreation Area and may have persisted for 200 years or more before finding an outlet and downcutting through the lava to drain the lake and create the modern Deschutes River channel (Jensen and Chitwood 2000). The slackwater lake areas allowed the accumulation of finer sediments and diatoms that formed the silty-textured, poorly-drained meadow soils found in broad riparian areas that underlie several of the project units (units 20, 28, 29, and 41). A map of landforms and geomorphic surfaces in the project area is shown in Figure 49. General Distribution and Characteristics of Soils The Deschutes National Forest Soil Resource Inventory (SRI) (Larsen, 1976) catalogs the descriptions and distribution of different soils mapped in the project area. They can be grouped into general categories based on parent materials and landform. In general, soils across the project area have developed in relatively young volcanic materials, mostly coarse ash and pumice. Because soils are young, they have undergone little biogeochemical weathering and development. Buried soils that underlie the ash and pumice are associated with glacial outwash, glacial till, andesitic and basaltic lavas, and cindery colluvium. In certain areas along the Deschutes River, finer-textured alluvial and organic soils have accumulated on top of the Mazama ash soils. Table 674 summarizes general soil groups and their relative proportions in the project area. Figures 2-13 in EA Appendix B show maps of the general distribution of soil types in treatment units. Table 81 in EA Appendix B provides a more detailed breakdown of landforms, parent materials, slope ranges, vegetation types, and bedrock types for each of the SRI units mapped in the UDR WUI project area. Table 67 - General Soil Groups and Their Relative Extents in the UDR WUI Project Area Percent of General Soil Group SRI Mapping Units Unit Area Young lavas – little or no soil development 1, LD 0.6% Gravelly alluvium, gentle to moderate slopes 8 0.3% Mixed organics, pumice, and volcanic ash over glacial 43, WF 1.2% outwash, nearly level, poorly drained Organics over mixed volcanics and glacial deposits, gentle 5 1.5% slopes Pumice and volcanic ash over cinders, moderate to steep 81, 82 0.3% slopes Pumice and volcanic ash over glacial outwash, gentle to 41, 44, 45, XH 44.6% moderate slopes Pumice and volcanic ash over glacial outwash, moderate to 35 0.1% steep slopes Pumice and volcanic ash over residual soils on volcanics, 63, 64, 65, 70, 6J, LQ 49.4% gentle to moderate slopes Pumice and volcanic ash over residual soils on volcanics, 68 0.1% moderate to steep slopes

186 UDR Environmental Assessment

Pumice and volcanic ash over mixed glacial and volcanic MN, MP 1.8% materials, gentle to moderate slopes Frost pockets , gentle slopes 15 0.1%

Coarse ash and pumice materials that comprise most surface soils (>97%) in the project area are primarily air-born tephra that was ejected from Mt. Mazama (now Crater Lake) and deposited over a vast area in the Pacific Northwest around 7,700 years ago. On average, depth of the ash and pumice varies from three to five feet, although shallower phases occur on steep slopes and where bedrock is at or near the surface. Mazama-derived surface soils in the project area are non-cohesive (loose) pumiceous loamy sand to sandy loam textures. Bulk density is comparatively low, so they are highly porous and easily worked by fine roots. They are highly permeable, have high infiltration rates, and are generally well-drained. While surface soils are fairly homogeneous across the project area, buried soils and subsurface deposits vary substantially and can dramatically affect the function and capability of a given soil type. About half of the project units are underlain by volcanic materials (mostly basaltic and andesitic lavas of varying ages, but may include some rhyolites and breccias) and the other half of the units are underlain by glacial materials (primarily outwash sands and gravels, but may include some areas of compacted glacial till). For most of the proposed treatment units, soil moisture regimes are xeric (wet winters, but dry for most of the growing season) or aquic (periodically saturated with groundwater) and soil temperature regimes are cryic (staying cold at depth). Buried soils are quite variable, but tend to be coarser-textured and gravelly or rocky. On volcanic landforms, the degree of development and character of the buried soil varies. On older lava plains surfaces, well-developed finer-textured soils may have had adequate time to form prior to Mazama burial. These finer-textured layers may hold plant-available water long into the growing season after the overlying Mazama ash and pumice has dried out. On younger volcanic surfaces, buried soils may be thin and cobbly or may not be present at all. On glacial outwash plains, buried soils tend to be sandy, gravelly, or cobbly and may have stratified layers of various sizes. Permeability is generally very rapid in this material, but if a strong textural contrast exists at the Mazama ash-glacial outwash interface, drainage may be impeded. Glacial outwash is infertile (low water-holding capacity and low nutrient status) so soils with glacial outwash in the rooting zone are often lower productivity land types. Glacial till is uncommon within the project area, generally being found at higher elevations where glacial ice accumulated to tremendous thicknesses and compacted the underlying material. Where underlying glacial till is compacted, permeability in the buried soil may be markedly slower than that of the topsoil. This may be beneficial, as water may be perched in the profile where tree and plant roots can access it for longer into the growing season. Depth of the A horizon (organic matter enriched topsoil) in the Mazama ash averages 2 to 4 inches on lodgepole pine sites and 3 to 6 inches on Ponderosa pine sites. Because the Mazama ash-derived soils are young, A horizons are thin and poorly-developed. Additionally, much of the UDR WUI project area is in a harsh climatic zone where organic matter enrichment occurs at a very slow rate. A horizons are critical for water-holding and nutrient storage and release. Most of the fine root mass is found in the thin A horizon. Depth of undisturbed organic horizons (litter and duff) is variable. On Ponderosa pine sites there is typically about 2 inches of litter over 2 to 3 inches of duff or humus. On lodgepole pine sites organic horizon depths are less on average, with about 1 to 2 inches of litter over 1 to 2 inches of humus (under tree drip lines, depths are often greater). While decomposition of organic layers is slower on the colder lodgepole pine sites, they also tend to produce less litter. The shorter needles of lodgepole pine also

187 UDR Environmental Assessment

pack together more closely and are compressed by snowpack. Litter layers are important for surface soil protection (against wind and water erosion and mechanical impacts), moisture storage and retention, moderation of temperature flux, nutrient cycling, and beneficial microorganism habitat. Maintenance of surface organics is likely the most crucial soil-related objective for protecting long-term soil productivity in the UDR WUI project area. The ash mantled soil groups in the project area provide a number of important ecosystem services. They serve as productive growing media, store and cycle nutrients, provide habitat for beneficial soil macro- and microfauna (including important symbiotic fungal species), filter and store water, moderate hydrologic pulses and heat fluxes, decompose and store organic matter, and support and regenerate forest and understory cover. Sensitivity, resilience, and operational limitations vary across the project area. Some areas are unsuited for timber production or have unique values and characteristics that warrant exclusion of harvest activities. Variations are largely tied to landscape position/slope, elevation, soil depth, climatic conditions, and parent material, and make some soil types more sensitive and less resilient to disturbance. These areas are described in the Sensitive Soil Types section below. Soil and Site Productivity Soil productivity across the Deschutes National Forest is strongly correlated to climatic variables like precipitation (which is strongly correlated with elevation), although topographic position, aspect, soil depth, and subsoil texture are also key factors. Elevation, landscape topography, and average annual precipitation do not vary much within the proposed project area. Elevation increases very gradually from north to south, from about 3,970 feet at the Deschutes River Woods unit by the Lava Butte lava flow to about 4,300 feet at the Haner Park unit by Wickiup Dam. Similarly, modeled average annual precipitation increases north to south from about 15 inches to about 22 inches (PRISM Climate Group 2010). The NOAA Cooperative Station data from Wickiup Dam shows an average annual precipitation of 20.7 inches for the period 1941 to 2015 (WRCC 2015). Soil productivity across the vast majority (96%) of the area is considered to be moderate. Moderate productivity areas consist of gently to moderately sloping glacial outwash plains and lava plains and steep south-facing slopes of cinder cones. In these areas, precipitation is adequate to supply growing vegetation and soil depth is generally favorable for storing water available for uptake. However, coarse pumice soils also tend to dry out in mid to late summer, limiting the amount of soil-water available for uptake later in the growing season. South- facing and steeply-sloping aspects dry out more quickly. Productivity and capability of some soil types (43, WF) may be limited by a fluctuating water table where saturated conditions exclude many types of forest vegetation during certain parts of the year, but do not persist long enough to support hydrophytic vegetation. Lodgepole pine and assemblages of forbs and sedges tend to dominate on soil types with fluctuating water tables. Sites expressing the highest productivity are located primarily on riparian meadow soils, north-facing aspects of buttes and cinder cones, and lava plains with mixed conifer communities and buried residual soils derived from basaltic lavas. Riparian soil types (SRIs 5 and 8, present in units 20, 23, 28, 29, 34, 41, and 44) are generally finer-textured (often silt loams and loams) because they receive periodic influxes of fine sediment from flooding of the riparian area. Finer-textured soils hold more plant-available water for longer periods. These soils are also enriched in organic matter from below-ground root inputs, litter fall, and water deposited materials. Soils are often Histosols or have Histic epipedons (meaning that the upper portion of the soil is made up primarily of decomposing organic materials). This organic matter holds water, improves soil structure, provides for nutrient supply and storage, and provides a substrate for soil microorganisms. These are generally non-forested areas, though water-loving hardwood species such as aspen, willow, cottonwood and alder are often present on microsites. Encroaching lodgepole pine and occasional spruce may also be present. Complex understory assemblages of shrubs, grasses,

188 UDR Environmental Assessment

and forbs are present, and wet meadows and their perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral drainageways serve as important habitat for many vertebrate, invertebrate and microfaunal species. Wet meadows are considered sensitive landtypes. Mechanical overstory and fuels treatments are not proposed on much of the area falling within the highest productivity ratings due to wetland buffer requirements, steep slopes that preclude the use of ground-based equipment, and soil displacement/erosion hazards. Sites exhibiting the lowest productivity (low to very low ratings in the SRI) comprise a tiny fraction of the total project area and are found on recent lava flows and in frost pockets (SRIs 1, LD, and 15, found in small portions of units 24, 34, and 45). Recent lava flows, depending on age, may be barren of trees or may have thin to discontinuous soil layers formed from Mazama ash and pumice and support low- density timber stands. These landtypes have very poor soil productivity because of low soil volume, droughty conditions, and low nutrient status. They are generally considered to be inoperable and are not managed as part of the suitable land base for timber production. One frost pocket occurs in the southwest corner of unit 45. Frost pocket sites are low-lying areas where cold air drains and pools, creating inhospitable microclimates for seedlings. Frost-heaving of seedlings limits natural regeneration success. These sites generally have coarse pumice soils and sparse surface organic layers. They are considered sensitive soil types. The degree of susceptibility to surface erosion, compaction, and displacement depends largely on landscape position, continuity of organic matter, and moisture status. Depending on the slope steepness, the inherent surface erosion potential of ash-mantled soils is low to moderate. This is primarily attributed to their sandy textures, high permeability and infiltration rate, and dominant gentle terrain. The susceptibility to compaction is also low to moderate, primarily due to low bulk density and the coarse textures. Well-developed organic horizons also buffer mechanical impacts and limit compaction when few passes are made. There is also a degree of natural compaction recovery over time due to freeze-thaw action, root penetration, and the activity of soil fauna. Susceptibility to displacement is moderate to high depending on moisture status and slope. When dry, poorly-coherent ash and pumice is easily displaced by ground disturbance, particularly on steep slopes. Cinder soils are particularly susceptible to displacement. Site productivity, timber suitability, erosion hazard, susceptibility to compaction and displacement, expected impacts from ground-based logging, and limitations for natural regeneration for all SRI units occurring in the UDR WUI project area are summarized in Table 82 in the Appendix. Sensitive Soil Types Certain soil types in the planning area are considered sensitive soil types. Sensitivity is a measure of both a soil’s resistance, or degree of response to disturbance, and its resilience, or ability to recover after disturbance. On sensitive soil types, the magnitude of impairment resulting from treatment impacts may be greater and expected recovery rates may be slower. If it is expected that healthy soil function may be diminished after disturbance, protection or restoration actions may be warranted when planning landscape treatments. The Deschutes National Forest LRMP (1990) provides guidance on soil types that must be considered sensitive in the planning process (Soil Report, Appendix 14, Objective 5, p. Appendix 14-2). Criteria for sensitive soils include: slopes over 30%, frost pockets, seasonal or year- long high water tables, fine sandy loam or finer surface textures that will compact, extremely rocky soils, and/or high or extreme erosion hazard ratings. Sensitive soil types in the UDR WUI project area are shown as stippled overlays in the unit soil maps (Figures 2 to 13) in EA Appendix B and are cataloged in 65 below.

189 UDR Environmental Assessment

Table 68 - Sensitive Soil Types in the UDR WUI Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project Area Treatment Total Acres Unit(s) Where in Project SRI Unit Description Concern Present Area (% of Project Area) 1 Barren lava flows No soil present 24 5.1 (<1%) High water tables; unsuited 20, 23, 28, 29, 5 Wet meadows 61.5 (1.5%) for timber production 41, 44 High water tables, subject to 8 Bottomlands 34 12.9 (<1%) period flooding/washing High frost hazard limits 15 Lodgepole basins 45 5.4 (<1%) regeneration success South aspects of Some slopes >30%; high steep slopes on 35 displacement hazard, high 40 4.9 (<1%) outwash sands and surface soil temperatures gravels Nearly level glacial High water tables, spring outwash plains, 43 surface flooding ; high 21 0.6 (<<1%) commonly near puddling/rutting hazard drainages Steeply sloping single Slopes >30%, high 68 slopes on lava domes 37, 39 3.0 (<1%) displacement hazard and lava ridges Slopes >30%, high Cinder cones, south 81 displacement hazard, 24 0.5 (<<1%) aspects droughty south aspects Cinder cones, north Slopes >30%, high 82 7, 9 7.7 (<1%) aspects displacement hazard LD (complex Barren lava flows and Forested lavas with minimal of SRIs 1 and flows with low 34 22.4 (<1%) soil present 76) density timber WF (complex Nearly level glacial High water tables, high 10, 11, 14, 16, of SRIs 44, 43 outwash plains and 50.1 (1.2%) puddling/rutting hazard 17, 18, 19, 42 and 5)* wet meadows Slopes over 30% not Miscellaneous areas falling within High displacement and where slope exceeds None 0 (0%) another erosion hazard 30 percent sensitive SRI Unit** 174.1 TOTAL ------(4.2%)

SRI Units 1 and LD consist of barren to sparsely-forested lava flows. SRI Unit 1 is comprised of flows that were emplaced after the eruption of Mt. Mazama, so they lack an ash/pumice soil cover. Residual soils have not had time to form on the basaltic lavas. Small pockets of wind-deposited material are the only

190 UDR Environmental Assessment

areas of “soil” where the occasional plant may establish (mostly shrubs, forbs and grasses). SRI Unit 1 is not suited for timber production and is not included in the productive land base for the forest. SRI LD, in addition to the barren flows just described, also includes areas of older, broken lavas with a pumice and volcanic ash soil covering. Low-density ponderosa pine or lodgepole pine is present. This landtype presents severe limitations for machinery and is sensitive to trafficking because soil pockets are disproportionately impacted by machinery. SRI Units 5 and 8 consist of wet meadows and bottomlands which are often located adjacent to streams or rivers, in wet depressions or wet meadows, and around seeps. These areas may exhibit wet conditions at our near the soil surface during all or only part of the year. These soils are extremely sensitive when trafficked. Wet soils compact more readily, and this compaction and reduction in pore space may shift soil moisture regimes and lead to changes in site hydrologic function. Rutting and displacement of surface organics and topsoil degrades site capability. Recovery times are generally slower than at drier sites due to decreased faunal activity, decreased freeze-thaw activity, and shift in vegetation composition when pore space decreases and moisture regimes change. These areas are generally excluded from harvest using ground-based machinery or require specific protections (e.g., operating on slash mats or operating over snow/frozen ground). One lodgepole basin (SRI 15) is mapped just to the south of unit 45, and it extends into the unit in a couple of places. These areas are locally referred to as “frost pockets” because they occur in cold air drainageways at landscape positions were cold air pools. Coarse, pumiceous soils with very little organic matter readily transmit cold air deep into the profile, so there is little buffering capability to shield plant roots from harsh climatic conditions. Seedlings are often frost-heaved, so regeneration potential is very low, and these are considered marginal sites for timber production. Their lack of organic matter means that they have little protection against mechanical disturbances, and their inherent fertility is very low. Additional ground protection is warranted in these areas, and large soil disturbances such as logging landings are generally avoided in frost pockets since soils are poorly-resilient. SRI 35 is comprised of south-facing aspects of steep, smooth to slightly dissected slopes on outwash sands and gravels. Slopes are often greater than 30%, so erosion and displacement hazards are greater. A buried layer of nutrient-poor glacial outwash sands and gravels, which may be compacted, is often encountered within 20 inches of the soil surface. South-facing aspects, especially on marginal soil types, tend to be droughty and experience extreme temperature fluctuations. This landtype only occurs as a 5- acre delineation in Unit 40 (proposed for mowing treatment only). Since mowers cannot safely operate on steep slopes, this sensitive area will be avoided. SRI 43 is comprised of nearly level glacial outwash plains where a water table is typically present within two feet of the soil surface. High water tables often limit the ability to operate heavy machinery without causing soil damage (displacement and rutting). However, water tables often drop during the summer to levels that allow machinery to operate without unacceptable impacts. A small delineation of SRI 43 is present in Unit 21 (Haner Park). SRI Unit WF, a complex of 43, 44 (not sensitive), and 5 (also sensitive, described above), is mapped in units 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 42. Project design features will limit heavy machinery on this soil type under conditions where soil damage may occur. In most instances, work will be conducted by hand. SRI 68 is listed as a potentially sensitive soil type because it is mapped on slopes that often exceed 30%. Units 37, 38 and 39 have small amounts of SRI 68 mapped within them where they border Anns Butte. Heavy equipment will be restricted to slopes less than 30%. SRIs 81 and 82 consist of cinder cone slopes that extend into project units. They are comprised of coarse cinders or of mixed ash and cindery colluvium. Soils are noncohesive and loose, and are

191 UDR Environmental Assessment

therefore extremely susceptible to displacement. Their coarse texture and discontinuous organic layers make them quite droughty, particularly on south- and west-facing aspects where snowpacks are less persistent. This, combined with the low inherent fertility, gives them a very low to marginal capability for timber production. Slopes greater than 60% are susceptible to soil creep, a slow form of mass wasting where soil “creeps” downhill due to gravitational drag. Soil creep is exacerbated by loss of vegetative cover and soil organic matter removal. Recovery of inherent productivity after disturbance is expected to be prolonged. Slopes on cinder cones often exceed 30%, and they are generally excluded from mechanical treatment. Existing Soil Conditions Soil quality is the capacity of a specific kind of soil to function, within natural or managed ecosystem boundaries, to sustain plant and animal productivity, maintain or enhance water and air quality, and support human health and habitation (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2012). Many soil properties that drive soil quality are dynamic—they can change in space and time depending on how a soil is managed. Management choices can affect soil organic matter quantity, continuity and rate of decomposition, soil structure, soil depth, infiltration rates, and water and nutrient holding capacity. Soils respond differently to management depending on both the static and dynamic properties of the soil and the landscape setting. Historical Forest Management and Resulting Ground Conditions Ground disturbing activities have the potential to cause detrimental soil conditions and adversely affect the long-term productivity of a site. Previous management activities have affected soil quality in portions of the UDR WUI project area. Much of the area was clearcut beginning in the 1930s, while more recent management has focused on forest health and hazardous fuels reduction. Table 84 in the Appendix provides a list of activities recorded in the Forest Activities (FACTS) Database, an agency- maintained geospatial record of land management activities occurring on Forest Service lands. Project area-specific queries can be displayed in GIS and examined for overlap with proposed units. The Klak EA, Dilman EA, Fall EA, and Myst CE are all recent projects that have resulted in ground-disturbing forest management activities in the UDR WUI project area. A combination of FACTS database records, LiDAR analysis, and field investigations were required to determine which units were previously harvested (see Figure 82 in the Appendix for an example of a previously-harvested unit where skid trails are clearly visible on the LiDAR hillshade model). In addition to ground-based mechanical logging, many other management activities have occurred for decades and contribute to overall soil quality and condition: prescribed burning, fuels reduction treatments, reforestation and plantation establishment, construction and continued use and improvement of roads, trail and campground development, slash pile burning, firewood cutting, and off-highway vehicle use. All of these activities result in ground disturbance, a portion of which considered detrimental. Where disturbances (system roads, skid trails, recreational trails, etc.) were clearly visible on the LiDAR-derived bare earth hillshade model, the features were digitized and estimated areas calculated. This acreage was used as the lower limit for disturbance estimates, with final estimates factoring in recorded harvest history and on-the-ground observations. Prior to the 1980s, soil quality standards, best management practices (BMPs), and mitigation measures either didn’t exist or were less robust for limiting and containing detrimental soil impacts than they are today. The degree of ground disturbance was most often greater than what is acceptable by modern standards. The majority of historic harvests were partial removal and regeneration prescriptions that caused more soil disturbance than modern thinning prescriptions both because the volume removed was greater and because equipment usage was more intensive throughout the harvest area. Forest- wide monitoring data has shown that historic intermediate harvest prescriptions (e.g. selection cut,

192 UDR Environmental Assessment partial overstory removal) generally resulted in 20-25% detrimental soil conditions. Regeneration harvest prescriptions (e.g. shelterwood, overstory removal) cause slightly more detrimental soil conditions (25-30%), while thinning prescriptions result in less (15-20%). Because not all previously- impacted trails and landings can be reused (due to emerging resource concerns or because of stand changes), successive thinning entries are expected to result in an increase in detrimental soil conditions of 5-10%. Natural recovery from historic impacts has occurred to varying degrees depending on the inherent productivity and resilience of the sites, but residual impacts remain and are detectable in all of the previously harvested stands. Forest-wide monitoring has shown detrimental soil conditions most commonly associated with timber harvest and plantation establishment include heavy compaction, displacement of topsoil, excessive removal of organic materials, mixing of soil horizons, and a minor degree of severely burned soils (for definitions see Forest Service Handbook, section 2520.8-1, 1998). Heavy compaction and displacement were nearly always observed where there were old roads, landings, primary skid trails, recreational trails, or where repeated passes of heavy equipment had occurred. Severely scorched soils were occasionally observed on landings where slash was burned. Assessment of the extent of detrimental soil conditions resulting from historic timber harvest and other ground disturbing activities was a multi-step process. LiDAR-derived hillshade data, aerial photos, and activity records from the Forest Service geospatial database were overlaid with proposed treatment units and examined to identify previous harvest activity. In many instances, LiDAR hillshade signatures or on-the-ground observations of stumps, skid trails, and other disturbance provide evidence of previous harvest though no FACTS record exists. Several of these previously-harvested stands were selected, and visible skidding and road networks were digitized in GIS. Assuming a 12-foot width for skid trails and a 12- to 15-foot width for local forest system roads, and adding a three percent adjustment to total areal values to account for landings and other impacts not visible on aerial photos or LiDAR, the total area of detrimental soil impacts was estimated for each unit. See Error! Reference source not found. in the Appendix for an illustration of how LiDAR was used to estimate existing DSC for previously- harvested stands. Selected stands were visited for ground verification via transect sampling or ocular estimates. A table showing all treatment units with current and predicted estimates of detrimental soil conditions is provided in Table 85 in the Appendix. Soil quality has been degraded where detrimental soil conditions persist, and long-term site productivity is diminished on those sites. The consequences may include diminished tree growth, altered organic matter turnover cycles, degraded habitat for soil macro- and microfauna, and potential impacts to hydrologic regimes. Roads that are part of the official travel network (i.e. system roads) have been converted to a non-forest status. Other sites such as trails, non-system/user-created roads, unrestored landings, and primary skid trails will remain heavily compacted and recovery will be prolonged. Detrimental impacts are also long-lasting where they have occurred on poorly-resilient sensitive soil types. Restoration techniques, including road obliteration, subsoiling, or addition of organic-rich substrates, may be implemented to improve soil conditions where the extent of detrimental soil condition post-treatment exceeds 20% of the unit’s area (as mandated by the Deschutes LRMP, SL-4). Soil Erosion Potential Surface erosion potential is inherently low across the majority of the project area (about 83% of the total acres), except on some steeper slopes on cinder cones, buttes and moraines (SRIs 35, 68, 81 and 82, found in small areas of units 7, 9, 24, 37, 38 and 39), on moderately-sloping lava plains and glacial outwash plains (SRIs 43, 63, 64, 65, LQ, MN, and MP, found in varying amounts in units 7, 9, 21, 23, 24, 34, 35, 38, 39, and 45 through 53), and along some drainageways (SRI 8, found in unit 34) where it is rated as low-moderate or moderate. In previously harvested areas, erosion rates have not accelerated to a noteworthy degree due to this past activity. Natural re-establishment of grasses, forbs, and brush,

193 UDR Environmental Assessment

along with stand regeneration and reforestation, has provided effective ground cover. The coarse- textured soil types have very rapid infiltration rates. Accelerated erosion is occurring on certain sloped road segments where runoff is concentrated and drainage features are absent or not functioning properly. Occasional small gullies have formed and cut bank ravel is observable in some instances. Segments are located on both collector and secondary spur routes. In nearly every circumstance there is little risk of sediment delivery to any surface water feature, and required maintenance/improvement of drainage structures (water bars, drain dips, outsloping/crowning, rock surfacing) will correct erosion issues. Erosion control and road maintenance on access and haul routes are included in project design features and best management practices. Within treatment units, continuous surface organics and sufficient coarse woody debris are essential for dissipating energy from raindrop impact and runoff and preventing surface soil erosion within units. Project design features that require adequate maintenance of surface organics and limit machine travel on steeper slopes will adequately protect soils from increased erosion. Surface Organics and Coarse Woody Debris The amount and distribution of downed coarse woody debris (CWD) has been affected by past forest management activities and by insect and disease cycles. Lower-elevation ponderosa pine stands historically had very little CWD and litter accumulation, likely because of repeated, low-intensity fires that burned much of the forest floor, consumed down wood, and killed small trees. Lodgepole pine stands experienced longer fire return intervals and likely built up greater amounts of CWD between major fires as a result of cyclical pathogen and insect attacks. CWD, even in limited amounts, plays many important roles. It is crucial for retaining moisture and moderating soil temperature. It serves as a long-term reservoir for nutrients. It provides surface roughness and complexity that disrupts surface flow and minimizes erosion. It creates microsites that support vegetative diversity. It also provides habitat for a diverse array of fungi and macro-/micro-invertebrates that improve soil structure and quality, cycle organic carbon, and facilitate nutrient cycling. However, existing CWD amounts are often much higher than what is optimal from a fuels treatment and fire protection standpoint. It is crucial to evaluate the ecosystem services afforded by ample CWD against the need to decrease fuels to acceptable levels, particularly in the wildland urban interface, where public health and safety are driving concerns. Quantities of CWD are currently sufficient throughout the project area, and in some areas (particularly lodgepole pine stands) are quite high due to stand disturbance (insect and disease mortality, wind events, etc). The proposed treatments will retain the amount of CWD necessary to meet Deschutes LRMP standards while minimizing the threat from wildfire. There are sufficient quantities of existing and future CWD to contribute to soil function and quality across the entire project area, and while amounts will be reduced through piling and underburning in many areas, recruitment from standing residual trees will recur and serve as a future source. While there is not a soils-specific S&G for CWD, the Deschutes LRMP S&G SL-6 (Effective Ground Cover and Surface Soil Erosion Standard), which can be met through CWD and finer surface organics, should be easily met throughout the majority of the project area. Wildlife resource Standards and Guides that speak to CWD recruitment and maintenance are considered sufficient for soils productivity concerns (requiring 15-20 pieces per acre of 8-inch diameter/8-foot length for lodgepole pine areas and 3-6 pieces per acre of 12-inch diameter/6-foot length for ponderosa pine areas). Soil Resource Protection Protecting and conserving soil resources is a crucial long-term objective when managing National Forests. At a national level, direction has been in place for decades in Forest Service Manual 2550 that, depending on the Region, translates into specific standards and guidelines that are defined in the Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) of individual National Forests. Generally, these objectives are

194 UDR Environmental Assessment

aimed at maintaining or enhancing long-term site productivity so that the inherent capability and function of soil resources to support forest or range plant communities and provide for ecosystem services (ex. nutrient cycling or water storage) is enduring. National level policy, Region 6 guidance, and Deschutes National Forest LRMP standards and guides are summarized above. At smaller scales, achieving these objectives requires standard practices that are implemented at the project level when activities are taking place. Referred to as Best Management Practices (BMPs), these are typically standard operating procedures intended to either avoid or minimize unwanted impacts (e.g., detrimental soil disturbance, soil erosion, and sediment contribution to surface water). They may become even more refined at the site level, where project design criteria (PDCs) are tailored to particular conditions and specific features of the local landscape. Broad-scale conservation objectives and site-level design and protection measures are intended to contain the extent and severity of detrimental soil impacts that can occur as a result of ground disturbing activities. Together these are the principle means for protecting and conserving soil resources so that long-term site productivity is assured. Environmental Consequences This analysis evaluates impacts to soil resources that could be expected as a result of either implementing or not implementing proposed forest management activities in the UDR WUI project Area. Activities analyzed include those associated with mechanical thinning treatments in the forest overstory and understory, hand treatments in the forest understory, mastication and mowing treatments for fuels reduction, and prescribed underburning. The purpose of the proposed treatment is to promote conditions where, in the event of a wildfire, firefighters will have a favorable operating environment to perform suppression work, and members of the local communities can safely evacuate. As recommended by the Community Wildfire Protection Plans, the goal is to reduce surface, ladder, and canopy fuels and to interrupt fuel continuity so that surface flame lengths would not exceed four feet and active crown fire would not result under hot, dry, and windy fire weather conditions. Other activities analyzed here include road maintenance and reconstruction, temporary road construction, and riparian enhancement/meadow restoration activities. Connected actions that may be ongoing in the project area are also considered. Findings predict the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects based upon scientific analysis, relevant research, professional judgment, and well-established cause-and-effect relationships between natural resource management and soil response on the Deschutes National Forest. Methodology and Assumptions Analysis of the anticipated effects to soil resources was conducted using a methodology with both qualitative and quantitative components. Quantitative estimates of extent of detrimental soil conditions were derived using sampling data, field reconnaissance, GIS analysis, and aerial photo and LiDAR bare earth hillshade interpretation. Effects to soil quality were determined qualitatively based upon best available science regarding management-induced changes to physical and biological properties and professional judgment regarding the sensitivity and resilience of local soils to these disturbances. Considering both the quantitative extent of detrimental soil conditions and the qualitative assessment of expected response to disturbance allowed prediction of the potential effects to soil quality. Generally, thinning of dense stands is considered a means of enhancing the dynamic productivity of a site. In overstocked stands, soil water, nutrients, growing space, and light are at a premium. Tree growth is slowed measurably by competition for these resources. Thinning dense stands can improve a site’s growing environment and enhance the availability of soil resources for the remaining vegetation (Busse et al. 1996; Busse et al. 2009; Busse and Riegel 2005; Oliver and Larson 1996). If the extent of

195 UDR Environmental Assessment

detrimental soil conditions that result from ground-based mechanical treatments is kept to a minimum, thinning could benefit long-term site productivity. However, thinning is not considered an ameliorative treatment that is expressly used to mitigate or offset the extent of detrimental soil conditions caused by ground disturbance from heavy equipment. The gains in dynamic site productivity must be balanced against losses from soil compaction, erosion, displacement, and organic matter removal, all of which are explained in the context of proposed activities below. Expected Soil Impacts from Harvesting Thinning treatments would consist of mechanized cutting and skidding of logs and would require a landing and skid trail network. In certain units, temporary roads would be needed for access and material removal. Some units will have thinning accomplished through hand work (due to small material size, resource concerns, or logistical constraints). In most cases, mechanical thinning would be followed by ladder fuels reduction treatment to remove small-diameter, non-commercial trees. The ladder fuels reduction treatment could be accomplished at the same time as the commercial harvest, or occur later as either a mechanical or hand treatment as stand conditions dictate. When combined, these harvest and understory treatments carry a great potential for direct effects to soil resources. If fuel loadings are in excess of Forest Plan Standards and Guides after harvest and understory treatments are completed, additional fuels treatments will be implemented. Treatments may include machine or hand piling, pile burning, yarding to landings for utilization, mowing, or mastication. Machine traffic may affect soil properties in a variety of ways. Because Mazama ash/pumice soils are highly porous, low in bulk density, low in organic matter, non-plastic, and have low shear strength, they are highly susceptible to compaction (Parker, Maguire and Marshall 2007). Compaction occurs when compressional and vibrational energy is exerted on the soil and rearranges soil particles. In compacted soils, pore space is decreased, pore size distribution changes, and bulk density and resistance to penetration increase. While numerous studies of volcanic ash cap soils show that mechanical harvest impacts result in increased bulk density and soil strength values, these post-harvest values are still often well below pre-harvest values for other soil types (Johnson, Page-Dumroese and Han 2007). Recovery times in ash-cap soils are shown to be slow, but more studies are needed to show whether, to what extent, and at what thresholds these compaction-induced changes impact long-term site productivity (2007). A unique property of pumice soils is their tendency for soil particles to bridge, or interlock, when compacted (Cochran 1971). The result is an increase in soil strength, which can negatively affect root elongation. In general, 2,000 kPa is believed to be the soil strength threshold at which root growth is measurably affected, and above 3,000 kPa root growth largely ceases (Greacen and Sands 1980). Monitoring on the Deschutes National Forest has found near-surface soil strength readings in the 2,500 to 3,500 kPa range on primary skid trails and landings (Craigg 1997; Craigg 2000; Hash 2011). Subsoiling may be an appropriate treatment to ameliorate compaction on the skidding network, particularly in treatment units where the overall extent of detrimental conditions is high. Displacement is another type of soil impact that occurs when surface organics and topsoil are removed by heavy equipment pivoting, maneuvering, or sliding during sidehill travel. Displacement is important for several reasons. Central Oregon soils are young, poorly developed, and have thin A (topsoil) horizons. The Lapine series, a soil type common in the project area, has only a 2- to 4-inch A horizon and is inherently low in fertility. For most soil types, the majority of the total nitrogen in the profile is associated with the A horizon (Dyrness and Youngberg 1966; Youngberg and Dyrness 1963). It is reasonable to assume that this is true for most other macro- and micronutrients as well. Overall nutrient capital and its distribution within forest stands are inextricably tied to organic layers and topsoil horizons. Surface organics are also crucial for water-holding capacity and water flux, and it is commonly asserted that stressed stands are more susceptible to insect attack and disease. While mountain pine

196 UDR Environmental Assessment

beetle infestation and mortality is tied to forest stand composition and insect population dynamics, recent studies have found that certain landscape positions where water availability is lower are more likely to show the effects of mountain pine beetle infestation (Kaiser, McGlynn and Emanuel 2013). This supports the notion that soil protection and organic matter management should be a key consideration in treatments geared toward stand resiliency. Results from the 15-year Black Bark Study, undertaken by the Deschutes National Forest and the Pacific Northwest Research Station, suggested that most chemical and biological soil quality indicators were not affected by thinning treatments, while tree vigor and wildlife browse production increased substantially (Busse and Riegel 2005). This work suggests that vegetation management activities in central Oregon pumice soils should focus on conservation of nutrient pools (i.e., organic matter), since soil-plant relationships are controlled by moisture limitations and nutrient supply. Machine operations during saturated conditions may result in rutting and detrimental puddling damage. When soils are saturated, water presses outward on pore walls, resulting in loss of cohesion and bearing strength. Machines will sink deeply, displacing liquefied soil and destroying soil structure. Smearing of the soil surface often results, which compacts the soil, reducing pore space and severely limiting infiltration capacity. Overland flow and erosion risk are elevated, and seeds cannot take hold nor can germinating seedlings break through the crust that is formed. On well-drained Mazama ash soils, the risk of rutting and puddling is generally limited to the time during and immediately after heavy precipitation events, and is greatest on temp roads, skid trails and landings where machine traffic is heaviest. Rutting damage within a harvest unit is generally a trigger for shutdown of operations until conditions improve. On the well- to excessively-drained coarse textured soils present in the majority of the project area, soils generally dry out enough to allow for mechanical operations within a few hours to a couple of days after a heavy rain event. Riparian areas and units with seasonal high water tables are at elevated risk of rutting and puddling damage from normal harvest operations because they tend to be finer-textured, holding water in the soil profile for longer periods of time, and may be poorly drained with a water table fluctuating from below. Even when upland areas are dry, persistent wetness in these areas may result in puddling damage. Machinery is generally excluded from poorly-drained soils, though operations may be possible during drier times of the year or with other avoidance measures in place (operations over deep snowpack, over six inches of frozen ground, or over a thick and continuous slash mat). Expected Soil Impacts from Fuels Treatments Machine piling is generally accomplished with a boom-mounted grapple head on a tracked machine (usually an excavator). If machines must leave primary skid trails to accomplish piling objectives, additional DSC in the form of compaction and displacement may be incurred. Where objectives can be accomplished from the existing skidding network, impacts are substantially less (generally no increase in detrimental soil conditions beyond that incurred from harvest). A certain amount of detrimental burn damage results from burning machine piles, but the net increase in detrimental soil conditions can be minimized by piling on skid trails and other previously-disturbed surfaces. While overall amounts of DSC may not increase much with pile burning, the resulting impacts may be greater and the sites may take much longer to recover than if they were only trafficked. Temperatures immediately under piles, especially those with large fuels, may approach 500°C (Shea 1993; Massman and Frank 2004), which results in total consumption of organic matter, increase in nutrient availability, loss of soil structure and aggregate stability, and microbial and ectomycorrhizal fungi death (Busse, Hubbert, and Moghaddas 2014, p. 27). The size of wood incorporated into the piles has a greater effect on the magnitude, duration and penetration of the heat pulse than pile size does (Busse, Shestak and Hubbert 2013). It has long been recognized that areas where large slash piles were burned may revegetate with grasses and

197 UDR Environmental Assessment

forbs, but often remain treeless for decades. The causes of this are not well understood (Miller et al. 2015). Project design features are included to minimize impacts from machine piling and burning. For the UDR WUI project, units identified for mowing/maintenance mowing treatment may be treated with a traditional deck mower on a tractor OR with masticating equipment. While the outcome is similar from a fuels rearrangement perspective, the potential soil impacts can be quite different. Ground disturbance from mechanically mowing brush is generally anticipated to be negligible. Tractors with deck mowers are usually relatively light-weight and have either small rubber tracks or overinflated agricultural tractor tires with low ground pressures. When operating, mowers work in long, linear swaths and generally pass over a piece of ground only once to mow it. Their low ground pressure coupled with few passes results in minimal ground disturbance. Mastication may be accomplished using a tracked excavator with a boom-mounted masticating head or with a rigid-mounted drum masticator attachment on the front of a tracked or rubber tired machine. Ground impacts, especially soil displacement, may be much greater with mastication than with mowing. Rigid-mounted drum masticators result in the greatest amount of soil impact because they must travel directly to every section of ground to be treated, and typically do more pivoting and turning. Because the masticator is attached to the front of the equipment and often requires maneuvering, lifting, and lowering, direct and shear forces exerted by the machine on the soil are greater and typically result in more soil displacement and compaction. In addition, care must be taken to keep the masticating head above the soil surface to avoid detrimental soil mixing and churning. Mastication using a boom-mounted masticating head mounted on a tracked excavator has the potential to cause much less soil damage, because the full boom reach of the machine can be used to accomplish treatment, allowing travel corridors to be more widely spaced. In many instances, the majority of treatment can be accomplished from preexisting skid trails, avoiding the need for additional soil disturbance. It is possible (though not proven) that resulting masticated residues can have a beneficial effect on soils in the form of increased moisture retention, reduction in soil heating, and long-term retention of nutrients. There are few, if any, studies that directly examine mastication impacts on soil resources, so interpretations and recommendations are based largely on personal observations, local monitoring data, and professional judgment of the soil scientist. Regardless of the machinery type and approach used, skilled operators, careful contract administration oversight, and adherence to PDC’s are necessary to minimize soil displacement and contain impacts. Prescribed underburns usually do not increase amounts of detrimental soil conditions because carefully planned ignitions generally only burn with light to moderate intensity and do not result in meaningful changes to the soil’s inherent capability and function. Soil is a poor conductor of heat, and when burning occurs under moist conditions duff is not fully consumed, fine roots survive, soil carbon and organic matter losses are minimal, impacts to microbial communities are short in duration, and nutrient status is not substantially shifted (Busse, Hubbert and Moghaddas 2014, p. 20). While it is difficult to predict depth and degree of heat transfer in soils which are, by nature, heterogeneous, Shea (1993) found that temperatures from underburns in young ponderosa pine stands on the Deschutes National Forest seldom exceeded 100 degrees Celsius just below the soil surface, even with relatively heavy fuel loads. This heat pulse is quite variable, since prescribed burns form a mosaic of occurrence and intensity on the landscapes where they’re used. In general, burning fine fuels when soils are moist results in low heat residence times, nonlethal soil temperatures, and little or no detrimental heat damage (Busse, Hubbert and Moghaddas 2014, p. 26). This sequence of operations can take years to complete. If noncommercial trees are removed and slash and/or excess fuels treated mechanically, a stand may be subject to multiple machine entries in a sequence. Ground disturbance may be widespread and notable increases in the extent of detrimental

198 UDR Environmental Assessment

soil conditions can be expected. When successive mechanized treatments are planned, mitigation measures, BMPs and action-specific design criteria are usually necessary to contain detrimental soil conditions. Previously-harvested stands may still have persistent detrimental soil conditions resulting from decades-old impacts. For management sequences that involve multiple machine entries in these stands, maintaining or improving soil quality often requires amelioration of detrimental soil impacts afterward. Expected Soil Impacts from Wildfire One of the main objectives of the UDR WUI project is to reduce stand density and fuel continuity to protect values at risk from wildfire. It is important to consider the effects that high severity wildfire could have on the soil resource if the project were not implemented. Effects from the combination of thinning and fuels treatments are trade-offs for the effects that could result if wildfire were to burn in dense stands where fire has been excluded. In the dense stands with large amounts of dead and down wood, wildfire could cause prolonged and intense heating, resulting in substantial impacts to short- and long-term productivity and function. Heavy downed wood accumulations (roughly 27 tons per acre) have been found to produce temperatures lethal to roots, seeds, and many microorganisms (>60°C) over one-fourth of the burned landscape in dry eastside forests (Monsanto and Agee 2008). Even though soils are not truly sterilized by high severity fire, notable shifts in microbial abundance and diversity occur, and recolonization is poorly understood (Hebel et al. 2009). Nutrient pools and availability are closely linked to key microbial communities, since most nutrient cycles are microbially- mediated processes. If certain species are reduced or eliminated, nutrients may exist on-site but be unavailable for plant uptake. Nutrient losses from combustion/volatilization and from surface soil erosion may be one of the biggest threats to post-fire soil productivity. Severely burned soils on the B&B complex, which burned in 2003 on the Willamette and Deschutes National Forests, contained approximately 70% less total carbon, total nitrogen, and plant-available phosphorus than less severely burned adjacent sites (2009). Data collected from PNW Long Term Ecosystem Productivity plots after the 2002 Biscuit fire in southern Oregon also showed substantial decreases in soil nutrient pools. Full consumption of the O horizon and partial loss of the A horizon resulted in removal of 65% of the carbon and 60% of the nitrogen in the upper soil profile (Homann et al. 2011). These figures are meaningful because most forests are nitrogen-limited and are extremely tight systems when it comes to nutrient cycling. Losses of this magnitude could potentially shift long-term site productivity. Intensive regeneration may occur in response to the initial nutrient flush after fire, but longer-term forest health may be compromised if carrying capacity of the soil is exceeded and die-off occurs once trees reach a certain age. Drought could hasten this process. These stands may be particularly fire-prone and non- resilient, leading to a feedback cycle of soil degradation, low-quality timber regeneration, and large fires. Organic matter losses from high-intensity fires may have serious implications for the physical and chemical properties of soils. Organic matter is crucial, not only because it serves as a primary source of nutrients, but also because highly-decomposed stable forms provide cation exchange capacity (CEC). CEC is a measure of a soil’s ability to retain plant-available nutrients and gradually release them for uptake. Organic matter contribution to CEC is particularly important in our forest soils, because our coarse-textured loamy sands and sandy loams have very low inherent CEC. If organic reserves are reduced or totally depleted, the nutrients released by fire may be leached from the system if not immediately taken up by growing vegetation. Changes to soil physical properties as a result of fire are complex and have an inextricable link to organic matter loss. Loss of surface organics exposes mineral soil surfaces, making soils more prone to all types of erosion—convective erosion during the fire itself, and wind and water erosion post-fire. When trees and understory vegetation are killed, roots die, soil strength declines, and erosion/mass movement risk increases. The same is true for mycorrhizal fungi

199 UDR Environmental Assessment

hyphae. Though hyphae are much finer, their relative volume in the soil may be much greater than that of the roots they colonize, and they have a tremendous binding effect in the soil matrix. Because they preferentially reside in organic-rich layers near the surface, they are particularly susceptible to fire mortality. Extreme heating also causes soil structure degradation and reduction of macropore space. Soil structure is essential for air and water exchange in the soil profile, and when structure is destroyed, water can no longer infiltrate and transmit through the soil profile. Because water can’t infiltrate, precipitation events result in extreme runoff and accelerated erosion. When water runs off, it does not make it into the profile to become plant-available, so the site potential decreases. Consumption of surface organics and profile organics also dramatically changes moisture and temperature fluxes. The importance of organic matter for water-holding capacity cannot be overstated. Surface organics also reduce soil moisture loss during warm, dry periods and protect against wind-accelerated evaporative losses. Organic matter also buffers diurnal and seasonal heat fluxes. Surface soil temperatures may range from below freezing to over 100°F in a single late-winter day (internal project monitoring data), and summer extremes may be much greater. Central Oregon forest systems tend to be moisture- limited, our coarse-textured pumice and ash soils dry out quickly, and diurnal temperature fluxes may be extreme. Seedling mortality may be quite high where organics are lacking, and established trees may suffer from drought stress when organics are removed. Potential fire effects to the soil resource are substantial and complex. Changes in soil biological, physical, and chemical properties may have cascading effects to the ecosystem beyond those already discussed. Increased erosion rates and sediment delivery may impact water quality. Watershed hydrologic function may be degraded further as surface and subsurface water delivery rates and patterns are altered. Nutrient pulses and microbial community shifts may favor the establishment of non-native and invasive species. Soils may become inhospitable habitats for burrowing animals and macroinvertebrates. Wildfires may release large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere while also degrading a forest system’s ability to sequester carbon. All of the discussed impacts and outcomes are intricately linked. Because wildfires are not predictable in time or space, a thoughtful consideration of trade-offs between treatment impacts and wildfire impacts, should one occur, is warranted. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects – Analysis Scale and Approach Due to the variability of ground disturbance in the UDR WUI project area, the quantitative extent of detrimental soil conditions for each unit was estimated and characterized by assigning condition classes. Soil condition classes represent a range of the aerial extent of detrimental soil conditions. Five soil condition classes were defined: • Soil Condition Class 1: less than 10 percent detrimental soil conditions • Soil Condition Class 2: 10 to 20 percent detrimental soil conditions • Soil Condition Class 3: 20 to 30 percent detrimental soil conditions • Soil Condition Class 4: greater than 30 percent detrimental soil conditions These condition classes address the LRMP direction to maintain 80 percent of an activity area in a condition of acceptable productivity (Deschutes National Forest, 1990). These classes were used to assess the relative risk of a particular treatment or activity increasing the extent of detrimental soil conditions to a level that compromises soil quality and long-term site productivity. Units currently in condition classes 2, 3, and 4 were identified as having the greatest potential for incurring detrimental soil impacts that pose a risk for productivity and quality impairment. Units predicted to be in classes 3 and 4 after treatment were identified as potentially needing mitigation or restoration treatments to meet LRMP standards for long term soil productivity.

200 UDR Environmental Assessment

Detrimental soil conditions that would result from proposed treatments constitute direct effects, and include heavy compaction, detrimental displacement, excess removal of organic material, and detrimental soil burn damage. These impacts are most likely to occur on roads, landings, primary skid trails, and where large piles are burned. Sensitive soils and extensively managed sites are the most prone to ground disturbance. Direct effects such as detrimental soil conditions can continue to indirectly affect soil quality long after they are incurred. For the UDR WUI project, indirect effects were assessed qualitatively. Indirect impacts to soil quality were assessed by evaluating the cause-and-effect relationships between ground- disturbing activities and alterations to physical and biological soil characteristics that can lead to on-site losses to productivity at a later time and off-site impacts such as sediment delivery to surface water. Indirect effects of proposed activities are primarily associated with adverse impacts to soil quality that translate to a decline of site productivity that persists into the future. This is an indirect effect in that it emerges after the direct impact on the ground. Indirect effects related to soils that are translated off- site as a result of disturbance are typically associated with erosion and sedimentation. For the UDR WUI project area, the inherent surface erosion potential across the project area is predominantly low. Accelerated erosion is not considered to be an issue of primary concern because surface soils are highly permeable, infiltration rates are rapid, and surface cover is generally adequate to dissipate erosive energy. Furthermore, intense highly erosive runoff events in the area do not commonly occur. There are few linkages between the road and stream networks and untreated/untrafficked buffers protect rivers and other perennial or intermittent streams. Issues and concerns relative to road-related erosion and the indirect effects of sediment delivery are slight for the UDR WUI project. Cumulative effects were analyzed qualitatively. They were assessed by evaluating existing detrimental soil conditions in relation to where proposed activities (and an increase in detrimental soil conditions) would occur. Detrimental soil conditions exist in all previously managed stands, some of which are proposed for treatment again. Not all ground disturbances in previously managed stands are detrimental, but re-entry can be expected to worsen some existing low level disturbance. The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the project area where ground-disturbing activities have overlapped (or will overlap) one another constitute the basis for cumulative effects analysis. Ameliorative factors such as avoidance, mitigation (ex., subsoiling, fertilization, mulching, etc.), and natural recovery were then factored in. Simplistically, the cumulative effects assessment can be represented with the following qualitative sequence, which can be used to evaluate the probability of a unit’s soil condition class increasing or decreasing as a result of a proposed activity: • (existing + predicted effects) – (avoidance + minimization + mitigation + natural recovery) A basic assumption to the approach was the use of a recovery factor. Based upon sampling and field reconnaissance, units where management had occurred more than 40 years ago have undergone some recovery of heavy compaction. Detrimental displacement has also recovered to some degree, depending upon the treatment and the soil type, but displaced soils are still quite evident in some locations. Recovery from heavy compaction and displacement occurs by the combined processes of water movement, gravitational settling, wetting and drying, frost action, daily temperature fluctuations, root growth, actions of soil biota, biogeochemical processes, organic inputs, wind throw, and burrowing animals. While the assumption cannot be strictly and uniformly applied across all previously treated acreage, field sampling suggests that in some stands where extensive ground-based logging had occurred, the extent of detrimental soil conditions is less than the visually-evident extent of harvest impacts. Exceptions to the recovery factor assumption are present, particularly on steep slopes, shallow rocky sites, in frost pockets with very low organics and thin topsoil horizons, and in older clearcut or

201 UDR Environmental Assessment

seed tree harvest units where dozer/tractor slash piling likely occurred. Old landings, primary skid trails, and abandoned spurs tend to remain heavily compacted. Geospatial analysis of past activities from the corporate database, historic aerial photographs, and LiDAR-derived ground surface models were vital to determining where previous harvest occurred. Analysis of direct and indirect effects was conducted at the unit scale. Units can be individual stands of trees or larger delineations of multiple stands where similar treatments are proposed. Units are the discrete areas where ground impacting activities would occur. Cumulative effects were analyzed at the unit scale but were also considered qualitatively at the project scale, particularly in relation to landscape-level soil function and ecosystem services. Alternative 1 (No Action) - Direct and Indirect Effects Under the No Action alternative, ground-disturbing activities related to the proposed treatments would not occur. Measurable increases in the extent of detrimental soil conditions as a direct result of mechanical ground-based operations would not happen. Soil quality would not be diminished further, but would remain compromised where roads, trails, and unrehabilitated landings and primary skid routes exist. While existing detrimental soil conditions would persist, amounts of DSC would not increase and soil quality across the majority of the project area would remain in good condition (i.e., the extent of detrimental soil conditions would remain below 20 percent in a large majority of the project area). Currently, 82% of the project area is estimated to be in DSC classes 1 (<10% DSC) or 2 (10-20% DSC). The inherent productivity and resilience of the soils will help maintain their functional capacity to serve as a growing medium, store and cycle nutrients and water, support microorganisms, produce organic biomass, and support or regenerate a contiguous forest cover. Detrimental conditions on sensitive soils would remain low to moderate, and no further mechanical ground disturbance would be expected to occur on them. Natural recovery from past impacts would slowly continue unabated. Soil quality has been degraded where detrimental soil conditions persist, and long-term site productivity is diminished on those sites. Rates of tree growth are likely diminished, and the soil’s ability to perform other vital ecosystem services is compromised. Thinning treatments that could indirectly improve soil quality and increase the productivity of dense and overstocked stands by alleviating competition would not occur. Without thinning, growth rates and soil productivity would decline as competition for nutrients, light, and growing space increased. Forest roads that are part of the permanent travel network have been converted to a non-forest status. Other sites such as trails, non-system roads (also called “user-created” roads), unrestored landings, and primary skid trails will remain heavily compacted and recovery will be prolonged. Opportunities to alleviate detrimental soil compaction as a result of proposed activities on existing landings and skid trails designated for reuse would not be available. Funding for soil restoration projects would not be readily available through harvest-generated revenue. Existing detrimental conditions from past ground disturbance would remain in a status of lengthy natural recovery for several decades. Wildfire suppression efforts, particularly in heavy downed fuel types and dense stands, would continue. The densely stocked stands where fire has been excluded would become predisposed to intensified disturbance including competition-induced stress and mortality and a high potential for cyclical bark beetle invasion. In the absence of naturally recurring wildfire, an abundance of standing dead trees and a heavy loading of downed coarse woody debris would continue to slowly accumulate. The build-up of biomass and dense, heavy fuels could put the stands at a high risk of high-intensity wildfire if initial suppression attempts fail. High severity fire could cause prolonged and intense heating, resulting

202 UDR Environmental Assessment

directly in detrimentally burned soil conditions and cascading and long-lasting indirect effects (see section Expected Soil Impacts from Wildfire). There would be no new temporary roads created, and no closed roads temporarily re-opened. Road maintenance and repair would continue at the current level and improvements to primary haul routes or problem sites would only be pursued on a site-by-site basis as needed. Certain segments of secondary roads with drainage control problems could remain unrepaired for years. Accelerated erosion of road prisms would continue during periodic runoff events from these segments. Because there are few locations where the road network is connected to the drainage network, and there are very few water bodies, sedimentation impacts to water quality or aquatic habitat would remain low. Off-road travel by woodcutters, OHV users, and mountain bikers would continue to occur in the area. Woodcutters will likely continue to focus on dead lodgepole concentrations throughout the project area, and OHV users will continue using closed, decommissioned or grown-in roads and constructing unauthorized trails. Although they comprise a very small degree of the overall existing detrimental soil disturbance, user created trails will likely affect some areas where there are sensitive soils. In the absence of an extreme wildfire, effective ground cover would persist and protect soils from erosive forces, and slowly continue to develop where it is lacking due to previous disturbance. Needle- fall, seed, and detritus from live trees would contribute to the recruitment and maintenance of litter, duff, and soil organic material. Trees, brush, forbs, fungi, and non-vascular plants would gradually begin reoccupying bare sites except on surfaces occupied by open roads and some once-used landings. Fine and coarse woody debris would continue to accumulate. Organic inputs and biological processes that maintain and cycle soil nutrients essential for plant growth would continue to function and develop at current levels. Action Alternative – Direct and Indirect Effects For the UDR WUI project, only one action alternative is being presented (in keeping with guidance in the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA), Section 104). The action alternative proposes mechanical thinning treatments in the forest overstory and understory, hand treatments in the forest understory, mastication and mowing treatments for fuels reduction, post-harvest fuels piling, and prescribed underburning. These treatments are intended to reduce surface, ladder, and canopy fuels and to interrupt fuel continuity within the UDR WUI project area. Other activities analyzed here include road maintenance and reconstruction, temporary road construction, and riparian enhancement/meadow restoration activities. Most all of the proposed treatment areas have been harvested or treated previously. For this reason, the potential for increasing the extent of detrimental soil conditions in many of the stands proposed for treatment is high for the Action Alternative. Table 69 displays the amount of area where the risk of increasing the extent of detrimental soil conditions beyond 20 percent of an activity unit would be high. Table 69- Treatment acres for the Action Alternative where the extent of DSC post-activity is likely to exceed 20%1 Percent of Acres where post- Acres where pre- Acres on Total treatment DSC treatment DSC Potentially- Treatment Acres Treatment expected to exceed already exceeds Sensitive Soil Acres 20% 20% Types Mow only 1,853 45% 197 197 26 Thin only 55 1% 0 0 5

203 UDR Environmental Assessment

Thin and mow 749 18% 507 266 82 Thin, mow and 1,487 36% 1,306 286 60 underburn Underburn 7 <1% 0 0 1 only Totals 4,151 100% 2,010 749 174 1Detrimental Soil Condition Classes post-treatment are based on estimates of existing detrimental soil condition and degree of ground disturbance expected from proposed treatments. Mechanical thinning operations are assumed to result in as much as a 10% increase over pre-existing DSC. Manual thinning, mowing, hand piling, and underburning are not expected to increase the existing levels of DSC. As a direct result of conducting overstory and understory treatments on previously treated areas, the potential for the extent of detrimental soil conditions to increase above 20 percent is high on about 30 percent (1,261 acres) of the proposed treatment acres. While 2,010 acres are expected to exceed the 20% DSC threshold post-activity, 749 of those acres already exceed 20% DSC. Many of these acres with existing high levels of DSC have treatments proposed that are not expected to raise the overall levels of DSC (manual thinning, mowing, underburning, and hand piling). When prescribed treatments include both mechanical harvest and mechanical post-harvest piling, the risk of diminishing soil quality is the greatest, potentially reducing inherent long-term site productivity. Application of BMPs, PDCs and mitigation would be necessary to contain detrimental soil conditions and to maintain or restore soil quality to pre-treatment conditions. Under the Action Alternative, isolated areas of sensitive soil types (174 acres of potentially sensitive soils occur within treatment units) will be protected with site-specific PDCs, including machinery exclusions, soil moisture requirements, travel restrictions on steep slopes, and temp road/landing location restrictions. For Alternative 2, approximately 102 acres of subsoiling is proposed to mitigate for detrimental soil conditions. Subsoiling reduces compaction on landings and primary skid trails where bulk densities are increased and pore space reduced to a level that inhibits tree growth and impairs other soil functions. The total acres subsoiled may be less if harvest occurs over snow or frozen ground or over slash mats sufficient to limit soil compaction and displacement. Proposed treatment acres in the Action Alternative that have a proportion of them underlain by potentially sensitive soil types amount to about four percent of the project area (174 acres). It is estimated that about 16 of those acres fall within treatment units where the extent of detrimental soil conditions currently exceeds 20% of the unit area, and that about 69 of those acres fall within treatment units where the extent of DSC will exceed 20% of the unit area after all current project activities are completed. Of the 174 total acres of potentially sensitive soils, 111 acres occur in units with hand thinning work proposed or in units that will only be mowed or only underburned. The remaining 63 acres occur on cinder soils with a high displacement risk, in potentially wet areas with high risk of compaction and puddling damage, and on forested lavas that cannot be easily rehabilitated. On these soils, resilience to ground disturbance is low and detrimental impacts can be long-lasting. Avoidance measures and site-specific PDCs will defer mechanical operations on most of these acres, which generally constitute a small proportion of the overall treatment acreage. Mitigation measures (subsoiling, slash placement on disturbed surfaces) will be used, where feasible, to restore soil condition and function where thresholds are exceeded.

204 UDR Environmental Assessment

All existing open roads and administratively closed roads in the project area constitute a semi- permanent conversion to a non-forest status, where soils have been committed to a non-productive use. The road system would remain as access infrastructure for a variety of forest uses. No new permanent roads are needed to augment the existing system. Small segments of non-system spur roads could be rebuilt if needed for temporary access to harvest units. It is estimated that the existing road system accounts for around one to five percent of the extent of detrimental soil conditions in most of the project activity units. No road closures are being proposed under the Action Alternative. Certain segments of the existing road system that would be used for access and haul routes would be maintained or reconstructed as directed by standard contractual requirements for harvest operations. These would include segments currently showing signs of accelerated surface erosion. Drainage would be improved and runoff routed to minimize flow concentration and abate accelerated erosion. Sediment generated would be lessened and transport off-site minimized. A few units lack adequate access for equipment mobilization and log haul, so there will likely be a need to construct temporary roads. Under the Action Alternative, an estimated 3.1 miles of temporary roads will be constructed to access eight of the proposed activity units. Best estimates of the locations have been provided, though the exact locations and lengths of temporary roads may change slightly. The numbers provided are an estimate for describing potential temporary effects. To minimize new disturbance, abandoned spur roads, closed roads, and old primary skid trails would be used whenever feasible. Of the 3.1 miles proposed, only an estimated 0.4 miles would constitute new disturbance (new segments proposed in units 9 and 20). The remaining 2.7 miles would use existing disturbances (2.2 miles on nonsystem roads or decommissioned roads, most of which are currently accessible and driveable, and 0.5 miles on old skid trails). Soils on old travel surfaces that are to be re-used would revert from a status of recovery back to a detrimental condition. New temporary road miles would increase the extent of detrimental soil conditions and directly convert soils to a non-productive status for the life of their use in the units they traverse. The total acreage of temporary roads would amount to much less than 1 percent of the total project area. It would be temporarily additional to the extent of the overall area of the existing road system. New temporary spurs would be minimally constructed with no surfacing. Most spurs will be less than 0.4 miles in length (one segment on an existing, well-used road prism is 0.8 miles long) and will be stabilized or obliterated and restored when no longer needed for operations. The 0.4 miles of new disturbance will be fully obliterated after use (any cuts and fills replaced, running surface fully decompacted, and adequate surface cover applied). The 2.7 miles of existing disturbance will have varying levels of rehabilitative treatments applied. Segments currently shown on the Forest transportation layer as decommissioned roads that are used as temporary roads for this entry (segments in units 7, 9, and 31) would be, at a minimum, scarified, hydrologically stabilized, and have access blocked and/or obscured. Non-system roads used as temporary roads for this entry would be, at a minimum, hydrologically stabilized and have access blocked and/or obscured. These segments would be prioritized for further restoration work (subsoiling, surface cover placement, revegetation) if funds become available. Required restoration would be expected to occur within 5 years of project completion. There are no temporary roads currently proposed on sensitive soil types. Off-road travel by woodcutters, OHV users, and mountain bike riders will continue to occur in the area. Units opened by thinning are at an increased risk for unauthorized trail creation and off-road travel, and it is likely that a small measure of new trails would be created as a result of thinning dense stands. Temporary roads may also be used for unauthorized access if not adequately blocked. Illegal firewood cutting is an ongoing issue in the UDR WUI project area. OHV use in the project area is not widespread compared to other areas on the Deschutes, and there is little evidence of extensive illicit use. Observational and anecdotal evidence from around the Bend-Fort Rock Ranger District indicates that

205 UDR Environmental Assessment

OHV users tend to capitalize on closed and temporary roads and primary skid trails, using them to extend or create new trail networks, especially when in close proximity to residential areas. A notable increase in user-created OHV trails and impacts to soil resources is not anticipated. User-created mountain bike trails don’t appear to be a meaningful issue in the UDR WUI project area, mainly owing to the relatively flat terrain. Overall, user created trails may affect some additional areas, but the effect would be considered very small by comparison. Except where there are detrimental conditions, soils across the majority of the project area would continue functioning to support and maintain long-term site productivity under the Action Alternative. Forest Plan Standards and Guides would be met once all prescribed mitigation measures were implemented. The extent of detrimental soil conditions would increase, but remain below Forest Plan and Regional Standards, where impacts were low prior to planned treatments. The extent of detrimental soil conditions would remain low to moderate in activity units where only manual understory treatments, mowing, and underburning would occur. Some stands are expected to initially exceed the 20% detrimental soil condition threshold once mechanized treatments are implemented, but mitigation in the form of subsoiling to decompact heavily disturbed surfaces and application of slash or other organic materials will help hasten recovery of soil function. Temporary roads, skid trails and landings would be targeted for these treatments. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects to soil resources were analyzed qualitatively by evaluating the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the project area where ground-disturbing activities would overlap one another. Effects were assessed at the unit scale. At the unit scale, consideration is given to sites where there are existing detrimental soil conditions from previous management and re-entry is planned. Consideration is also given to sites where restoration and mitigation activities such as subsoiling or soil amendments may occur to ameliorate detrimental conditions. Cumulative effects were also considered relative to whether or not soils were functioning to their capability and providing ecosystem services across the landscape, because soil types can differ markedly in their response to management. Consideration is given to how capability for producing biomass and maintaining a contiguous forest cover has been affected and might be affected by proposed activities. Inherent soil productivity, nutrient cycling/availability, microorganism habitat, organic matter production and turnover, and water storage are some important ecosystem services that in turn indirectly support other beneficial uses such as wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, and wood products for human use. If implemented, treatments would result in many of the stands in the project area having undergone multiple entries for forest management. Many of the proposed treatment units have been harvested previously. For this reason, the potential for cumulatively accruing detrimental soil conditions in many of the units planned for treatment is high. Not all ground disturbances in previously managed stands is detrimental; a proportion is low-level disturbance. Light and moderate levels of disturbance are detectable where ground-based operations have occurred in the past. Entering these sites again can exacerbate lower-level disturbance and push it to a detrimental soil condition. Units where the past actions left a high level of detrimental soil conditions are especially at risk of cumulative effects, where without restoration activities, inherent soil quality and productivity could be diminished. As a result of extensive management in the past, the extent of detrimental soil conditions is moderate or high (greater than 10%) on about 96 percent of the treatment acres. The extent of DSC would be expected to increase in units where mechanical harvest and machine piling is prescribed, as the

206 UDR Environmental Assessment

cumulative impact of recurring ground disturbance over the same area would be realized. These units would be most prone to cumulative effects and exceeding LRMP S&Gs for detrimental soil conditions. Other units, where manual thinning, hand piling, mowing, and/or underburning are proposed, are not expected to see a net increase in overall DSC levels. The risk for incurring cumulative detrimental impacts will be reduced through implementation of PDCs. In some instances, even with the implementation of PDCs, levels of DSC will exceed the LRMP standards and mitigation will be necessary to reduce levels of DSC below acceptable thresholds. Minimizing cumulative effects through PDCs and BMPs, and, where necessary, mitigating detrimental conditions through subsoiling and replacing effective ground cover would maintain a condition of acceptable productivity across at least 80 percent of each of the affected activity units (in accordance with LRMP S&G SL-3), or result in no net increase in DSC for units that exceed the 20% threshold prior to the planned entry (in accordance with Region 6 Soil Quality Standards). See Table 85 in the Appendix B for a listing of units that will require subsoiling mitigation. Units that would be treated where detrimental soil conditions are very low or low (less than 10 percent DSC) only account for about four percent of the treatment acres. PDCs and BMPs will contain and minimize the extent of detrimental soil conditions, but there will still be new detrimental ground disturbances. A new skid trail network will be created, including some new landings and primary skid routes. New detrimental soil conditions will be added to the project area, remaining until mitigated or restored. However, total DSC is expected to remain below the 20 percent threshold and meet LRMP guidelines. Sensitive soils most at risk of sustaining detrimental soil impacts are steep slopes, cinder soils with high displacement risk, low-productivity frost pockets, forested lavas, and wet soils adjacent to wetlands, springs and waterways. The risk of diminishing soil quality as a result of recurring mechanical treatments and would be high and cumulative effects potentially long-lasting. Potentially sensitive soils comprise only 174 acres (4% of the project acres). The vast majority of these acres will be protected from long-term impacts through the implementation of PDCs and BMPs, and soil quality will be maintained on sensitive soil types. The presence and use of the road system will continue, and these soils have been converted to a non- forest condition. Temporary roads would add another 3.1 miles (estimated) in the short-term. Most (2.7 miles) will be located on abandoned spurs or old skid trails, thereby minimizing new disturbance. Some temporary roads (0.4 miles total) would result in new disturbance and result in additional detrimental soil conditions that would remain in a detrimental status until restored and put on a trajectory to recovery. Required restoration treatments on the 2.7 miles of temp roads to be located on existing disturbances would ultimately result in a net improvement of soil condition. Firewood cutting, OHV use, dispersed recreation use, and illegal trail construction have resulted in a small percentage of overall detrimental soil impacts. All of these uses could increase once stands are opened up, providing new opportunities for user-created trails and impacts. Although these uses constitute a very small component of cumulative effects, they could potentially contribute. Road improvements and ongoing maintenance will continue to minimize erosion and runoff effects on primary travel routes. Erosion attributed to road-concentrated runoff is a notable problem on some segments. Segments used for log haul would receive general maintenance, have drainage features constructed or improved, and be bladed or spot surfaced as needed to ensure hydrologic stability. This project does not propose any road closures. Despite previous vegetation management and recreation usage in the project area, soils across the vast majority of the project area would remain in a condition of acceptable productivity and function under

207 UDR Environmental Assessment

the Action Alternative. Long-term site productivity would be protected. The extent of detrimental soil conditions would remain low to moderate (below 20% of the unit area) across about 52 percent of the project area where impacts were low prior to planned treatments or where mitigation measures will keep additional impacts low. Forty-one percent of the project area is comprised of units that may temporarily exceed 20% DSC for a short time after activities are complete (or, in some instances, remain above 20% DSC where no net increase is expected). However, mitigation measures (primarily subsoiling) will reduce DSC levels below 20% for most of these areas and soils will be placed on a trajectory to rapid recovery of function and productivity. Mitigation and Restoration Measures to avoid or minimize unwanted impacts to soil resources are primarily BMPs and PDCs, which are addressed. BMPs are standard operating procedures and PDCs are specific measures that are prescribed on a project-by-project basis. When BMPs and PDCs are not sufficient to prevent detrimental soil conditions from exceeding LRMP standards (particularly where preexisting DSC levels were already high), mitigation and restoration actions are undertaken to ameliorate unavoidable adverse effects. Without mitigation or restoration to improve soil quality, achieving LRMP S&Gs would not be feasible and less than 80 percent of some activity areas would be in a condition of acceptable productivity. For a listing of unit-specific soils concerns, see Table 86 in the Appendix. Proposed mitigation and restoration treatments would consist of de-compaction of hardened surfaces (skid trails and landings), obliterating temporary roads, and possible soil amendments (i.e., mulch or slash application) where the extent of detrimental soil conditions is high. Subsoiling would be used to ameliorate heavy compaction on landings and converging segments of primary skid trails. In some cases, particularly on sensitive soil types, mulch, wood chips, or slash mats could be added as a protective ground cover to limit soil displacement and compaction and as a soil amendment where feasible. All new temporary roads would be fully reclaimed as well. This would consist of decompacting the road surface, replacing cuts and fills and/or installing waterbars as needed, covering the surface with available slash or wood shreds, and hiding or barricading the entry. Units that will likely require subsoiling or other restoration treatments to meet LRMP S&Gs are provided in Table 85 in the Appendix. Some areas may have riparian plantings installed as a connected restoration action to improve wildlife habitat and floodplain function. Plantings would be installed by hand, and would not result in additional detrimental soil conditions. Restoration of native plant communities convey a net benefit to the soil resource by increasing soil organic matter inputs (both surface and subsurface), improving nutrient cycling and onsite retention, increasing soil and bank stability, decreasing surface erosion potentials, creating soil microaunal and microbial habitat, and improving soil microclimate.

208 UDR Environmental Assessment

Figure 53– UDR WUI Fuels Reduction Project Area – Landforms and Geomorphic Surface

209 UDR Environmental Assessment

Botany Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects There are no known TES plant species within the project area. It is not likely that there will be any benefits or negative impacts to the BOPU and CACH habitats contained within units 34 and 40 by not implementing the project. Alternative 2 - Action Alternative – Direct and Indirect Effects Pumice Moonwort habitat Although no BOPU was located during survey, there nevertheless remains intact potential habitat for this species within a portion of unit 40. This habitat is still suspected of potentially hosting BOPU because the species can exist for a period underground, much like a mushroom, without appearing above ground. This area was also surveyed in 2005 for BOPU and nothing was located then, either. However, the habitat is unique and since there is little fuel present there to remove, by leaving it alone there is nothing lost to the purpose and need of the project. If the mitigation to avoid the habitat is followed, there are no anticipated effects to the species or its habitat. Green-tinged Paintbrush habitat There is no concern for negative impacts to CACH within unit 34, because no plants were located within the habitat found in the northern portion of the unit. The amount of potential habitat is relatively small (approximately 2 acres). Cumulative Effects – Both alternatives There are no anticipated cumulative effects to TES plants within the project because none were located. Effects of this activity are evaluated for those TES plant species on the current Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List (FSM 2670.44, July 2015) that are documented or suspected to occur on the Deschutes National Forest. Finding: The alternatives would have no impact on Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate species. They are not likely to impact any sensitive TES plant species. Management Direction Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) Consistency The Upper Deschutes River Wildland Urban Interface Hazardous Fuels Restoration Act project as regards TES plant species is consistent with the Deschutes LRMP (1990). Records were checked for previously known TES plant populations (TE-1), and suitable habitat was located for the pumice moonwort and the green-tinged paintbrush (TE-2). Targeted surveys were conducted at the locations of potential suitable habitat (TE-3). The remaining standards and guidelines for TES plant species do not apply to the Upper Deschutes River Wildland Urban Interface Hazardous Fuels Restoration Act project. Affected Environment The plant associations in the Upper Deschutes River Wildland Urban Interface Hazardous Fuels Restoration Act project include primarily lodgepole pine dry, but also ponderosa pine dry, and with a much smaller amount of lodgepole pine wet and a small amount of meadow (unit 20 only). Soils are most commonly characterized by sandy, pumiceous volcanic ash and pumice lapilli over buried soil on glacial outwash. The elevation varies between 4000-4400’. The average annual precipitation measures about 15 – 20”. No habitat or known sites are present for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate plant species within the project area.

210 UDR Environmental Assessment

With the exception of Texosporium sancti-jacobi, a sensitive lichen, the habitat in Upper Deschutes River Wildland Urban Interface Hazardous Fuels Restoration Act is too dry to support the bryophytes and lichens on the Forest’s TES plant list. Regarding Texosporium sancti-jacobi, there is no high-quality habitat for that species in Upper Deschutes River Wildland Urban Interface Hazardous Fuels Restoration Act project because it is likely not dry enough to support it; it occurs to the north of the Forest on the Island near Lake Billy Chinook and on the Crooked River National Grassland, in juniper-dominated habitats. There is no potential habitat nor known sites present for the five fungi on the TES list; all require habitats with higher moisture regimes. A note about biodiversity - unit 34 contains forested lavas populated with aspen, Scouler’s willow, and large ponderosa pine, remarkable in its rarity within the context of the surrounding area. While these species are not rare, they form a relatively rare plant association in the area. The Scouler’s willow is showing signs of decadence. Putting fire into this unit will invigorate the first two species in particular. Also associated with unit 34 are two riparian areas, which need to be avoided by heavy machinery.

Field Reconnaissance Field surveys were done in those units deemed most likely to contain TES plant species or the habitats contained within those units were not well known. These units are 24, 29, 34, and 40. They were so chosen because they contained potential habitat for either Castilleja chlorotica (CACH) (#34), Botrychium pumicola (BOPU) (#40), were located in an area that had not received survey before (#24, 41) or contained potential riparian habitat (#29). No TES plants were located during surveys, although portions of units 34 and 40 appeared to offer good-quality habitat for CACH and BOPU, respectively.

Figure 54: Botrychium pumicola

Figure 55: Castilleja chlorotica

211 UDR Environmental Assessment

Figure 56: Potential habitat for Botrychium pumicola within Unit 40.

Botany – Invasive Species Summary of Finding: The action alternatives for the Upper Deschutes River Wildland Urban Interface Hazardous Fuels Restoration Act project have a HIGH risk for introducing weeds. (See pages 4 - 6 for a discussion of risk ranking and project effects, and this page for mitigations designed to reduce the risk of noxious weed introduction.) Forest Service Manual (FSM) direction requires that Noxious Weed Risk Assessments be prepared for all projects involving ground-disturbing activities. For projects that have a moderate to high risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds, Forest Service policy requires that decision documents must identify noxious weed control measures that will be undertaken during project implementation (FSM 2081.03). Aggressive non-native plants, also called invasive plants or noxious weeds, can invade and displace native plant communities causing long-lasting management problems. Invasive plants can displace native vegetation, increase fire hazards, reduce the quality of recreational experiences, poison livestock, and replace wildlife forage. By simplifying complex plant communities, weeds reduce biological diversity and threaten rare habitats. Potential and known weeds for the Deschutes National Forest are listed in Appendix A. In addition to invasive plants, which are designated by the State, there is a group of non-native plants that are also aggressive though are not officially on the State’s list. These species are also considered in this assessment. Affected Environment The plant associations in the Upper Deschutes River Wildland Urban Interface Hazardous Fuels Restoration Act project include primarily lodgepole pine dry, but also ponderosa pine dry, and with a much smaller amount of lodgepole pine wet and a small amount of meadow (unit 20 only). Soils are most commonly characterized by sandy, pumiceous volcanic ash and pumice lapilli over buried soil on glacial outwash. The elevation varies between 4000-4400’. The average annual precipitation measures about 15 – 20”. There are a number of weed sites associated with the project (see Table 70):

212 UDR Environmental Assessment

Table 70: Weed sites within project area Unit Species Comment 10* Spotted knapweed, reed Site 480PHAR3, CEBI2 along SE border canary grass 16* Spotted knapweed, Site 307CEBI2, west end; 306CEBI2, 187CEBI2 and 647LIDA along dalmatian toadflax Rd. 42 20* Spotted knapweed, Site 507CEBI2, 135CIVU, along south and east edges respectively; Canada thistle, bull thistle 639CIAR4 in ditchline in SW portion 21* Canada thistle, St. Site 172HYPE, CIAR4, at northern tip Johnswort 26* Spotted knapweed Site 774CEBI2, at western tip 27 Spotted knapweed Site 308CEBI2, along 43 Road 28* Bull thistle Site 86CIVU 41 Canada thistle Site 890CIAR4, outside east boundary 52 Spotted knapweed Site 587CEBI2, middle of unit on 4001-720 rd 54 Spotted knapweed Site 19CEBI2 along 4143 Rd., also diffuse reported but probably not likely * = within unit Field Reconnaissance In addition to the known sites listed above, a new site of Canada thistle was located during survey of unit 41 and is included in the table. It lies just outside the eastern boundary of that unit, inside the tree line near the western edge of Ryan Ranch meadow. Risk Ranking Factors considered in determining the level of risk for the introduction or spread of noxious weeds are: _X_ HIGH Has to be a combination of the following three factors: 1. Known weeds in/adjacent to project area. 2. Any of vectors* #1-8 in project area. 3. Project operation in/adjacent to weed population. __ MODERATE 1. Any of vectors #1-5 present in project area.

LOW 1. Any of vectors #6-8 present in project area. OR 2. Known weeds in/adjacent to project area without vector presence.

213 UDR Environmental Assessment

*Vectors (if contained in project proposal) ranked in order of weed introduction risk: 1. Heavy equipment (implied ground disturbance) 2. Importing soil/cinders 3. OHV's 4. Grazing (long-term disturbance) 5. Pack animals (short-term disturbance) 6. Plant restoration 7. Recreationists (hikers, mountain bikers) 8. Forest Service project vehicles Discussion of Ranking A risk ranking of HIGH is warranted for the action alternative, because heavy machinery will be operating, bringing the risk of weed import, and there are weed sites within the project. Washing equipment prior to entering the project and before heading to the next project, treatment of the sites within the project prior to project initiation, as well as avoidance of the sites during project activities, will reduce, but not eliminate, the risk of weed introductions and spread. (See Mitigations, page one). Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative 1 (No Action) There would be no effects to the weed sites, nor would there be the potential for new introductions, from this alternative. Weeds would continue to be present within the project and new sites may be introduced, but they would come from other vectors outside the context of this document. Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative 2 The fuels reduction activities planned under the action alternative will increase the possibility of weed introductions and/or spread. This is because of the disturbance to the soil that can be expected from the project, and because the vehicles used for the project most likely have been transported from places like Bend, which contains large populations of weeds. Bringing these vehicles in clean will reduce, but not eliminate, that concern; even with mitigations applied, there is always the possibility that fuels reduction activities associated with the project could encourage weed seed germination via the soil disturbance that attends such activities. All weed species listed in the table have the potential to increase with fire interaction; thus it is important to avoid ignition in those weed sites that lie within units and as much as possible, prevent fire from reaching those sites. Cumulative Effects The scale of analysis for this section is the individual units, so chosen because they offer a landscape of reasonable size in which to determine effects. Past, present, and forseeable future actions include not only the ground-disturbing aspects of this project (including fire itself) and other projects which involve heavy machinery, which increase the susceptibility to weed invasion, but also includes roadside disturbances as well as weed treatments. Weed treatments include hand-pulling, use of herbicides, and potentially in the case of Canada thistle, biological control agents (insects that prey on a specific weed species). In other words, there have been and will be disturbances and vectors that continue to create an environment that encourages weeds to enter the project, while at the same time, there will be actions occuring that will be mitigating that situation. Management Direction

214 UDR Environmental Assessment

Consistency with the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1990) There are no Standards and Guidelines included in the 1990 Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan addressing the weed issue. However, the Upper Deschutes River Wildland Urban Interface Hazardous Fuels Restoration Act project meets the Forest Service Manual direction stating that for any project with a moderate to high risk of weed invasion, control measures must be in place. This project has a moderate risk, and control measures are in place that address that concern (see Mitigation Measures, page one). Comparison of Alternatives From a weed standpoint, the No Action alternative provides the most protection from invasive plants being introduced to the project area, because machinery and vehicles associated with the project would not be driving over the area, creating inviting spots for invasives to germinate and thrive. The action alternative contains risk of weed invasion or spread, although the mitigations will reduce, but not eliminate, that risk. Prevention Strategy A Record of Decision for Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants was signed in October 2005, and incorporates its standards into the Forest Plan of the Deschutes National Forest. Three of those standards specifically address prevention of weed introductions (#’s 1, 2, and 7; see Appendix B) into projects of the type that the Upper Deschutes River Wildland Urban Interface Hazardous Fuels Restoration Act project represents. These standards obligate the Forest Service to incorporate weed prevention into its planning documents and implementation phase. The following goals and guidelines, relative to prescribed fire operations and commercial harvest, are listed in the USDA Forest Service Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices. This guide discusses weed prevention practices that support the 2/3/99 Executive Order on Invasive Species. Each of these items are followed by a description of what is being done relative to the Upper Deschutes River Wildland Urban Interface Hazardous Fuels Restoration Act project. Prescribed Fire Goal 5. To prevent new weed infestations and the spread of existing weeds, avoid or remove sources of weed seed and propagules or manage fire as an aid in control of weeds. Fire 12. Ensure that rental equipment is free of weed seed and propagules before the contracting officers representative accepts it. There are no plans to use rental equipment for this project. Fire 13. Avoid ignition and burning in areas at high risk for weed establishment or spread due to fire effects. Treat weeds that establish or spread because of unplanned burning of weed infestations. Mitigations are in place that address these points. Fire 14. When possible use staging areas and helibases that are maintained in a weed-free condition. A mitigation is in place that addresses the staging area issue; there are no helibases planned for use during this project. Fire 15. Pre-inventory project area and evaluate weeds present with regard to the effects on the weed spread relative to the fire prescription. This was done in the summer of 2015, and the sites within/near planned units will be visited again in 2016, during treatment of those sites Goal 6. Avoid creating soil conditions that promote weed germination and establishment. Fire 16. Use appropriate preparation and suppression tactics to reduce disturbances to soil and vegetation. This approach is routinely taken. Timber Harvest Operations & Stewardship Contracting 215 UDR Environmental Assessment

Goal 1. Avoid or remove sources of weed seed and propagules to prevent new weed infestations and the spread of existing weeds. Forest Veg 1. Treat weeds on projects used by contractors, emphasizing treatment of weed infestations on existing landings, skid trails, and helibases before activities commence. This is a planned element of the project. Forest Veg 2. Train contract administrators to identify noxious weeds and select lower risk sites for landings and skid trails. This is routinely done. Forest Veg 3. Encourage operators to maintain weed-free mill yards, equipment parking, and staging areas. This is discussed at pre-work meetings. Forest Veg 4. Use standard timber sale contract provisions such as WO-C/CT 6.36 to ensure appropriate equipment cleaning (reference Appendix 1). This is a standard provision. Goal 2. To prevent weed germination and establishment, retain native vegetation in and around project activity and keep soil disturbance to a minimum consistent with project objectives. Forest Veg 5. Minimize soil disturbance to no more than needed to meet project objectives. Logging practices to reduce soil disturbance include, but are not limited to: Over-snow logging Not a required design feature of this project. Skyline or helicopter logging Not part of this project. Reuse landings, skid trails and helibases when they are weed free This is routinely done. Forest Veg 6. Minimize period from end of logging to site preparation, revegetation, and contract closure. This is routinely done. Post Vegetation Management Operations Goal 3. To prevent weed germination and establishment, retain native vegetation in and around project activity and keep soil disturbance to a minimum consistent with project objectives. Forest Veg 7. Minimize soil disturbance to no more than needed to meet vegetation management objectives. Prevention practices to reduce soil disturbance include, but are not limited to: Treating fuels in place instead of piling The preferred method is by mastication but some pile burning will likely occur. Minimizing heat transfer to soil in burning Minimizing fireline construction There will be minimal fireline construction because there are plenty of roads to anchor to, but there will be some along boundaries with private land and elsewhere. Goal 4. To prevent favorable conditions for weed establishment, re-establish vegetation on bare ground caused by project disturbance. Forest Veg 8. For long-term restoration and weed suppression where forested vegetation management has created openings, recognize the need for prompt reforestation. The proposal is to thin overcrowded stands and reforestation will not occur.

216 UDR Environmental Assessment

A SELECTION of NOXIOUS WEEDS OF CONCERN FOR THE PROJECT AREA

Spotted knapweed, Centaurea bierbersteinii, is a very invasive plant which grows along most major highways in Central Oregon. It is the most likely weed that may appear in the Upper Deschutes River Wildland Urban Interface Hazardous Fuels Restoration Act project area. It is a perennial forb in the sunflower family that lives for 3-5 years. It is very competitive on disturbed dry to mesic sites because it is able to germinate in a wide range of conditions and it grows early in spring before many native plants. Seeds may be dispersed on animals and humans, and by being caught up in vehicles. Distribution over large areas is linked to transportation systems.

Figure 57: Spotted Knapweed

Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) is a purple-flowered perennial weed with spiny leaves that does not rely solely on seed production to spread and maintain itself. It has an extensive horizontal root system that gives rise to new plants directly from the roots, and large persistent colonies can be formed in this manner. Control of this aggressive plant is very difficult as digging scatters root bits which can form new plants. In Central Oregon, Canada thistle is most often associated with seasonally or perennially wet areas. These pictures are from the new site discovered adjacent to unit 41.

Figure 58: Canada Thistle

217 UDR Environmental Assessment

Recreation Regulatory Framework Recreation Opportunity Spectrum The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is a description of various attributes that contribute to a particular recreational setting. The ROS describes recreational settings in terms of the, “combination of physical, biological, social, and managerial conditions that give value to a place.” (Clark and Stankey (1979). Recreation Opportunity Spectrum shows the ROS settings for the project area. The ROS settings that apply to this project include: Semi-Primitive Non-motorized area is characterized by a predominately natural or natural appearing environment of moderate to large size. Interaction among users is low, but there often is evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on-site control and restrictions may be present, but are subtle. Motorized use is not permitted. Large mammal which are not too tolerant of humans may be present. Roaded-Natural area is characterized by predominately natural-appearing environment with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of humans. Such evidence usually harmonizes with the natural environment. Interaction among users may be low to moderate, but with evidence of other users prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize with the natural environment. Conventional motorized use is provided for in construction standards and design of facilities. Large mammals tolerant of humans may be present; those not tolerant present infrequently. There is a prevalence of smaller wildlife species. Roaded-Modified area is characterized by a setting that is heavily modified by human activity. Access is generally easy for highway vehicles. The setting is generally the result of intensive commodity production. There are no size criteria. Concentration of users is low, but there is considerable evidence of others. Users have a moderate degree of isolation from the sights and sounds of other people. MA8: General Forest. MA8 will be managed in accordance with Roaded-Natural or Roaded-Modified classifications of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS).. M8-1 Stands on these sites will be treated to retain the character that contributes to the value of the site for recreation. M8-2 Traditional informal campsites…. will be recognized as being significant in producing dispersed recreation opportunities. Prescriptions for harvesting, cleanup, site preparation, and thinning will consider the environmental setting that contributes to the attraction of the sites for recreation purposes. The attempt will be made to retain this attractive character during and after treatment. M8-3 Recreation use can be discouraged or prohibited in areas where timber harvesting activities are occurring; where public safety is threatened; or where resource damage from recreation activity is occurring or may occur. M8-4 Generally, off-highway vehicle use is allowed. Closures and restrictions can be imposed on OHV activity where it threatens of damages other resource values... MA 9: Scenic Views: MA9 will normally be managed in accordance with Roaded-Natural, but may include Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, Semi-Primitive Motorized and Semi-Primitive Motorized Winter-Only classifications. MA 11: Intensive Recreation: The recreation setting and opportunities provided include the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Categories of Rural and Roaded Natural. MA 15: Old Growth:

218 UDR Environmental Assessment

M 15-2: Vegetative manipulation to maintain the old growth character of some areas may conflict with recreation use, but such occurrences should be limited in size and number. M15-3 Concentrated use by off-highway vehicles and snowmobiles will not be permitted but incidental use of OHV’s and snowmobiles will generally be permitted. Newberry National Volcanic Monument (Monument) This project is within a segment of the Monument and the following Standards and Guidelines related to the recreation opportunity apply. M-8 Intent: Overall, any projects to alter existing vegetation should respond to one or more of the following needs: 1.) protect existing large, old trees and provide for the perpetuation of the genetic heritage they represent, 2.) reestablish conditions that allow natural ecological succession of vegetation to the maximum extent practical, 3.) protect public health and safety (including the removal of hazard trees), 4.) enhance wildlife or sensitive plant habitat, scenic quality or recreational values, 5.) reduce serious threats from insects, fires or disease to resources outside the Monument, 6.) accommodate appropriate facility, trail or road construction or reconstruction consistent with this Plan. Existing Condition Description of the Spatial and Temporal Bounds used for Effects Analyses Spatial Boundary The spatial bounds for this analysis is limited primarily to the project unit boundaries where no developed campgrounds are within or proximal to treatment units. Units where developed campgrounds are contained within or proximal to units identified also consider project activities approximately ¼ mile from those recreation sites or recreation sites ¼ mile from activities within project units. Temporal Boundary The temporal bounds for the project span from early implementation timelines where unit marking is initiated to the time of the final project activity for all units except unit 40 where the year 2017 was used for consideration of cumulative effects to special uses. Developed Recreation The project area units contain a mix of developed recreation opportunities. Those within or in close proximity to this project along with a synopsis of use information are shown in table 1. Due to duration of stay and reservation systems, the campgrounds listed are most sensitive to activities within or surrounding. All locations may see light to heavy use year round depending upon the winter snow accumulations and consideration must be given to that use as outlined in project design features. Table 71 Designated Developed Recreation Sites and Trails within or immediately adjacent to project area. Operated Approximate Reservation Proposed Recreation Site 2015 Use by Season System Treatments Pringle Falls Hoodoo 4/16-10/4; use $1,406 camping First Come Within Unit Campground Recreation may continue at $10/night= First Served 26 (LFR thin outside of season 140 camp unit in 2015 and mow) use nights

219 UDR Environmental Assessment

Big River Group Hoodoo 4/16-10/4; use Not tracked Yes, up to 1 Adjacent to Campground Recreation may continue year in Unit 16 (LFR outside of season advance thin and mow) Big River Hoodoo 4/16-10/4; use $9,806 camping First come Adjacent to Campground Recreation may continue at $ $10/night= First Served Unit 16 (LFR outside of season 980 camp unit in 2015 thin and use nights. mow)

Big River Boat US Forest Year round High use during No Adjacent to Launch Service depending on weekends when Unit 16 (LFR snow water is higher, thin and accumulations typically mid- mow) April to mid- October Sun-Lava Paved US Forest Use not Average use per n/a Unit 45 Path Service encouraged in day of 377 (maintenance winter months visitors. mow) 1/10th mile segment Fall River US Forest Year round Not tracked n/a Within Unit Trailhead Service depending on 24 (LFR thin snow and mow) accumulations Fall River Trail US Forest Year round Not tracked n/a Within Unit Service depending on 24 (LFR thin ¼ mile snow and mow) segment accumulations

Direct and Indirect Effects––Developed Recreation - Alternative 1 The existing fuel loading conditions, trend and forest character would be maintained with no direct effect to the developed recreation resource. There is a potential indirect effect of non-action by allowing the existing threat to infrastructure from fire carrying vegetation to remain in its current trend. Direct and Indirect Effects–– Developed Recreation –Alternative 2 With the assumption that project design features are applied to project implementation, the proposed activities would have minimal negative effects on the developed recreation resource. Treatments near the developed campgrounds (Table 1) would include ladder fuel reduction and mowing. Within the ROS, these developed sites are considered Roaded-Modified. Developed sites are already modified areas with the presence of infrastructure and hazard tree removal. The proposed treatments within or adjacent to these sites will keep trees >7” dbh (unless a hazard tree) and therefore retain the natural character of the area. Short term disruption to natural appearance and some displacement of visitors during operations are the effects to note. Noise and dust in the area may deter some visitors, but these effects will be short term and will cease after implementation. Meeting the purpose and need for nearby private land owners of reducing fire intensities and reducing fuels will also benefit the FS owned infrastructure and build environment as well as visitors to recreation sites. Cumulative Effects – Developed Recreation - Alternative 2

220 UDR Environmental Assessment

Past projects (Table at start of Chapter 3) have been implemented and no longer affect recreation use at these sites. This has created the baseline for existing condition to analyze direct/indirect effects. No ongoing or foreseeable future vegetation management or fuel reductions projects (Table at start of Chapter 3) overlap with the areas around the sites listed in Table 1. Given the staggered time of implementing these projects across the Forest, recreation users will have many places across the area including other developed recreation sites/campgrounds adjacent to the project units to continue to use for activities such as camping and launching boats. Invasive plant management is ongoing but is not expected to affect recreational use at these sites. There are no cumulative effects to developed recreation within the project area. Dispersed Recreation Although not quantified and mapped, resource specialist observations during surveys for this project suggest that the project area units contain a range of dispersed recreation evidence ranging from nothing evident in some units to a small collection of a mix of hunting blinds, dispersed camps, and kid forts. Also present are unmapped user created road and trail routes in some units where use patterns stem directly from numerous private property parcels neighboring National Forest System lands. None of the stated or yet to be discovered constructed features are specifically authorized and have no requirements for protection during project activities. There may be established or defined dispersed camps in the project area that are recognized along with their access routes as acceptable pursuant to access travel management regulations. This occupancy and use evidence suggests that recreational activities likely occurring in the project area include hiking, dog walking, mountain biking, camping, hunting, OHV use and general play in the forest. Direct and Indirect Effects––Dispersed Recreation - Alternative 1 The existing fuel loading conditions, trend and forest character would be maintained with no direct effect to the dispersed recreation resource. There is a potential indirect effect of non-action by allowing the existing threat to the general forest from fire carrying vegetation to remain in its current trend. With the assumption that project design features are applied to project implementation, the proposed activities would have minimal negative effects on the dispersed recreation resource. Short term disruption to natural appearance and some displacement of visitors during operations are the direct effects. Vegetation reduction and increased openness may facilitate general dispersed recreation uses such as hunting where appropriate. Almost the entire project area is within ROS of Roaded- Natural or Roaded-Modified with a small section of Semi-Primitive Non-motorized. The proposed treatments would retain the largest trees and maintain a natural environment maintaining the ROS levels in this urban interface. Project implementation activities including logging, mowing and burning operations would directly affect recreation by temporarily displacing existing dispersed activities. During implementation, noise and dust may deter visitors to this areas, but those effects would be temporary and cease after implementation. Opportunistic obliteration of motorized travel routes and campsites not authorized by travel management regulations would incrementally further compliance pursuant to the goals of those regulations. Visitors not understanding the illegal nature of constructing trails and other structures may continue after project activities are complete where vegetation removal may facilitate further construction. Focused education and enforcement patrols in select project areas will best address such issues and should be planned for outside of this project. Indirect effects of treatment include the potential to facilitate more unauthorized trail construction where vegetation is removed and more landline boundary management issues. Cumulative Effects –Dispersed Recreation - Alternative 2 Past projects (Table at start of Chapter 3) have been implemented and no longer affect recreation use at these sites. This has created the baseline for existing condition to analyze direct/indirect effects. No ongoing or 221 UDR Environmental Assessment

foreseeable future vegetation management or fuel reductions projects (Table at start of Chapter 3) overlap with the project area. Given the staggered time of implementing the projects across the Forest, dispersed recreation users will have many places across the area including lands adjacent to the project units to continue to use for activities such as hunting and camping. Wild and Scenic River See the Aquatic Resources section for more information on the Wild and Scenic River Direction as it applies to this project. Recreation and Scenic River classifications occur on sections of the Upper Deschutes River Corridor. Management within the Wild and Scenic River corridor is guided by the River Plan (LRMP Management Area 17a). The Deschutes River is a Recreational River from Wickiup Dam downriver to the north boundary of Sunriver, below which is a Scenic River classification. All units within the corridor fall under the Recreational River classification, with the exception of Unit 41 and a portion of 46, which are within a Scenic River classification. Recreational River areas are defined as “those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past”. Scenic River areas are defined as “those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads” (USDA, 1996b). See the table within the Aquatic report that displays the activities within the Upper Deschutes and Fall River Wild and Scenic River Corridors for the Upper Deschutes Fuels Reduction Project. All sections within the Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River corridor list recreation an Outstanding Remarkable Value (ORV) due to “ the range of activities, the variety of interpretive opportunities, and the attraction of the river for vacationers from outside of the region” (USDA, 1996b). The proposed actions would not affect range of activities, interpretive opportunities or attraction of the river for vacationers and would meet the standards and guidelines in the River Plan. The proposed thinning, mowing and burning could temporarily displace some users during implementation, but these effects are short term and will be staggered. Post-implementation the same opportunities for river recreation and developed/dispersed sties will exist. Other vegetation and fuel reduction projects planned do not overlap with the Wild and Scenic River Corridor. Special Uses A mix of buried and overhead special use utilities exist across the project as shown in the following localized image and narrative summaries. A major utility corridor is aligned within the project area in unit 40 and includes an overhead Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) transmission power line set and its associated timber- cleared right-of-way width of 125 feet. Midstate electric also has a proposal submitted for clearing of a wider right-of-way by another 50 feet to facilitate the proposed installation of another parallel transmission power line to the BPA line. Should the proposal be authorized, tentative timber removal and project implementation may begin in 2017. Permit Holder and Line Type Approximate Length in Miles Midstate Electric Proposed Overhead Power Line 3.2 Bonneville Power Overhead Power Line 3.6 Administration Century Link Underground Communications Line .3 La Pine Water Underground Water Line .6

222 UDR Environmental Assessment

Figure 59 BPA transmission line, Century Link Lines and proposed Midstate Transmission line in Unit 40

Figure 60: Midstate Powerlines overhead for .3 miles thru units 25 and 26 at Pringle Falls campground area.

223 UDR Environmental Assessment

Figure 61 Ann’s Butte area: .4 mile underground Bend Broad Band communications line and a .2 mi. underground Midstate Power line in units 38 and 39.

Figure 62: Midstate underground power .1 miles and Century Link underground communications .16 miles in unit 10 near Big River.

224 UDR Environmental Assessment

Figure 63:Sunriver north area underground and overhead lines from Midstate spanning approximately .9 miles in units 46, 49, 52, 54. Bend Broadband underground communications in unit 49 for .13 miles.

Figure 64: Sunriver unit 32 overhead Bend Broadband communications line spanning approximately .6 miles

There are currently no recreation special use permit holders authorized to use or occupy the project area. Direct and Indirect Effects––Special Uses - Alternative 1 There are no direct or indirect effects. Direct and Indirect Effects–– Special Uses -Alternative 2 Avoiding underground infrastructure when pile burning or operating heavy equipment will mitigate otherwise potential direct effect and damage to the buried infrastructure. Tending to safe buffer distances when

225 UDR Environmental Assessment

operations occur near overhead lines will avoid otherwise inadvertent direct effect to permitted lines as well as the safety of crews. Cumulative Effects – Special Uses- Alternative 2 Mowing activities in unit 40 associated with this project coupled with the foreseeable Midstate Electric transmission line clear cut of additional 50 feet supplement to the BPA 125’ will cumulatively overlap in time and space. As it relates only to this special use infrastructure, the cumulative effects are a net positive to the maintenance and safety of the overhead high power transmission lines.

Heritage Resources SHPO Consultation and finding of effect under SEC. 106 of NHPA Following the guidelines in the 2004 Regional Programmatic Agreement the USDA-Forest Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Oregon SHPO, a finding of No Historic Properties Affected has been determined for this project, with SHPO concurrence. This finding is based on the knowledge that although cultural resource sites are present and may be impacted by the proposed undertaking, site avoidance and project design criteria will provide protection of eligible and unevaluated site components. Management Direction Management direction for cultural resources is provided in the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, in the Forest Service Manual section 2360, in Federal Regulations 36CFR64 and 36CFR800 (amended December 2000), and in various federal laws including the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the National Forest Management Act. In general, existing management direction requires the Forest to consider the effects on cultural resources when proposing projects that fall within the Forest’s jurisdiction. Further direction indicates that the Forest will determine what cultural resources are present on the forest, evaluate each resource for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and protect or mitigate effect to resources that are eligible for or listed in the NRHP. Relevant Forest Plan Standards and Guides include: CR-1: Surveys will be conducted based on an inventory plan and design agreed to by the Forest and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO); from this database the forest will develop and maintain a forest-wide cultural resource overview. CR-2: Cultural resource properties located during inventory will be evaluated for eligibility to the NRHP. CR-3: In concert with inventories and evaluations the Forest will develop thematic National Register nominations and management plans for various classes of cultural properties. CR-4: Cultural properties in conflict with ground disturbing projects will be evaluated and, depending on the nature of the project, the activity may be redesigned to avoid damage or mitigation will be developed. CR-5: Management of cultural resources will be coordinated with other agencies including the SHPO and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. CR-6: Management of Native American cultural resources will be coordinated with the appropriate Native American Tribes(s) when projects are proposed in areas of known concern. Desired Condition The desired condition is not clearly stated in the Forest Plan, but can be derived from the implied goals of the Standards and Guides and the Monitoring Plan. It would be desirable to know the exact location and extent of all cultural resources, have evaluated each site for eligibility to the NRHP, and to have developed management 226 UDR Environmental Assessment

plans for all eligible and listed properties that would provide protection or mitigate effects that will occur to the resources. Existing Condition The Upper Deschutes River Wildland Urban Interface Hazardous Fuels project area covers approximately 4,156 acres. Within the project area 2,735 acres have been surveyed during various previous projects conducted between 1982 and 2006. An additional 847 acres were inventoried in 2015 as part of the fuels project. Of the total 3,582 acres covered under previous and recent survey, 520 acres are considered high probability areas for cultural resources and 3,062 acres are considered low probability. As a result of the inventories, 34 cultural resource sites have been identified within the current project area. Of these 34 sites, 21 have been evaluated for National Register eligibility; 3 of the evaluated sites have been determined eligible for the NRHP and 18 are not eligible, with SHPO concurrence. The remaining 13 sites have not been evaluated for eligibility. Twelve of the sites that have been identified in the project area are prehistoric in nature and 22 are historic period properties. The prehistoric sites are all lithic scatters composed mostly of flaked stone debitage and occasional stone tools. The historic period sites consist mostly of small trash scatters indicative of opportunistic dumping on Forest property. However, a few of the historic sites are associated with activities such as railroad logging, agricultural irrigation, and military training associated with Camp Abbot. Alternative 1 (No Action) – Direct and Indirect Effects Under the No Action alternative, no treatments of any kind related to the proposed fuels project would occur. Rather, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. Nevertheless, there would still be indirect effects to cultural resources under the No Action alternative. Indirect effects to cultural resources would result from unmanaged fuels being consumed during a wildfire event. By not treating fuels, uncontrolled fires could result in extreme burn temperatures that would adversely affect cultural resources sites and artifacts. The analysis value of obsidian artifacts for chronology and sourcing information is compromised by extreme temperatures. Furthermore, potential radiocarbon samples could be contaminated by modern carbon and ash from a wildfire. Fire leads to further oxidation of metal artifacts, this making them more brittle. Ceramic and glass artifacts fracture, and if the fire is hot enough glass can melt. Organic materials such as wood, bone, leather, and fabric are the most vulnerable to fire, often being completely consumed. Another indirect effect of the No Action alternative is the physical damage or destruction of artifacts or sites during wildfire suppression activities. Fire control lines, temporary roads, staging areas, and other disturbances from machinery and vehicles within site boundaries are all sources of this damage. Loss of site and artifact integrity results from displacement, compaction, churning, and mixing of surface and subsurface soils and deposits of both prehistoric and historic cultural deposits. Construction of temporary roads for fire suppression, if not closed or rehabilitated immediately following a wildfire, can provide easier access to sites that are vulnerable to looting and vandalism. Looting and vandalism may also become more prevalent as a result of obscuring vegetation being consumed by wildfire, making sites more noticeable. The loss of surface litter from intense wildfire combined with increased hydrophobic soil conditions leads to erosion from surface water runoff. Erosion across sites removes artifacts or deposits sediment from upslope. Increased trampling from game on thinner forest floors has also resulted from wildfire. A final indirect effect of the No Action alternative is the potential damage or loss of a site or artifacts that would otherwise be protected by an action alternative. An example of this is when fuels are reduced around perishable artifacts or features through controlled means, thus providing a level of protection from the devastating effects of a wildfire (extreme heat or fire suppression activities).

227 UDR Environmental Assessment

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) – Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 2 would treat 4,156 acres to reduce surface, ladder, and canopy fuels and interrupt fuel continuities on Forest Service lands adjacent to subdivisions and along primary access routes. Maintenance treatments are proposed in areas that have been thinned and/or mowed previously. Specifically, commercial thin, ladder fuel reduction thin, mow, and underburn would be performed on 1,313 acres; commercial thin, ladder fuel reduction thin, and mow would be conducted on 431 acres; 1,837 acres would be subject to mow only; 55 acres are slated for ladder fuel reduction thin and prune; ladder fuel reduction thin and mow would be done on 301 acres; ladder fuel reduction thin, mow, and underburn would be performed on 176 acres; and 7 acres would be underburn only. Thinning and piling of slash would be accomplished using machinery and hand methods. Mowing would be completed using mastication machinery or tractor mounted deck mowers. Activity generated slash and existing down as well as existing dead material within treatment units would be treated. Slash disposal methods for a specific unit depends on the amount of residual fuel, other proposed treatments, harvest method, harvest machinery used, and other factors. Trees with commercial value (usually greater than 7” dbh) would be whole-tree yarded, with limbs and tops attached to the landings, thereby reducing the amount of slash piling within units. Tops and limbs would be utilized as biomass as market conditions allow, otherwise they would be burned at landings. If not utilized, residual fuel would be piled and burned. Material would primarily be piled with grapple head mounted machinery. In areas that machinery cannot access such as steeper slopes and rocky ground hand piling would occur. Machine pile dimensions are typically 12’ long by 12’ wide by 8’ in height and occur at a rate of up to 20 piles per acre. Hand pile dimensions are approximately 6’ long by 6’ wide by 5’ in height. The number of hand piles per acre would fluctuate along with fuel loadings but rarely exceed 50 piles per acre. Machine and hand piles would be burned in the late fall or winter season when moisture levels prevent fire spreading to surrounding areas. Underburning consists of burning natural fuels and slash located in timbered stands. The fuels are burned under predetermined weather conditions in order to minimize tree mortality of residual stands and to ensure smoke dispersal. Underburning is often used in combination with other treatments, particularly mowing. Pre-haul maintenance and road reconstruction would occur along all haul routes for the action alternative. Road work would involve brushing, blading, ditch reconditioning, spot surfacing placement, danger and downed tree removal, culvert inlet and outlet cleaning, and occasional culvert replacements. Temporary road work would also occur to facilitate commercial thinning. Temporary roads are built to low specification, just enough to get equipment into landings and are obliterated at the end of the timber sale activity. Where possible, subsequent entries are designed to utilize previous roadbeds. Often these “existing roads” are merely a slight depression in the land or an area where trees were obviously removed to provide access routes. By re-using roadbeds soil disturbance can be reduced and existing access points revisited. These roads are not part of a permanent road system. They are not maintained or tracked. “Existing roads” were located mainly from field reconnaissance and from aerial photos that showed previous logging entries. Treatment activities that use heavy machinery for harvest or grapple piling would have a direct effect on cultural resource site integrity do to damage caused by crushing, breaking, mixing, compacting, and otherwise disturbing the context of the artifacts and the associated soil in which they are deposited. An exception to this is the machinery used to mow brush. As indicated above, two types of machinery are used for mechanical shrub treatment (mowing). The first is a rubber-tired tractor with a rotary mower used for slopes under 20%. Steeper slopes require a light tracked machine with a front-mounted mow deck that provides greater stability. The weight rating for the equipment is low, and has a limited potential to cause damage more typical of heavier skidders, grapplers, and shearing

228 UDR Environmental Assessment

machines. The one function of the mowing equipment that causes some soil disturbance is when the machinery makes turns. The tighter the turn the greater the disturbance. Slash disposal using burn piles affects both organic and inorganic artifacts. Burn temperatures in slash piles can reach as much as 800 degrees F, which is much higher than temperatures reached in broadcast underburn in light fuel conditions (250-300 degrees F). Therefore, placing burn piles within known cultural resource sites is considered a direct impact. Prescription underburning, however, does pose a potential direct effect to cultural resources where fuels are greater than 2.5 tons per acre, or classified as more than light fuels. Research on prescribed fire and obsidian indicates that hydration rinds are not affected when temperatures are 300 degrees F or less (Benson 2002; p. 100). However, obsidian hydration rinds are obliterated at temperatures over 797 degrees F (Trembour 1979, cited in Agee 1993). Obsidian sourcing analysis using trace elements does not appear to be affected at temperatures below about 1,800 degrees F (Shackley and Dillian 2002, p. 128). Road reconstruction and maintenance in or through a cultural resource site would not constitute a direct impact if the activities are confined to the existing road prism. In these areas the damage has already occurred during the initial construction and reconstruction activities would not impact previously undisturbed portions of the site. On the other hand, reconstruction or maintenance outside the existing road prism would be a direct impact. For example, if a road crosses a site and water bar or culvert maintenance occurs outside the road prism disturbing new areas of the site, there is a direct effect on site integrity from the equipment used to complete the work. In this instance, the loss of integrity is similar to that occurring when using heavy machinery for harvest activities. Temporary road development through a site, either by advanced preparation or through actual use by equipment, also has a direct effect on the integrity of cultural resource sites by breaking and displacing, and otherwise disturbing the site context. However, use of existing “undesignated” roads and skid trails through sites for temporary travel would not constitute a direct effect provided that the machinery does not travel off the road/trail into previously undisturbed areas, like staying in the road prism of an existing designated road. Mowing shrubs and underburning the resulting slash material will remove vegetation that currently obscures artifacts on the ground surface. Greater ground visibility would expose sensitive materials to possible looting and vandalism. While the greater ground visibility would be relatively short lived, it nonetheless constitutes an indirect effect on site integrity. Cultural resources sites located on sloping ground down slope from treatment areas may experience erosion and run-off from melting snow and heavy rains. Even sites that may be outside of treatment units could be indirectly affected by the erosion and redeposition of sediments from outside the site proper. The following discussion focuses on how the various effects of Alternative 2 will be eliminated, reduced, and/or otherwise addressed through coordination between Heritage Program personnel (Bend-Fort Rock District Archaeologists and crew) and the affected program area (silviculture, fuels, roads, etc.). Of the 34 sites that have been identified within the project area 18 have been determined not eligible for the NRHP and, therefore, do not warrant further consideration or protective measures. However, the remaining 16 sites (3 determined eligible for the NRHP and 13 unevaluated properties) do require consideration in terms of mitigating project effects. Site specific treatment protection protocols for harvesting and thinning were developed for the 16 eligible and unevaluated sites. At five of the sites, potential direct and indirect effects from project implementation will be mitigated by the project design criteria of buffering the site boundaries and prohibiting all treatment activities within the site perimeters. Site boundaries with an appropriate buffer (typically 30 meters) will be identified and flagged and/or GPSed by the project archaeologists. The site locations will be provided to the project manager so that they will be avoided by treatment activities. It is recommended that project implementation be monitored by heritage staff. 229 UDR Environmental Assessment

On two sites the use of heavy machinery for harvest and thinning is permissible due to previous ground disturbance and compaction. Piling of slash for burning is also permissible but only in specific locations that have previous disturbance within the site area. These areas will be identified and flagged and/or GPSed by the project archaeologists and the locations provided to the project manager. Project activities within these sites should be monitored by Heritage personnel. At three sites the use of rubber tired machinery for harvest and thinning would be allowed. Two of the sites have existing roads within the site perimeters that could be used by the machinery. However, the machinery would need to stay on the roads and not travel off the road prism into undisturbed area. Also, no modification such as blading would be allowed on these roads. The third site where rubber tired machinery could be used is covered with sufficient duff and brush to protect surface artifacts from the equipment. However, the machinery would need to drive straight in and back straight out while working in the site perimeter (i.e., no turning or maneuvering inside the site area). At all three of these sites thinning would need to be conducted by hand in areas away from the machinery’s path, with all slash piled off site for burning. Archaeological monitoring during project implementation is recommended. Hand treatments/thinning only are permissible within two sites. All material must be removed by hand and slashed piled off site for burning to eliminate the direct effect of extreme heat on features and artifacts. Monitoring is recommended. At one site the use of heavy machinery is allowed within the site perimeter, but outside of specific feature locations within the site. These locations will be identified and flagged and/or GPSed by the project archaeologists. The feature locations will be provided to the project manager so that they will be avoided by treatment activities. Hand thinning is permissible within the feature locations but material must be moved out of the area by hand and slash burned away from the features. Treatment activities within this site will be monitored by Heritage staff. At the final three sites, there is little to no potential for direct or indirect effects form treatment activities due to the limited nature of the proposed treatments in the site areas. Nevertheless, monitoring is recommended at these three sites. In units identified for mechanical brush treatment (mowing), the equipment will not make turns within site boundaries, eliminating potential impacts from turning/maneuvering the equipment. Existing fuel conditions in treatments units identified for prescribed underburning are within the range described by fuels specialists as light. Burn temperatures are not expected to exceed 300 degrees F, a range considered safe for retention of obsidian hydration rinds. While temperatures may exceed this level in localized areas due to slightly heavier fuels, the burn duration is expected to be short and soil temperatures to remain below the threshold. Units identified for underburning are expected to use existing fuel breaks such as roads to reduce the need for the constructing (and ultimately rehabilitating) fire lines. No machine fire lines would be constructed, but there may be the need for hand-constructed fire lines. If hand lines are deemed necessary, the location(s) will be reviewed by an archaeologist to determine if there are cultural resources sites that could be affected. Coordination between fuels and heritage personnel will determine an appropriate solution to such conflicts. Unrecorded cultural resources that are identified during project implementation will be protected until they can be examined and evaluated by the Bend-Fort Rock District Archaeologist. As per contract specifications, all harvest/treatment activities must cease in the vicinity of such a discovery until the archaeologist completes the appropriate site assessment. While mowing shrubs is determined to have an indirect effect in terms of better ground visibility potentially leading to looting and vandalism, this effect is short lived. Shrubs such as bitterbrush typically grow back within a few years, once again obscuring artifacts. Therefore, deliberately removing shrubs is viewed as providing a

230 UDR Environmental Assessment

greater benefit than risk by reducing the potential for catastrophic wildfire. The same hold true for underburning, which would eliminate excessive ground cover for a short period time but reduce wildfire risk. Visibility of artifacts to potential looting activity is always a risk, whether vegetation is removed or not. This is due to the variability of surface conditions from natural processes that include Aeolian deposition of fine sediment, vertical and horizontal artifact movement from cryoturbation (frost action including frost heaving from freeze-thaw cycles), and bioturbation (soil churning and stirring by organisms). Therefore, no specific measure is deemed necessary for this indirect effect. In fact, removing shrubs and other ground cover through mowing and underburning could actually be beneficial to the Heritage program in the long term. Monitoring sites immediately after mowing and/or underburning could help archaeologists better delineate site boundaries because of the better ground visibility. In areas with poor ground visibility due to dense vegetation cover, site delineation is often erroneous and arbitrary. The potential for erosion or new deposition of sediments onto sites due to treatment activities up slope from the sites will generally be mitigated through measures proposed for the soil resource. Such mitigations may include, but are not limited to, reclaiming temporary roads, some landings, and skid trails, as well as placing available slash and other woody debris over treated surfaces to provide ground cover protection. Cumulative Effects The creation of temporary roads is needed to access certain treatment units. Once the treatments are completed, however, these roads would be obliterated or closed in some other fashion in order to prevent unauthorized travel. Creation of temporary roads is identified as a direct effect, but subsequent rehabilitation of the roads constitutes a cumulative effect on site integrity because it is overlapping in time and space with the Proposed Action. Road maintenance using a blade on existing native surfaced roads that cross cultural resource sites adds a cumulative effect to the original road construction because blading a previously disturbed surface tends to remove at least some undisturbed deposits along with material that may have slumped or washed onto the roadbed. In other words, the original effect of building a road through a site is compounded by additional equipment operation for maintenance. Road maintenance that adds surface aggregate or drainage features to a previously native surfaced road through a cultural resource site would have a cumulative effect on the site. The initial impact would have been from placing the road through the site in the first place, whereas adding gravel or drainage features such as water bars and culvers would be a cumulative action affecting the site again. The impacts may also occur across a larger area than the original road construction disturbance if water bars and culverts are placed to drain across the site. Sediment transported from the drainage features will be redeposited in new locations on the site, thus affecting site integrity. There may also be erosion in previously undisturbed portions of the site, leading to loss of artifact context and integrity. The cumulative effects of temporary road development would be eliminated by prohibiting the development of temporary roads through cultural resource sites in the first place. In a similar vein, while it is deemed permissible for heavy equipment to travel on existing native surfaced roads and other disturbed areas across a few of the cultural resource sites, maintenance using a blade or other surface modifications within the sites should not occur, thus eliminating this cumulative effect. Monitoring Coordination with other resource departments and Heritage Program personnel will ensure that all eligible and unevaluated sites within the project area are protected from the direct effects note above. A list of these sites and specific monitoring needs are included in the cultural resource inventory/consultation report prepared for the Upper Deschutes River Wildland Urban Interface Hazardous Fuels Restoration project. Part of the monitoring would occur during project implantation through coordination with other specialists. Some site

231 UDR Environmental Assessment

monitoring may also occur after project implementation where proposed actions provide the opportunity to examine surfaces with greater visibility, for example. Implementing mitigations and monitoring project activities will ensure protection and avoidance of impacts to the eligible and unevaluated sites identified within the project area. Watershed and Aquatic Resources The Upper Deschutes River Fuels Reduction Project proposes fuels reduction treatments on 51 units on nearly 4156 acres spread out primarily within the Deschutes River and Fall River corridors on the Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District. These units are dominated by ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine. The proposed treatments are to reduce the amount of surface, ladder, and canopy fuels and interrupt fuel continuities adjacent to subdivisions and along primary ingress and egress travel routes. The treatments would also enable firefighters a safer suppression work in the event of wildfire. The project area is located east of the Northwest Forest Plan management area, and is within the landscape managed under the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH). There are 16 units totaling a maximum of 219 acres proposed for treatments with the Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs). The project area is located within five 10th field watersheds. Table 72: 10th Field Watersheds with Project Watershed 10th Field Watershed Name Drainage Area (ac) Within Project Area (ac) Number 1707030103 Fall River-Deschutes River 117,638 1,817 1707030104 North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River 101,224 724 1707030203 Middle Little Deschutes River 48,657 310 1707030206 Long Prairie 174,514 71 1707030207 Lower Little Deschutes River 110,288 1,229

Management Direction: The project area is east of the range of the northern spotted owl. Management direction included in the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH, USDA 1995), which amended the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP – USDA, 1990) applies within this area. The project area includes one unit (Unit Number 34) adjacent to the Fall River that is eligible for inclusion as a Wild and Scenic River. A suitability analysis has yet to be undertaken for inclusion into the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The UDR Project area also includes a portion of the Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River and State Scenic Waterway corridor. A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Comprehensive Management Plan (River Plan) were completed for the corridor in 1996 (USDA 1996a, 1996b) that amended the LRMP and became Management Area 17a. The River Plan includes specific management Standards and Guidelines for Management Area 17a that supplement the Standards and Guidelines included in Management Area 17 of the LRMP. Management direction within INFISH requires Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) to be delineated for watersheds. They are portions of watersheds where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis, and management activities are subject to specific standards and guidelines. The standard widths for RHCAs from INFISH that are applicable to this project will be adopted. See below for RHCA widths, which are listed on pages A-5 and 6 of the Decision Notice of the INFISH Environmental Assessment. Category 1 – fish-bearing streams. Deschutes River is the major waterbody within the project area, and is designated under Category 1 – Fish-bearing stream; other fish bearing streams within the project area include Fall River and Indian Creek. By definition found in INFISH, the RHCA will 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 232 UDR Environmental Assessment

to the outer edges of the 100 year floodplain, or to the outer edges of the 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. For the Upper Deschutes River Fuels Reduction Project area, the RHCAs of the Deschutes River, Fall River, Spring River and Indian Creek will have a width of 300 feet upslope from the edge of the river on both sides. Units that include Category 1 streams are 10, 11, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 34, 42, and 44. Category 2 areas- (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. No category 2 areas exist within project units. Category 3 areas (ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater than 1 acre) will have a riparian area that consists 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 wetland, pond or lake, whichever is greatest. Units that include Category 3 are 11, 19, 20, 21, and 42. Category 4 areas (seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, wetlands less than one acre, landslides, and landslide-prone areas). At a minimum the RHCA will consist of the extent of landslides and landslide-prone areas, or the intermittent stream channel and the area to the top of the inner gorge, or the intermittent stream channel or wetland and the area to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, or the area from the edges of the stream channel, wetland, landslide, or landslide-prone area to a distance equal to the height of one-half site- potential tree, or 50 feet slope distance, whichever is greatest. Units 20 and 21 are the only units that includes a Category 4. Management of RHCAs is intended to achieve Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs), described by habitat features indicating “good” watershed health and inland native fish habitat. The habitat features applicable to this project (forested system) are pool frequency, water temperature, large woody debris, and width/depth ratio (See below under Environmental Effects for RMO compliance). RMOs for forested systems are as follows: Table 73: Interim Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) Habitat Feature Interim Objectives Pool Frequency Varies by channel width (See Table below) Water No measurable increase in maximum water temperature (7-day moving Temperatures average of daily maximum temperature measured as the average of the maximum daily temperature of the warmest consecutive 7-day period.) Maximum water temperatures below 59° F within adult holding habitat and below 48° F within spawning and rearing habitats. Large Woody East of Cascade Crest in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and western Debris Montana: >20 pieces/mile; >12” diameter; >35’ length. (forested systems) Width/Depth <10, mean wetted width divided by mean depth Ratio

233 UDR Environmental Assessment

Table 74: Interim objectives for pool frequency Wetted width (feet) 10 20 25 50 75 100 125 150 200 Pools per mile 96 56 47 26 23 18 14 12 9

Standards and Guidelines (S&G) from the LRMP and included by reference include RP-2, RP-4, RP-6-8, RP 10-16, FI-5, and WT-1. These S&Gs provide for protection of riparian vegetation, water quality, and require Best Management Practices and cumulative effects analysis on water and fisheries resources. Standards and Guidelines (S&G) from INFISH incorporated by reference that apply to the UDR Project are TM-1, RF-2(b), FM-1, RA-4, and RA-5. These S&Gs allow vegetation and fuels management activities in RHCAs, minimize roads and landings in RHCAs, prohibit refueling and storage of toxicants in RHCAs, and protect inland native fish at water drafting sites. These measures are reflected in the project design listed in Chapter 2. Wild and Scenic River Direction Vegetation management and fuels reduction activities are proposed within the Wild and Scenic Deschutes River corridor and within the eligible Wild and Scenic Fall River corridor. Rivers or sections of rivers in the National Wild and Scenic River System are classified as Wild, Scenic, or Recreational depending on the degree of development, appropriate types of land use, and ease of accessibility of roads and trails. There are no Wild River classified river segments on the Deschutes River or Fall River, but Recreational River and Scenic River classifications exist. Recreational River areas are defined as “those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past”. Scenic River areas are defined as “those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads” (USDA, 1996b). Table 70 displays the activities within the Upper Deschutes and Fall River Wild and Scenic River Corridors for the project. Table 75: Activities within the Upper Deschutes and Eligible Fall River Wild and Scenic River Corridors Project River River Acres Silvicultural Unit Corridor Fuels treatments* Segment Classification within prescription* corridor 34 Fall River - Recreational 45 HTH LFR/Mow/PB Deschutes 10 3 Recreational 8 HTH LFR/Mow/PB River Deschutes 16 3 Recreational 11 LFR/Mow/PB River Deschutes 17 3 Recreational 2 LFR/Mow/PB River Deschutes 18 3 Recreational 8 Mow River Deschutes 19 3 Recreational 26 LFR/Mow/PB River Deschutes 20 3 Recreational 164 LFR/Mow/UB/PB River Deschutes 21 2 Recreational 79 HTH LFR/Mow/PB River Deschutes 23 3 Recreational 6 LFR/Mow/PB River

234 UDR Environmental Assessment

Deschutes 25 2 Recreational 50 LFR/PB River Deschutes 26 2 Recreational 47 LFR/Mow/PB River Deschutes 27 2 Recreational 2 HTH LFR/Mow/PB River Deschutes 28 3 Recreational 1 LFR/PB River Deschutes 29 3 Recreational 5 LFR/PB River Deschutes 41 4 Scenic 7 UB River Deschutes 42 3 Recreational 15 Mow River Deschutes 44 3 Recreational 31 LFR/Mow/PB River Deschutes 46 4 Scenic 11 Mow River *HTH = commercial thin, LFR = ladder fuels reduction, PB = pile burning, UB = underburning Deschutes River Management within the Wild and Scenic River corridor is guided by the River Plan (LRMP Management Area 17a). The Deschutes River is a Recreational River from Wickiup Dam downriver to the north boundary of Sunriver, below which is a Scenic River classification. All units within the corridor fall under the Recreational River classification, with the exception of Unit 41 and a portion of 46, which are within a Scenic River classification. The scenic, recreation, and wildlife ORVs are analyzed in other sections of this EA. Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) are listed in Table 76 below for River segments 2-4. Table 76: Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Deschutes River by Segment River Value Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4

Outstandingly Outstandingly Outstandingly Geologic Remarkable Remarkable Remarkable Hydrologic Significant Significant Significant Outstandingly Outstandingly Outstandingly Fishery Remarkable Remarkable Remarkable Outstandingly Outstandingly Vegetation Significant Remarkable Remarkable Outstandingly Outstandingly Wildlife Significant Remarkable Remarkable Outstandingly Outstandingly Outstandingly Cultural Remarkable Remarkable Remarkable Outstandingly Outstandingly Scenic Significant Remarkable Remarkable

235 UDR Environmental Assessment

Outstandingly Outstandingly Outstandingly Recreation Remarkable Remarkable Remarkable

Standards and Guidelines specific to vegetation management in and near riparian areas from the River Plan that are applicable to the proposed project are listed below: Standard: Riparian areas will be managed to support riparian dependent species. Upland forests will be characterized by disturbances which mimic the effects of periodic occurrence of small, low intensity fires, to perpetuate a mosaic of stand structures and ages and reduce the risk of high intensity fires. Guidelines, incorporated by reference, include G-4, V-5, V-6 and V-17. These include the use of Best Management Practices to protect water quality and provisions for instream large wood recruitment and meadow and riparian protection. Fall River Fall River is identified in the LRMP as eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. As an eligible river, lands within ¼ mile wide corridor on both sides are to be managed in accordance with Management Area 17 of the LRMP. Values for which Fall River was considered eligible include the fishery and geological/hydrological values. More information is available in Appendix D of the LRMP. Fall River is classified as a Recreational River. Standards for Vegetation Management under Management Area 17 for Recreational Rivers include protection of the immediate river environment, water quality, scenic quality, fish and wildlife, riparian plant communities, and other values. Over the long term, the appearance of the river corridor should remain near natural with impacts from project activities subordinate to the natural character of the landscape (USDA, 1990). Vegetation and fuels management activities are proposed on 473 acres within Management Area 17a (Deschutes River) and 45 acres within Management Area 17 (Fall River). The table below summarizes the activities. Beneficial Uses: Beneficial uses are documented according to criteria in the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, (ODEQ). A beneficial use is a resource or activity that would be directly affected by a change in water quality or quantity. The beneficial uses of the Deschutes River are public and private domestic water supply, industrial water supply, irrigation, livestock watering, anadromous fish passage, salmonid fish rearing and spawning, resident fish and aquatic life, wildlife and hunting, fishing, boating, water contact recreation, and aesthetic quality (Wild and Scenic). Beneficial uses are designated for entire basins, hence these beneficial uses are for the Deschutes Basin (approximately 6.9 million acres). Water quality for beneficial uses is maintained and protected through the implementation of the 1990 Deschutes National Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines including Best Management Practices (BMPs), INFISH, and the Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River and State Scenic Waterway Management Plan. All proposed management activities will meet the required Standards and Guidelines and selected BMPs in both the short and long term. Clean Water Act - ODEQ 303(d): The objective of the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of all waters. Under Section 319 of the 1987 CWA Amendments, states are required to determine those waters that will not meet the goals of the CWA, determine those non-point source activities that are contributing pollution, and develop a process on how to reduce such pollution to the “maximum extent

236 UDR Environmental Assessment

practicable”. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that a list be developed of all impaired or threatened waters within each state. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is responsible for compiling the 303(d) list, assessing data, and submitting the 303(d) list to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for federal approval. ODEQ lists the Deschutes River within the project area as a water quality impaired river (303(d) list). The parameters for which the Deschutes River are listed within the project area are Chlorophyll a in summer, temperature year-round (non-spawning), dissolved oxygen year-round, turbidity spring and summer, and sedimentation (undefined season). Management direction regarding 303(d) listed rivers is that any project activity should not further degrade the parameters for which it is listed (USDA and USDI 1999).

Table 77: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 2010 List of Water Quality Impaired Waterbodies within the Upper Deschutes Fuels Reduction Project Area (303(d) List). From: ODEQ Water Quality Assessment – Oregon Integrated Database, http//www.deq.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt20 Waterbody River miles Parameter Season Status Deschutes River 110.8-223.3 Temperature Year Around Category 5 (non-spawning) TMDL needed 303(d) Deschutes River 116-222.2 Dissolved January 1 – May Category 5 Oxygen 15 TMDL needed 303(d) Deschutes River 171.7-223.3 Dissolved Year Around Category 5 Oxygen (non-spawning) TMDL needed 303(d) Deschutes River 168.2-189.4 Chlorophyll a Summer Category 5 TMDL needed 303(d) Deschutes River 168.2-189.4 Sedimentation undefined 303(d) Deschutes River 168.2-189.4 Turbidity Spring/summer 303(d)

Consistency with Executive Order 11988 (Floodplains) and Executive Order 11990 (Wetlands): Floodplains: Executive Order 11988 provides direction to avoid adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. Floodplains are defined by this order as, “. . . the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including flood prone areas of offshore islands, including at a minimum, that area subject to a one percent [100-year recurrence] or greater chance of flooding in any one year.” Wetlands: Executive Order 11990 is to avoid adverse impacts associated with destruction or modification of wetlands. Wetlands are defined by this order as, “. . . areas inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to support and under normal circumstances does or would support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds.” Due to the groundwater nature of the river systems within the project area, flow regimes are very stable and do not experience wide ranges in short-term and long-term discharge which are more typical of snow-melt and precipitation-driven aquatic systems. Therefore, the 100 year recurrence discharge elevations and associated floodplain widths would be less than exhibited in run-off dominated systems. In addition, the discharge at Deschutes River is now controlled by upriver dams that provide storage capacity and reduces discharge during flood events. Project design features have been designed to prevent adverse effects to wetlands and floodplains. The project is consistent with these Executive Orders. 237 UDR Environmental Assessment

Existing Conditions

Water and Fisheries Resources The project area is within portions of fifteen 12th field sub-watersheds of the five 10th field watersheds. The table below demonstrates the acreage of each sub-watershed within the project area boundary. Table 78: Sub-watershed Acres within Upper Deschutes River Fuels Reduction Project Units within Percent of Watershed 12th Field Watershed Drainage Current WCF Project Area Watershed Number Name Area (ac) Class Ratings (ac) within units Pringle Falls-Deschutes 170703010301 17,410 213 2.0 1% River 170703010302 Fall River 39,965 90 1.3 0% 170703010305 Spring River 16,406 316 1.3 2% Deschutes Braid- 170703010306 11,829 1199 2.0 10% Deschutes River 170703010401 Town of Sunriver 11,240 500 1.3 4% Town of Sunriver- 170703010402 15,212 174 1.8 1% Deschutes River Benham Falls-Deschutes 170703010403 22,663 7 1.6 0% River Lava Island Falls- 170703010405 12,518 27 1.6 0% Deschutes River Overturf Butte- 170703010406 31,374 15 1.6 0% Deschutes River Dorrance Meadow-Little 170703020303 14,437 310 1.4 2% Deschutes River 170703020609 Finley Butte-Long Prairie 22,865 71 1.2 0% 170703020701 Wickiup Junction 12,102 662 1.2 5% 170703020703 Lower Paulina Creek 20,037 13 1.5 0% Town of Lapine-Little 170703020704 17,335 422 1.4 2% Deschutes River Sugar Pine Butte-Little 170703020706 33,664 132 1.3 0% Deschutes River

Watershed Condition Framework The Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) is a national effort by the Forest Service to establish a consistent, comparable, credible, process to help focus and prioritize watershed health and function restoration efforts at the 12th field scale (sub-watershed). Watershed condition describes the health of the hydrologic and soil functions in the watershed as indicated by physical and biological characteristics. A core set of 12 nationally consistent physical and biological indicators were used by an interdisciplinary team in the assessment. Sub- watersheds were classified into three categories: 238 UDR Environmental Assessment

• Class 1 (Functioning Properly) sub-watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. • Class 2 (Functioning at Risk) sub-watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. • Class 3 (Impaired Function) sub-watersheds exhibit low geomorphic hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition.

Sub-watersheds within the Upper Deschutes River Fuel Reduction Project area exhibit some deviation from the natural potential condition, tending toward Class 2 overall (Functioning at Risk). The indicators most deviated from the natural potential condition are water quality and water quantity related to altered stream flow regimes. Vegetation indicator also deviates from the natural potential condition mostly due to fire regime change. It is not anticipated the Upper Deschutes River Fuels Reduction Project will change condition class ratings within any of the watersheds due to the small percent of the watersheds being treated and no anticipated change to the flow regime. Deschutes River The flow of the Deschutes River is regulated at Wickiup Dam to meet irrigation demands. The altered flow regime has led to increased riverbank erosion, widening of the channel, sedimentation of substrates, and reduced water quality and fish habitat (USDA, 1996b). These effects are most evident in the river upstream of the confluence with Fall River. The additional discharge provided by Fall River tempers some of the effects of the modified flow regime at Wickiup Dam. Figure 65below shows what the flow regime has been for the last 5 years coming out of Wickiup. During the winter months discharge is regulated between 25-300cfs, and is the summer water is released for irrigation between 1600-1900 cfs.

Mean Daily Discharge Below Wickiup Dam 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 (cfs) 800 600 400 200 0 1/1/2010 1/1/2011 1/1/2012 1/1/2013 1/1/2014 Date

Figure 65: Graph of Deschutes River flow regime below Wickiup Dam Historic Fish Populations: Historic native fish populations in the Deschutes River within the project area included Interior Columbia River Basin (CRB) redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), and sculpin (Cottus sp.). There are no records of anadromous species in the project area, as upriver migratory fish passage is considered to be restricted to below Big Falls on the Deschutes River downriver of Bend (ODFW, 1996). Over the last 100 years, several other fish

239 UDR Environmental Assessment

species have been introduced into the basin, considerably altering the fish community. In addition, the bull trout is considered to be extirpated from the Deschutes River above Bend (ODFW, 1996). Present Fish Populations: The Deschutes River within the project area has populations of redband trout, rainbow trout, brown trout, eastern brook trout, three-spined stickleback, mountain whitefish, and sculpin. Since Wickiup Dam is unscreened, other fish species found in Wickiup Reservoir may pass through this section of the Deschutes. These species include largemouth bass, kokanee salmon, brown bullhead, and tui chub. Based on recent ODFW fish population surveys, the redband trout population is depressed within the project area (ODFW, 2015), primarily due to flow management, resultant riverbank erosion, private residence development, and competition with introduced species. Bull trout are no longer present in the Upper Deschutes River or tributaries, but are located in the Deschutes River below Big Falls at river mile 132, which is over 50 miles downriver of the most downriver extent of the Upper Deschutes Fuels Reduction Project. An isolated population is found in Odell Lake but has no surface water connection to the Upper Deschutes River. Critical habitat, as defined in the Endangered Species Act, is an area of habitat considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to be essential for the species conservation. Critical habitat is a regulatory designation. The 2010 Final U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bull Trout Critical Habitat designation for the Deschutes River determined the upriver extent at Big Falls. Interior CRB redband trout, which are a sub-species of rainbow trout, are included on the July, 2015 Region 6 Sensitive Species List. They have interbred with various hatchery stocks of rainbow trout within the Deschutes River. Evaluation of the genetic make-up of the redband trout of the Deschutes River near the project area revealed 7.2% hatchery rainbow genetic contribution, i.e., on average, the fish were 92.8% pure redband (Phelps, et al, 1996). Fisheries are regarded as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value in Segments 2, 3, and 4 of the Deschutes River, in part because of the trophy brown trout (Salmo trutta) fishery (USDA, 1996b). Determination of the value of redband trout in Segment 4 has been deferred until a review of the genetic status has been completed. Until that time, the redband population is to be treated as an ORV (USDA, 1996b). The Federal Wild and Scenic River and State Scenic Waterway Acts established an overriding goal to protect and enhance the ORVs for which the river was designated (USDA, 1996b). Spring River Spring River is a cool, clear spring-fed stream of approximately 1 mile in length with a stable flow of 200 to 300 cfs. The stream joins the Deschutes River at river mile 190.8. Spring River is an important spawning and rearing stream for brown trout that reside in the Deschutes River, but does not support strong resident fish populations. Fall River Fall River is another cool, spring-fed, stable stream of approximately 120-150 cfs discharge, and joins the Deschutes River at river mile 204.9. This stream is another important spawning stream for brown trout of the Deschutes River. In addition, there are resident populations of rainbow and brook trout. Fall River supports a popular sport fishery. The drainage area for Fall River has been calculated at 39.9 square miles, but is difficult to determine due to the very gentle slopes of the watershed and the complex nature of the strata. Fall River is within the Upper Deschutes Basin. Groundwater flow direction in the basin is influenced by complex, underlying geology, and is not closely associated with the surface topography in some areas. Generally, groundwater flow direction in the basin is in a southerly to southeasterly direction from the Cascade Range toward the Deschutes River, then becoming generally northeast approaching Bend (Gannett et al, 2001). Fall River has a very stable flow regime due to its spring-fed, groundwater driven nature. The average flow for Fall River for the flow period of record 1939 to 2007 was 140 cubic feet/second (cfs), with a minimum flow of 77 240 UDR Environmental Assessment

cfs in 1942 and a maximum flow of 244 cfs in 1951 for the period of record (Oregon Water Resources Department website at www.wrd.state.or.us). Fall River loses flow to the surrounding strata, recharging the groundwater in its lower reach downstream of the gaging station near river mile 5 (Gannett et al, 2001). Fall River has populations of native Interior CRB redband trout, native mountain whitefish, and introduced brown trout and eastern brook trout. Mountain whitefish are found below Fall River falls located at river mile 2.0, but there are no records of their occurrence above. Historically, bull trout may have been present below the falls (ODFW, 1996). The fish populations in Fall River have undergone two severe events in the past few decades. Due to a disease outbreak at the Fall River Fish Hatchery in 1973, the entire river was treated with rotenone, an organic based pesticide that killed all fish in Fall River. The river was subsequently stocked with brook, rainbow, and brook trout (ODFW, 1996). During August of 2002, fire retardant was inadvertently dropped in Fall River at approximately river mile 5.75, within the Fall Project boundary, while attempting to extinguish a small fire (<5 acres). A large fish kill was observed, estimated at 21,000 fish by ODFW. Aquatic invertebrates were also adversely affected. Recovery of the fish population was anticipated by ODFW to take up to 9 years. Different stocks of rainbow trout have been stocked for decades in Fall River. In recent years, legal-sized “cranebows”, derived from naturally spawning redband trout from Crane Prairie Reservoir, have been stocked annually. Due to reports of poor fishing success, ODFW is currently studying how different stocks of rainbow trout survive and move within Fall River. The rainbow stocks have likely hybridized with the native redband over the decades of stocking, but the genetic status is unknown. There are presently no bull trout populations within Fall River (See Figure 2 below). They were suspected to have once been present but spawning was never documented (Buchanan, et al 1997, USFWS, 2002). Fall River is included on the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) 2010 Water Quality Integrated Report with a Category 5 status of inclusion on 303(d) list, Total Maximum Daily Load needed. The ODEQ 2010 Integrated Report is found at www.deq.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt2010/search.asp. The criteria lists bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing. This was based on recommendations of the Bull Trout Technical Work Group, composed of bull trout experts and fisheries biologists (ODEQ, 2003a), and the USFWS proposed critical habitat for bull trout juvenile rearing and spawning (ODEQ, 2003b). The work group designated 4 bull trout use designation: BTHD1; BTHD2; BTHD3; and BTHD4. The first two designations pertain to waters where bull trout populations are known to be present while the latter two refer to habitats not known to be occupied but have potential to support bull trout spawning, rearing, and resident life stages (BTHD3) or bull trout migration (BTHD4). These two designations may have little to no current or historical data showing bull trout presence. Fall River was assigned BTHD3 from above Fall River Falls upstream to the headwaters (all year) and BTHD4 from the mouth upstream to Fall River Falls (October – May). As stated above, the Final USFWS Bull Trout Critical Habitat designation in 2010 did not include Fall River, with Big Falls on the Deschutes River at river mile 132 being the upriver extent of the final critical habitat designation. ODEQ may revise the bull trout use designations in the future to be consistent with the final critical habitat designations (ODEQ, 2003b). There is potential for this revision to occur on Fall River since it was not included in the Final Bull Trout Critical Habitat Designation. A bull trout draft recovery plan (USFWS, 2002) has been developed for the Deschutes River and tributaries (Deschutes Recovery Unit) that is available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/species/recovery-plans.html. This plan states a feasibility analysis is needed to assess the potential for reestablishment of bull trout into the upper Deschutes core habitat. This has not been undertaken to date.

241 UDR Environmental Assessment

Figure 62: Deschutes Basin Biological Bull Trout Habitat, from USDA/USDI Deschutes Basin Biological Assessment 2014-2017

242 UDR Environmental Assessment

Fisheries Habitat The redband trout has habitat requirements similar to other salmonids. There are resident, fluvial and adfluvial populations. They typically occupy habitats with temperatures in the 50-65º Fahrenheit range, but some desert dwelling populations have adapted to survive temporary exposure up to 85º Fahrenheit. In the stream environment, they seek cover provided by large woody material, undercut banks, boulders, depth, and turbulence. They can be found in desert stream environs as well as those with forested canopies. They require clean gravels for spawning, preferably in the 0.25" - 2.0" range. Deschutes River: The units adjacent to the Deschutes River within the project area are scattered over a long distance, from approximately river mile 225 downriver of Wickiup Dam to river mile 185 near Sunriver. The river within the project area can be characterized as relatively slow-moving, low gradient glides and pools, with a high width/depth ratio, and sandy/small gravel substrates. The only anomaly is at Pringle Falls, where the river changes character dramatically as a basalt lava flow has caused a sudden increase in gradient, substrate size (cobbles and boulders), and a decrease in width. The average bankfull width is 100-120 feet near Wickiup Dam, gradually increasing downriver to 150-180 feet near Sunriver. Severe riverbank erosion is most evident in the upper reaches, gradually diminishing toward Sunriver where flows are stabilized from tributary inputs of the Little Deschutes River, Spring River, and Fall River. Instream large woody material is limited throughout much of the river due to past wood clearing exercises during the log drive days of the late 1930’s. Numerous restoration projects undertaken by the Deschutes National Forest, ODFW, and partners has increased the abundance of large wood. The riparian zone width is highly variable. There are areas of sedge and willows over 200 feet wide in some areas, but many other riparian areas are narrow (5-10 feet), the vegetation community quickly transforming into a drier upland types consisting of ponderosa/lodgepole pine and bitterbrush. The condition of riparian vegetation varies widely. The unstable riverbanks and heavy recreational use in the upper reaches has impacted much of the riparian areas. In other areas, primarily the large sedge and willow communities, the riparian vegetation is in fair to good condition. Deschutes River bottom substrates have high volumes of fine sediments (sand and silt), a result of widespread erosion of riverbanks in upriver reaches. Fine sediments plug the interspaces of substrate gravels, reducing the survival rates of developing fish embryos buried within, and limiting habitat for aquatic invertebrates (Meehan, 1991). Habitat for the redband trout in the Deschutes River has been diminished as a result of flow management, riverbank erosion, and development. Fall River: Fall River is characterized by stable, slow moving spring-fed flows, low gradient, stable banks, healthy riparian vegetation, abundant instream woody material, cool water temperatures, and small gravel and sandy substrate. Past restoration projects added boulder structures in the upper sections of the river, large woody material throughout much of the river, and spawning gravel in the lower river. The low gradient character is interrupted at river mile 2.0 by Fall River falls, a nearly vertical break of approximately 15 feet. These falls likely are a barrier to upstream migration to most fish. Forest Service ownership ends at approximately river mile 3.5; below is a mixture of state, private and Bureau of Land Management lands and above is a mixture of state, Forest Service, and private lands. Habitat for redband trout is present in lower Fall River, but the presence of introduced fish species reduces the utilization by redbands. Spring River and Indian Creek: Spring River is primarily a spawning and rearing area with very few resident trout. This short (1.0 mile), spring-fed stream is characterized by a wide and shallow channel, low gradient, small gravel to sandy substrate, and lacking in cover. During the irrigation season, water from the Deschutes River backs up into Spring River. Riparian vegetation is in good condition, with the exception of the upper river that is dominated by private residences that have cleared vegetation along the banks. Spawning gravel was added in the late 1970's near the headwaters to improve spawning success. These efforts have increased brown trout spawner use. In addition, ODFW and the Forest Service partnered to add 75 whole trees to the lower river to increase rearing cover in 1995. Redband trout use of Spring River for spawning and rearing is minimal. 243 UDR Environmental Assessment

Approximately 0.4 miles of Indian Creek is located on Forest Service lands, from the western boundary of private land to the headwaters. This small stream averages about 5 feet wide and less than 1 foot deep, with a sandy substrate and is dominated by riffles. Riparian vegetation is in good condition but mature willows were noted to be dead during recent field reviews. Redband trout do not inhabit Indian Creek and have no access from Fall River due to a barrier at the mouth.

Figure 67: Deschutes River within La Pine State Park Figure 66: Fall River

Figure 68: Spring River (Unit 20) Figure 69Figure 66: Indian Creek

A Caddisfly (Rhyacophila Chandleri) Existing Population and Habitat: This species of caddisfly is known only from Siskiyou Co., California, and Lane and Deschutes counties, Oregon, and is a recent addition to the 2011 Region 6 Sensitive Species List. It is thought to be a rare species that is very patchily distributed, and apparently highly localized where it does occur (Wisseman pers. comm. in USDA and USDI 2005). Its range is thought to be in the Cascade Mountains of Oregon and California. It is associated with very cold, larger spring-fed streams (Wisseman pers. Comm. in USDA and USDI 2005). There is no specific information available on threats to this species or its habitat. Activities that degrade water quality or increase water temperatures would likely have negative impacts on this species (USDA and USDI 2005). Although listed as Suspected on the Deschutes National Forest, this species was reportedly collected in 1982 from Tyee Creek and Devils Lake on the Deschutes National Forest, Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District (Giersch 2002). This species may exist elsewhere on the forest in headwater spring habitats but sampling for macroinvertebrates has mainly been limited to larger streams and river sections on the Deschutes National Forest and this species was not identified in those samples. Habitat may exist in the project area within the springs feeding Spring River and in Indian Creek. Indian Ford Juga Existing Population and Habitat:, Juga hemphilli ssp. is an undescribed subspecies which somewhat resembles Juga (Juga) hemphilli maupinensis in its relatively large size (~25mm) (Frest & Johannes 1995). As a whole, Juga

244 UDR Environmental Assessment hemphilli is known from the headwaters of the Columbia River in British Columbia, the Columbia River Gorge of Oregon and Washington, and the Deschutes River system in Oregon (NatureServe, 2009). Although this new subspecies may have been historically widespread in the upper Deschutes system, it is currently known from a single site: Indian Ford Creek, near Indian Ford Campground in the Deschutes National Forest, Deschutes County, Oregon (Frest & Johannes 1995). No abundance estimates have been made for this subspecies, but according to NatureServe (2009), Juga hemphilli is declining (10-30%). The habitat for this subspecies is considered to be streams and spring-seeps (Duncan 2008). The only known site is a medium-sized spring-fed creek, where the subspecies was found in mixed basalt cobble-mud substrate (Frest & Johannes 1995). Macrophytes and epiphytic algae are rare at the site, and the site is considered almost monospecific as far as snails are concerned (Frest & Johannes 1995). Threats include any factors tending to downgrade water quality, including nutrient enhancement, grazing, and water diversions, would negatively impact this taxon. Indian Ford juga is unlikely to occur in the project area because it is considered to only exist at one locale. Environmental Effects - Water Resources and Aquatic Species The discussion of environmental effects to water resources and aquatic species includes a Biological Evaluation of effects to Region 6 Forest Service aquatic species that occur or have potential habitat within the project area. Biological Evaluation for Aquatic Species

It is Forest Service policy to avoid all adverse impacts to threatened and endangered species and their habitats, except when it is possible to compensate adverse effects through alternatives identified in a biological opinion rendered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Measures are to be identified and prescribed to prevent adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat and other habitats essential for the conservation of endangered, threatened, and proposed species (FSM 2670.31). Through the biological evaluation process (FSM 2672.4), actions and programs authorized, funded, or carried out by the Forest Service are to be reviewed to determine their potential for effects on threatened and endangered species and species proposed for listing (FSM 2670.31). Species classified as sensitive by the Forest Service are to be considered in the National Environmental Policy Act process by conducting biological evaluations to determine their potential effect of all programs and activities on these species (FSM 2670.32). Management direction regarding sensitive species is that actions would benefit, have no impact, or minimize impacts so that there is no loss of population viability or creation of a significant trend toward federal listing. The findings of biological evaluations are to be documented in a decision notice, or if applicable, in official files. This biological evaluation (BE) describes and displays the effects to sensitive aquatic species associated with the Upper Deschutes River Fuels Reduction Project on the Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District, Deschutes National Forest. The 2015 Region 6 Regional Foresters Special Status Species List was reviewed. Summary of Findings for Proposed, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species: Sensitive Species: Inland Columbia Basin redband trout, a Caddisfly, Indian Ford Juga Table 79: Aquatic species and effects for this project Species Scientific Name Status Occur- Effects rence Determination

Inland Columbia Basin Oncorhynchus mykiss S D Alt. 1-MIIH redband trout gairdnerii Alt. 2- NI

Indian Ford Juga Juga hemphilli ssp. S N Alt. 1,2- NI

245 UDR Environmental Assessment

Species Scientific Name Status Occur- Effects rence Determination

Caddisfly Rhyacophila chandleri S N Alt. 1 – MIIH

Alt. 2 - NI

Status

E Federally Endangered

T Federally Threatened

S Sensitive species from Regional Forester’s list

C Candidate species under Endangered Species Act

Occurrence

HD Habitat Documented or suspected within the project area or near enough to be impacted by project activities

HN Habitat Not within the project area or affected by its activities

D Species Documented in general vicinity of project activities

S Species Suspected in general vicinity of project activities

N Species Not documented and not suspected in general vicinity of project activities

Effects Determinations Sensitive Species

NI No Impact

MIIH May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species

WIFV Will Impact Individuals or Habitat with a Consequence that the Action May Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species

BI Beneficial Impact

Alternative 1 Direct and Indirect Effects: There would be no direct effects to water resources or aquatic species as no treatments would occur. Indirect effects to water quality, including the 303(d) list parameters, could occur under this alternative, there is potential for indirect effects as resiliency to uncharacteristic wildfire across the landscape is reduced with no action taken. Wildfire Scenario The No Action alternative could have adverse indirect effects to fish populations and habitat in the case of high severity wildfire, especially if they burn with high intensity and severity within RHCAs. However, adverse effects

246 UDR Environmental Assessment

to fish populations and habitat from taking No Action are not considerably different than taking action under the Proposed Action because of the wide dispersal of the proposed units and the small acreage treated under the Proposed Action. Indirect adverse effects are primarily tied to water quality (See Water Quality effects section). Suspended sediment can be abrasive to fish gills and reduce foraging ability. Fine sediments accumulated in riverbed substrates can limit survival of developing fish embryos and limit the production of aquatic macroinvertebrates, which provide forage for fish (Bjornn and Reiser, 1991, in Meehan, 1991). Fine sediments in the streambed were shown to impair growth and survival of steelhead juveniles (Suttle, 2004). A decrease in bank stability and riparian vegetation would decrease overhead cover for fish. Conversely, there would be a benefit to fish habitat from an increase in large woody material from fire-toppled trees and increased windfalls for several years after the fire. Instream large wood provides hiding cover for fish, reduces velocities to provide microhabitats, and provides habitat and a food source for aquatic macroinvertebrates. However, there would be a reduction in future recruitment of large woody material until the stands recover to maturity. An increase in primary productivity as a result of fire-introduced nutrients could increase the abundance of macroinvertebrates, thus increasing the food base for fish. Increases in macroinvertebrate abundance and diversity would likely be short term. Minshall (2003) studied small order streams and summarized changes in macroinvertebrate communities are generally restricted to the first 5-10 years. As mentioned previously under effects to water quality, there is also the risk of fire retardant and foaming agents reaching aquatic systems during fire-fighting operations. Fire retardant can persist in soils and produce toxic effects for weeks, especially in sandy soils (Luce, 1995). Surface soils along the Deschutes River are dominated by pumiceous loamy sands and sands (USDA, 1976). Due to the potential for adverse indirect effects, this alternative May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH) of redband trout, and a caddisfly (Rhyacophila chandleri), but would not lead a loss of population viability or create a significant trend toward federal listing for any of these two species. There would be No Impact (NI) to the Indian Ford juga, which is unlikely to be present within the project area. Direct and Indirect Effects -Alternative 2 Alternative 2 reduces the potential for indirect effects to occur as described above under the No Action alternative. The project design features prescribed under both action alternatives are designed to avoid, minimize, or rectify potentially adverse effects to water quality, including the 303(d) list parameters and floodplains and wetlands. These include stream setbacks buffers for mechanized equipment, under burning, and hand piling, tree height based restrictions for thinning, protective measures for temp roads and logging system requirements. Water Quantity Reducing net evapotranspiration by harvest of vegetation, in areas with soils that have high infiltrations rates, can lead to increased water yield in ground water systems (Meehan, 1991). The increased yield in groundwater generally takes days to months to “surface” in springs or stream systems, if not stored subsurface. Water yield increase due to groundwater flow generally is not a concern as some water is either or both stored and redistributed subsurface (Manga, 1997). Hibbert, (1967 in Meehan 1991) found that when stands are thinned, the residual stand may increase its use of water, therefore the net increase in the contribution to groundwater within the Upper Deschutes River Fuels Reduction area may be less than anticipated. An increase in the stream network can occur from timber harvesting by channeling surface water on roads, skid trails, and landings, leading to increases in peak flows of streams. There would be no measurable changes in the flow regime due to the project, including peak flows, for the reasons listed below:

247 UDR Environmental Assessment

• Source of discharge for springs in the Upper Deschutes River basin, including Fall River and Spring River, is from the Cascades Range recharge area located approximately 20 miles to the west. There is little precipitation in the project area compared to the recharge area of the Cascade Range. • Lack of runoff and surface water in the project area. Highly permeable volcanic soils, allowing high infiltration of precipitation to underlying aquifers. • There would be no changes to the flow regime of the Deschutes River. River flows are controlled upriver at Wickiup Dam and are managed for irrigation needs. • Long term recorded stable flow regime of Fall River due to its groundwater nature. Past management in the project area and adjacent lands has not increased the stream drainage network, nor resulted in changes to the flow regime of Fall River. • Aquifer feeding Fall River is large and changes in recharge are attenuated in the discharge. Changes in flows in the Upper Deschutes basin have been shown to correlate to changes in precipitation driven by decadal climatic cycles. • Changes in evapotranspiration would have limited hydrologic effect since evapotranspiration from groundwater is rare in the Upper Deschutes basin. High infiltration limits volume of precipitation that can be evapo-transpired as it moves through the soil to the groundwater. Table 80: List of Activity Units within RHCAs Unit # Total Acres Acres within RHCA Activities RHCA type 10 13 4 Thin, Mow 1 11 5 5 Thin, Mow 3 Thin, Mow (non- 16 11 9 1 commercial) Thin, Mow (non- 17 2 2 1 commercial) 18 8 4 Mow (non-commercial) 1 Thin, Mow (non- 19 26 11 1 and 3 commercial) Thin, Mow, Underburn 20 142 76 1 and 3 (non-commercial) Thin, Mow (non- 21 80 27 1, 3 and 4 commercial) 23 6 5 Thin, Mow 1 25 49 8 Thin (non-commercial) 1 Thin, Mow (non- 26 44 13 1 commercial) 28 1 1 Thin (non-commercial) 1 29 5 4 Thin (non-commercial) 1 34 90 37 Thin, Mow 1 Maintenance Mow 42 7 7 1 and 3 (non-commercial) 44 29 6 Thin, Mow 1

• Category 1 – fish-bearing streams. Deschutes River is the major waterbody within the project area, and is designated under Category 1 – Fish-bearing stream; other fish bearing streams within the project area include Fall River and Indian Creek. By definition found in INFISH, the RHCA will consist 248 UDR Environmental Assessment

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 the 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 areas- (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. No category 2 areas exist within project units. • Category 3 areas (ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater than 1 acre) will have a riparian area that consists 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 wetland, pond or lake, whichever is greatest. Units that include Category 3 are 11, 19, 20, 21, and 42.

• Category 4 areas (seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, wetlands less than one acre, landslides, and landslide-prone areas). At a minimum the RHCA will consist of the extent of landslides and landslide-prone areas, or the intermittent stream channel and the area to the top of the inner gorge, or the intermittent stream channel or wetland and the area to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, or the area from the edges of the stream channel, wetland, landslide, or landslide-prone area to a distance equal to the height of one-half site-potential tree, or 50 feet slope distance, whichever is greatest Water Quality There would be no measurable changes in the water quality from the project, including temperature and sedimentation, for the reasons listed below: • All units have site specific best management practices meant to avoid any negative impacts to RHCA’s, and help to create a more resilient environment. For example, buffers will implemented along streams where no equipment is allowed, and shade trees will be retained. (see page 42-56 for Project Design Features) • Stream shading will be maintained and in the long term increase due to thinned stands. • Low percentage of watershed treatment • No temporary road building will occur within RHCA’s. • Slopes of RHCA treatment unit are relatively flat (<5%) making the potential for sediment movement into waterbodies very low. • Lack of runoff and surface water in the project area. Highly permeable volcanic soils, allowing high infiltration of precipitation to underlying aquifers. Direct and Indirect Effects – Aquatic Species Habitat and Populations – Alternative 2 Fish habitat and populations are largely influenced by water quality, water quantity, and timing of stream flows. Water quality and water quantity are maintained under this alternative (See Water Quality and Water Quantity sections above), therefore maintaining these important components of fish habitat, including that of the sensitive species redband trout. Project wide, there would be limited beneficial effects to fish populations and fish habitat by reducing hazardous fuels, including within RHCAs, because of the relatively small size of most of the units and the distance between 249 UDR Environmental Assessment

units. Reducing fuels within the units that lie within RHCAs may prevent some adverse effects from wildfire, such as sedimentation, bank instability, loss of shade, and an increase in turbidity. Reducing fuels on Unit 20 (164 acres) between Spring River and the Deschutes River, and Unit 34 (91 acres) near Indian Creek may provide the most substantial benefits to reducing the potential adverse effects to fisheries from wildfire, such as sedimentation, shade reduction, and turbidity, because of the relatively larger treatment size and proximity to rivers and streams. Where activities are proposed, fuels would be reduced and suppression effectiveness is increased, which would reduce the potential for fires of high intensity and severity to adversely affect riparian areas and stream channels. As a result, riverbank stability, shade, future long term large wood recruitment to channels, and spawning gravels are maintained along some areas of the Deschutes River, Indian Creek, Fall River, and Spring River. There would be no direct effects to fish habitat or populations under these alternatives. Effects to habitat or populations would be from natural causes, fish management actions, or other causes. An indirect effect of implementing these alternatives would be reducing the potential for short term gain in large wood recruitment as a result of wildfire. Because there would be no measurable direct or indirect effects to water quantity, water quality, or fisheries habitat, this alternative would have No Impact (NI) to redband trout populations and other populations of fish. There are no known populations of Indian Ford Juga and the caddisfly Rhyacophila Chandleri. Field surveys targeting these species have not been conducted, but populations have not been observed during aquatic macroinvertebrate sampling conducted by forest staff across the Deschutes National Forest. Should either of these species be present in the project area, Resource Protection Measures such as wetland and stream buffers would protect populations and habitat. The action alternative would have No Impact (NI) to Rhyacophila Chandleri and No Impact (NI) to Indian Ford juga. Direct and Indirect Effects to Wild and Scenic Rivers – Alternative 2 (Proposed Action): Deschutes River The Proposed Acton would treat 455 acres out of 12,986 total acres (3.5%) within Segments 2 and 3 (Recreational), and 18 acres out of 4009 total acres (0.4%) within Segment 4 (Scenic). The analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on aquatic species determined there would be no adverse effects to populations or habitat within the Deschutes River. The Proposed Action is consistent with the Standards and Guidelines of Management Area 17a. Adherence to these standards and guidelines would protect water quality of the Deschutes River (See Water Quality effects analysis section above), provide for large wood recruitment, and protect and maintain the Fishery ORV. Fall River Vegetation and fuels management activities would occur on 45 acres out of a total of 1630 acres (2.8%) included in the corridor (federal land portion only) under the Proposed Action. The analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on aquatic species determined there would be no adverse effects to populations or habitat within Fall River. The Proposed Action is consistent with the Standards and Guidelines of Management Area 17. The fishery and geologic/hydrologic values would be maintained and protected, and the eligibility of Fall River to be included in the National Wild and Scenic River System would not be affected. INFISH Compliance – Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) The Upper Deschutes Fuels Reduction Project includes 17 units within RHCAs of the Deschutes River, and one each within the RHCAs of Spring River, Fall River, and Indian Creek. • Pool frequency would not be affected in any of the streams as there would be no modifications to the channel, and peak flows are not affected. • Water temperature would not be affected in any stream or river because of “No treatment” buffers that would protect riparian vegetation and shade.

250 UDR Environmental Assessment

• Large woody debris would not be affected in any of the streams or rivers as no instream wood is removed or added, and large trees are maintained near rivers and streams to allow future instream large wood recruitment. • The width/depth ratio would not be affected in any of the rivers or streams as there would be no modifications to the channel, and peak flows are not affected. In summary, the INFISH RMOs would be maintained. The proposed action meets INFISH Standards and Guidelines (S&G). S&G TM-1: Silvicultural practices are applied in RHCAs that reduce fuels and preserves large trees to protect and increase shade and future large wood recruitment. RMOs attainment is not retarded and adverse effects to inland native fish are avoided. S&G RF-2(b): There would be no temporary or permanent roads constructed in RHCAs and landings within RHCAs would be minimized. S&G FM-1: Fuel treatment actions are designed to not prevent attainment of RMOs. Design includes setbacks from riparian areas and streams for thinning, piling, burning, and mowing activities. S&G RA-4: Storage of fuels and other toxicants within RHCAs would be prohibited. Refueling or servicing of equipment would occur outside of RHCAs. S&G RA-5: Water drafting sites would be at Forest Service approved sites. There are several boat ramps along the Deschutes River that are typically used as drafting sites. Attainment of RMOS would not be prevented. Deschutes LRMP Standards and Guidelines Compliance – Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) The Proposed Action is consistent with the Deschutes LRMP Standards and Guidelines relevant to riparian areas, water quality, and fisheries habitat. RP 2-4: Riparian areas and riparian-dependent resources are maintained through Resource Protection Measures such as riparian buffers and retention of snags. RP-6,7: Effects to water quality, including temperature, were evaluated. Water temperatures are protected through riparian buffers and retention of large trees near streams and rivers. Best Management Practices are incorporated to protect water quality. RP-8: Cumulative effects were evaluated for fish habitat and determined no effects. RP -10: Woody debris and riparian vegetation was managed for maintenance of stream channel and bank structure, and snags are retained for structural fish habitat. RP 11-16: There is no scheduled timber harvest in riparian zones, ground cover near streams and riparian areas are maintained, channel conditions and water quality is maintained through the use of Resource Protection Measures, snags are maintained for future inputs to the streams and rivers, shade is maintained, and streambanks are protected. FI-5: Thinning prescriptions near riparian areas were developed to enhance the contribution of riparian vegetation to fish habitat quality by increasing the vigor and growth or residual trees to provide stream shading and future recruitment of instream large wood. WT-1: State requirements are followed by planning, applying, and monitoring Best Management Practices.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative Effects for hydrologic and fisheries resources are bound in space by the 12th field watersheds. Water quantity/ quality are the measures use to determine cumulative effect. Watershed condition framework rating help to determine current cumulative effect and potential for cumulative effects, it is determined due to the 251 UDR Environmental Assessment

small amount of treatment in any given watershed and project design features there would be no measurable effects to water quality, water quantity or aquatic species/ populations. Water Quantity Despite ground disturbing activities conducted in the past several decades within the watershed, the hydrograph exhibits there has been none to minimal hydrologic effect to Fall River, Spring River, and Indian Creek. Deschutes River hydrograph has been heavily altered for irrigation water management and is not anticipated to change as a result of the project. Many of the timber stands have regenerated and achieved varying degrees of hydrologic recovery. There is little correlation between activity on the surface and hydrologic effects, because of the highly permeable volcanic landscape providing for groundwater dominated hydrology as described previously. Due to lack of measurable direct/indirect effects, there is no potential for any measurable cumulative effects when this project is considered in combination with any projects listed in Table 8. Water Quality There are no direct or indirect effects to water quality, therefore there would be no cumulative effects. Alternative 2 is consistent with LRMP S&Gs RP-2, RP-4, RP-6-8, RP-10-16, FI-5, and WT-1 as riparian areas and riparian dependent resources are protected, Best Management Practices were applied, cumulative effects were evaluated for water quality, and near stream ground cover, shade, large woody material, and streambanks were protected. Sufficient streamside buffers will prevent sediment from entering any waterbody. (Lakel, 2010) Cumulative Effects – Aquatic Species Habitat and Populations The altered flow regime, degraded riverbanks, high volume of fine sediments, non-native fish species, angling regulations, and elevated water temperatures of the Deschutes River are the main factors influencing fish and other aquatic species populations and habitat within the Deschutes River. There are no measurable direct or indirect effects to fish populations or fisheries habitat from implementing the Proposed Action, therefore there would be no cumulative effects to aquatic species populations or habitat.

Scenic Resources Introduction This scenic resources report is an effects analysis for a proposed hazardous fuels reduction around several communities within the Deschutes River corridor between Bend and LaPine. The communities treated are Deschutes River Woods, Sunriver, Spring River, Deschutes River Recreation Homesites, Sundance, River Meadows, Cougar Grove, Oregon Water Wonderland, Lazy River, River Forest Acres, Newberry Estates, Fall River Estates, Haner Park, Ponderosa Pines, Wild River, and Pringle Falls. Under the action alternative, there would be tree thinning, brush mowing, and prescribed burning on approximately 4,151 acres with 51 proposed treatment units ranging from 1 to 1,000 acres in size. Most of the treatment units are within the Upper Deschutes River Coalition (UDRC) Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) boundary. Proposed units are also within the Sunriver, LaPine and Greater Bend CWPP boundaries. All treatment units are within CWPP identified WUI areas and are within the boundaries of CWPP identified as “communities at risk.” Regulatory Framework Throughout the 4,151 acre planning area, there are 1,042 acres in the Scenic Views (MA-9) Management Area, 440 acres in the Wild and Scenic Rivers (MA-17) Management Area, and 43 acres in the Newberry National Volcanic Monument - Lava Butte Zone. The Forest Plan for the Deschutes National Forest provides standards and guidelines for an array of land uses referred to as Management Areas. This analysis focuses on the Management Areas for Scenic Views (MA-9) and

252 UDR Environmental Assessment

Wild and Scenic Rivers (MA-17) which are referred to by page number in the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and described in terms of desired future conditions for various settings and how these are to be met by specified activities or actions. There is also reference to the Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River and State Scenic Waterway Comprehensive Management Plan and the Newberry National Volcanic Monument Management Plan which takes precedence over the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. In addition, reference is made to Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management. The Scenery Management System (SMS) is the methodology used by Forest Service landscape architects since 1996 to provide a visual impact assessment of effects to scenic resources which integrates social impacts to recreation visitors with physical impacts to the visitor experience. The previous outdated Visual Management System (VMS) of 1974 which continues to be referenced in Forest Plans has not yet been updated to reference the currently applied Scenery Management System (SMS). To facilitate this change in methodology to SMS, a crosswalk is used to reference both systems in the following manner with current SMS methodology in bold and outdated VMS in parentheses: High Scenic Integrity - SMS (Retention - VMS), Moderate Scenic Integrity –SMS (Partial Retention – VMS). Scenic Views Management Areas - MA9 (LRMP page 4-121) Goal, General Theme and Objectives The goal of the Scenic Views management area is to provide high quality scenery representing the natural character of Central Oregon. The general theme and objectives of Scenic Views is for landscapes seen from selected travel routes and use areas to be managed to maintain or enhance the appearance of the areas being viewed. To the casual observer, results of activities will either not be evident or will be visually subordinate to the natural landscape. Timber harvest is permitted but only to protect and improve the scenic quality for the stands in both the short- term and long-term time frames. Timber stands, which have remained unmanaged in the past because of their visual sensitivity, will begin receiving treatment to avoid loss of the stand to natural causes. Landscapes containing negative visual elements, such as skid roads, activity residue, or cable corridors, will be rehabilitated. The desired condition for ponderosa pine is to achieve and maintain visual diversity through variation of stand densities and size classes. Large, old-growth pine will remain an important constituent, with trees achieving 30 inches in diameter or larger and having deeply furrowed, yellowbark characteristics. For other species, the desired condition requires obtaining visual diversity through either spatial distribution of age classes and mix of species through density manipulation or openings, or through a mixture of age classes within stands. Scenic Views Moderate Scenic Integrity – SMS (Partial Retention – VMS) Foreground – Treatment Units 1,3,14,32,34,38,40 (363 acres) Scenic Views Moderate Scenic Integrity – SMS (Partial Retention – VMS) Middleground – Treatment Unites 45- 54 (661 acres) Detailed descriptions of standards and guidelines are discussed in the Scenic Resources Report. Wild and Scenic Rivers Management Areas - MA-17 ((LRMP page 4-155) Goal, General Theme and Objectives The goal of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Management Area is to protect and enhance those outstandingly remarkable values that qualified segments of the Deschutes, Little Deschutes, Big Marsh, Crescent, and Squaw Creeks for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

253 UDR Environmental Assessment

The primary objectives for managing waterways which are components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System will be to protect the outstandingly remarkable values identified for each and for maintaining the free- flowing nature of the river. The difference between a wild, scenic, or recreational section of river is measured by the degree of development, appropriate types of land use and ease of accessibility by roads and trails. An important objective of management for the Deschutes River is to provide recreation settings close to Bend that feature a relatively natural environment emphasizing day use and minimal development. Visual - M17-11 (LMRP page 4-158) The following visual management standards will be used for each river classification River Class SMS VMS Wild Very High Scenic Integrity Preservation Scenic High Scenic Integrity Retention Recreation Moderate Scenic Integrity Partial Retention

Deschutes River – Recreation Segment: Moderate Scenic Integrity - SMS (Partial Retention - VMS) – Treatment Units 10, 16-23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 42 (426 acres) M17-5 Standards for Recreational Rivers (LRMP page 4-157): Vegetation Management Vegetation management activities would be allowed under standard restrictions to protect the immediate river environment, water quality, scenic quality, fish and wildlife, riparian plant communities, and other values. Harvest of trees in recreational segments will be oriented towards enhancement of scenic, hydrologic, fisheries, recreational and/or wildlife values. Over the long-term the appearance of the river corridor should remain near-natural with the impacts of project activities apparent but subordinate to the natural character of the landscape. Cleanup after project activities shall be completed within one year. Dead or dying trees adjacent to the river and associated recreation facilities should be evaluated for their scenic, hydrologic, wildlife and fisheries (should they fall in the river) values as well as for any safety and disease control risks they may pose. Salvage for commercial timber value should not be automatic. Additional measures designed to mitigate impacts such as flush cutting stumps in visually sensitive areas and falling trees away from the river will be employed. Deschutes River – Scenic Segment: High Scenic Integrity - SMS (Retention - VMS) – Treatment Units 41, 46 (14 acres) M17-4 Standards for Scenic Rivers (LRMP page 4-156): Vegetation Management Vegetation will be managed to appear natural and emphasize protection of riparian plant communities. A wide range of silvicultural practices could be allowed provided that such practices are carried on in such a way that there is no adverse effect on the river and its immediate environment. The river area should be maintained or restored to its near natural environment. Vegetation outside the boundary but within the visual scenic area should be managed and harvested in a manner which provides special emphasis on visual quality. Harvest of trees in scenic segments will be oriented towards enhancement of scenic, recreational and/or wildlife, fisheries or hydrologic values and not solely for the commercial value of the timber. Over the long-term the appearance of the river corridor should remain near-natural with the impacts of management activities apparent for only the short-term. Cleanup after activities shall be completed

254 UDR Environmental Assessment

within one year. Dead or dying trees adjacent to the river and associated recreation facilities should be evaluated for their scenic, hydrologic, wildlife and fisheries (should they fall in the river) values as well as for any safety and disease control risks they may pose. Salvage for commercial timber value should not be automatic. Additional measures designed to mitigate impacts such as flush cutting stumps in visually sensitive areas and falling trees away from the river will be employed. Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River and State Scenic Waterway Comprehensive Management Plan This plan provides protection and enhancement of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values for which the Upper Deschutes River was designated into the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The project area is within the Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River and has Outstandingly Remarkable Values for Scenery and Recreation. With the exception of developed sites, segments with Scenic River classification will be managed to meet a High Scenic Integrity Level - Scenery Management System (Retention - Visual Management System. Segments within Recreation River classification will be managed to provide interpretive programs that improve public awareness and understanding of Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Wildlife interpretation for this area will focus on habitat protection, species that wildlife viewers will have a high likelihood of seeing, and educating the public in the importance of wetlands, meadows, snags, and other unique habitats. The mix of geologic, hydrologic, vegetative, and wildlife resources found along portions of Segments 2 and 4 of the Upper Deschutes River make scenery an Outstandingly Remarkable Value. Although the level and proximity of private development intrudes on the scenic quality of Segment 3, the scenic value is still a significant element of the recreational value. Criteria for the Outstandingly Remarkable Value of Scenic is that landscape elements of landform, vegetation, water, color and related factors result in notable or exemplary visual features and/or attractions. When analyzing scenic values, additional factors such as seasonal variations in vegetation, scale of cultural modifications, and length of time negative intrusions are viewed may be considered. Scenery and visual attractions may be highly diverse over the majority of the river or river segment. The standard for Scenery is that the scenic integrity will be protected and enhanced by blending natural and cultural elements of the landscape to be consistent with the expected physical and social setting of the designated Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). Visitors typically expect to see more signs of human activities in Rural and Urban ROS classifications and less in Roaded Natural. Mostly because of the scenic value of the area’s unique geological and hydrological features, the Scenic Views – Foreground Management Area is classified as High Scenic Integrity – SMS (Retention - VMS) with the distance from 0 to 300 feet for Immediate Foreground and 300 feet to ¼ mile for Foreground. Newberry National Volcanic Monument - Lava Butte Zone (NNVMMP page 66) Purpose and Objectives The Lava Butte Zone is intended to serve as the primary interpretive day-use and information hub for the Monument. Reintroduction of fire through prescribed burning and reestablishment of fire-based, historic ponderosa pine old growth is also a purpose in this Zone. This Zone is not intended to provided for public overnight use. Manage vegetation to provide high quality scenery, with emphasis on preserving and sustaining large, old- growth ponderosa pines, and to provide some habitat that allows for deer migration - Treatment Unit 24 (43 acres) Detailed descriptions of standards and guidelines are outline in the Scenic Resources Report. Analysis Methods

255 UDR Environmental Assessment

Methodology used for analyzing impacts to scenic resources is the Scenery Management System (SMS) which uses “Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management” issued in 1996. This new handbook replaces “Agriculture Handbook 462 – The Visual Management System (VMS)” issued in 1974. While many of the basic inventory elements of the Visual Management System are retained, the Scenery Management System incorporates both the natural and human processes into the ideas of managing for ecosystems and is the current methodology used by the Forest Service to inventory and evaluate impacts to scenic resources. Scenery Management Objectives are defined in terms of Scenic Integrity Levels which describe existing conditions and whether the landscape is visually perceived to be “complete” or not. The most complete or highest rating for Scenic Integrity Levels means having little or no deviation from the landscape character that makes it appealing and attractive to visitors and local residents. In addition to describing existing conditions, Scenic Integrity Levels also describe the level of development allowed and ways to mitigate deviations from the area’s landscape character. The Forest Service implementing regulations currently establish a variety of Scenic Integrity Levels for Scenic Views – MA9 (LMRP page 4-121). These standards and guidelines include: • High Scenic Integrity - SMS - Natural Appearing Landscape (Retention – VMS) - MA 9, SV-1 Foreground, SV-3 Middleground • Moderate Scenic Integrity - SMS - Slightly Altered Landscape (Partial Retention – VMS) - MA 9, SV-2 Foreground, SV-4 Middleground • Low Scenic Integrity - SMS - Altered Landscape (Modification – VMS or General Forest) - MA 8, GFO within Foreground as well as Middleground The distance zones for Scenic Views management areas for an observer are as follows: • Immediate Foreground 0 - 300 feet • Foreground 0 - ½ mile • Middleground ½ mile - 4 miles • Background 4 miles - horizon Existing Condition The 4,151 acre project area is mostly made up of ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine plant associations. Past vegetation management activities in the area included clearcutting in the 1930s that naturally regenerated to ponderosa and lodgepole pine to recent management in the early 2000s that focused on forest health and hazardous fuel treatments. Most recent management work (less than fifteen years old) done under the Klak EA, Dilman EA, Fall EA and Myst CE have resulted in a more open ponderosa and lodgepole pine structure with relatively even spacing and more of a brush and grass component established post management. Unmanaged stands vary in diameter and structure and are generally overstocked with ponderosa and lodgepole pine. Mountain pine beetle activity has been observed in these stands primarily associated with lodgepole pine. Dwarf mistletoe has been observed in both ponderosa and lodgepole pine within the project area. Lodgepole dominated stands are found in the southern units of the project area with many being plantations within the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest. Other lodgepole pine stands are found throughout the project area. The units are primarily lodgepole pine with sporadic ponderosa overstory. Many of the stands are mixed ponderosa and lodgepole pine. The dominant tree species within these stands is ponderosa pine with lodgepole pine in the mid and understory. The lodgepole pine in the mid and understory is currently acting as ladder fuels which increase the potential of a crown fire.

256 UDR Environmental Assessment

Increasing fuel loads combined with a growing population and growing residential development into forests has put communities in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) at risk. The most recent WUI fire outside of Bend, the 2014 Two Bulls Fire, has underscored the problem. Environmental Consequences Conclusion The proposed action will meet standards and guidelines for Scenic Views Management Areas (MA-9) classified as Moderate Scenic Integrity – SMS (Partial Retention – VMS) in Foreground and Middleground landscapes, standards and guidelines for Wild and Scenic Rivers Management Areas Scenic Segment for High Scenic Integrity – SMS (Retention – VMS) and Recreation Segment for Moderate Scenic Integrity – SMS (Partial Retention – VMS), and Newberry National Volcanic Monument - Lava Butte Zone standards and guigelines for High Scenic Integrity – SMS (Retention – VMS) in Foreground landscapes. Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative 1 (No Action) The direct and indirect effects to the Scenic Views Management Areas for Moderate Scenic Integrity - SMS (Partial Retention - VMS) in Foreground and Middleground, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Management Areas Scenic Segment for High Scenic Integrity – SMS (Retention – VMS) and Recreation Segment for Moderate Scenic Integrity – SMS (Partial Retention – VMS), and Newberry National Volcanic Monument Lava Butte Zone for High Scenic Integrity – SMS (Retention – VMS) in Foreground for Alternative 1 (No Action) would be negative over time with no tree thinning, brush mowing, and prescribed burning of surface fuels due to the overstocking of unmanaged stands, increased density, appearance of increased numbers of dead trees with brown needles, fewer opportunities for healthy growth of large old ponderosa pine, and continued lack of visual diversity in species and size class. Direct and Indirect Effects: - Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) These landscapes would be visible from areas within residential subdivisions, scenic travel routes, and scenic viewsheds along the Deschutes River and against a lava flow within the Newberry National Volcanic Monument Lava Butte Zone. Some of the access routes to these treatment areas include FS Road 4143 and 4001 to Sunriver, FS Road 40 close to Spring River and the Deschutes River, FS Road 42, 4240 and 40 near Deschutes river Recreation Homesites, Sundance, River Meadows, and Cougar Grove, FS Road 4205 at Foster Road and River Forest Acres, Highway 97 to the east of the Lazy River Subdivision, FS Road 42 and 4202 west of the Fall River Estates and Fall River Fish Hatchery, FS Road 43 south of Pringle Falls and Wild River, FS Road 4370 which is the primary ingress and egress for Haner Park residents, FS Road 9745 and 22 east and south of Newberry Estates, and FS Road 4420 and 4320 and Ponderosa Lane which is the primary ingress and egress for the Ponderosa Pines Subdivision. Proposed Treatment Descriptions and Effects Analysis by Subdivision Deschutes River Woods Unit 24 (43 acres) is within the Newberry National Volcanic Monument – Lava Butte Zone with a Scenery Management System classification of High Scenic Integrity – SMS (Retention – VMS) where vegetation is to be managed to provide high quality scenery, with emphasis on preserving and sustaining large, old-growth ponderosa pines, and to provide some habitat that allows for deer migration. The thinning of small diameter trees at the south end of this subdivision in front of a lava flow will complement the previous defensible space work completed for the subdivision. Scenery Management System standards and guidelines will be met by opening views to the lava flow and enhancing the area’s high quality scenery to natural features. Sunriver Units 45-54 (661 acres) are within the Scenic Views Management Area with a Scenery Management System classification of Moderate Scenic Integrity – SMS (Partial Retention – VMS) in a Middleground landscape. Areas of previously brush mowed fuels treatments are to be maintained around the northern edge of the resort 257 UDR Environmental Assessment

community. These units were previously mowed under the Sunriver HFRA Project. Hazard fuels work done by SROA near the bike path through small trees is to be complemented through additional thinning, pruning and hazard tree removal on Units 28 and 29 which are in the Deschutes River – Recreation Segment which has Scenery Management System classification of Moderate Scenic Integrity – SMS (Partial Retention – VMS). The brush mowing of units 45-54 (661 acres) would meet Scenic Views Management Area standards and guidelines by perpetuating the desired visual condition and to create natural-appearing openings for additional diversity where it is visually lacking. It would also meet the Scenery Management System standards and guidelines by enhancing the area’s natural appearing features. The thinning of small diameter trees, pruning and hazard tree removal near the bike path to Sunriver of Units 28 and 29 would also meet Scenic Views Management Area and Scenery Management System standards and guidelines by opening views to the river thereby enhancing scenic views and the recreation experience as well as safety of those using the bike path and river corridor. Ryan Ranch Aspen Unit 41 (7 acres) is within the Deschutes River Scenic Segment with a Scenery Management System classification of High Scenic Integrity – SMS (Retention – VMS). A prescribed burn is proposed for the purpose of stimulating aspen growth. This unit was previously thinned under the Ryan Ranch Meadow/Aspen/Willow Enhancement Project. The prescribed burning of Unit 41 will meet Scenery Management System standards and guidelines within a Scenic Segment of the Deschutes River by managing the vegetation to appear natural and emphasize protection of riparian plant communities. The overall health and condition of the vegetation will meet the scenic values by appearing near-natural for both the short-term and long-term time frames. Spring River Unit 20 (164 acres) is within the Deschutes River Recreation Segment with a Scenery Management System classification of Moderate Scenic Integrity – SMS (Partial Retention – VMS). Reducing fuels is proposed to the north of FS Road 40 between the Spring River subdivision and Sunriver Resort. A mix of thinning, jackpot burning and brush mastication is planned in this former pasture land located between Spring River and the Deschutes River. The thinning, jackpot burning and brush mastication of Unit 20, a former pasture located between Spring River and the Deschutes River will meet Scenery Management System standards and guidelines within a Recreation Segment of the Deschutes River by remaining near-natural appearing after cleanup activities are completed within one year and with mitigating such as flush cutting stumps and falling trees away from the river. The overall health and condition of the vegetation will meet the scenic values by appearing near-natural for both the short-term and long-term time frames. There would be improved scenic views as well as physical access to the river from the surrounding residential areas. Deschutes River Recreation Homesites, Sundance, River Meadows, Cougar Grove A total of 1296 acres are to be treated in this area. Unit 10 is partially within the Deschutes River Recreation Segment with a Scenery Management System classification of Moderate Scenic Integrity – SMS (Partial Retention – VMS).The western portion of Unit 10 is within M 11 (Intensive Recreation). Units 16-18 are also within the Deschutes River Recreation Segment and reduction of fuels is proposed through mowing and ladder fuel reduction thinning near the Big River Boat Launch and Big River Group Campsite. Unit 14 is within a Scenic Views Management Area with a Scenery Management System classification of Moderate Scenic Integrity – SMS (Partial Retention – VMS) in a Foreground landscape.

Also proposed are a reduction of fuels along the western edge of these subdivisions with thinning, brush mowing and underburning of units 15, 30, 31, 35, and 36 which are located outside of the Scenic Views Management Area. Completing work in this area will maintain previous fuels treatments completed under the

258 UDR Environmental Assessment

Klak and General Patch projects. These treatments will create a continuous fuel break along the private property boundary between Spring River Road (FS40) and South Century Drive (FS42). Included within the treatment is a 1060 acre prescribed burn block.

The proposed treatments of thinning (both commercial and LFR) and mowing for Unit 10 will meet Scenery Management standards and guidelines for a Recreation Segment of the Deschutes River by improving primary ingress/egress route while enhancing natural appearance of the existing vegetation. RHCA buffering (See riparian PDFs in Chapter 2) with retain larger trees near the shore line, allowing the near natural appearance of the river corridor. The proposed treatment for Units 16-18 are near the Big River Boat Launch and the Big River Group Campsite. The units will meet Scenery Management standards and guidelines for a Recreation Segment of the Deschutes River by reducing fuels through mowing and ladder fuel reduction (LFR) thinning. The landscape will retain larger trees and create a less dense, more open natural setting. The overall health and condition of the vegetation will meet the scenic values by appearing near-natural for both the short-term and long-term time frames.

The reduction of fuels with thinning (both commercial and LFR), brush mowing and underburning of Unit 14 will meet the Scenic Views Management Area standards and guidelines for Scenery Management System classification of Moderate Scenic Integrity – SMS (Partial Retention – VMS) in a Foreground landscape by maintaining natural appearing scenery in the short-term and long-term time frames. The landscape will retain large trees (>21” dbh) as well as clumps of vegetation (PDF for wildlife in Chapter 2) maintaining a natural appearing setting.

Foster Road and River Forest Acres A total of 78 acres are proposed for treatment. Units 19 and 42 are within the Deschutes River Recreation Segment with a Scenery Management System classification of Moderate Scenic Integrity – SMS (Partial Retention – VMS). Unit 42 was previously treated under the Myst Project. Proposed treatment are fuels reduction and restoration of meadow and riparian areas adjacent to private lands off Foster Road and Gray Wolf Lane (Units 19, 42 and 44). Unit 23 would be thinned and mowed in the area between the Deschutes River and River Forest Acres residences. The proposed treatment for Units 19 and 42 will meet Scenery Management standards and guidelines for a Recreation Segment of the Deschutes River by reducing fuels with cleanup activities such as slash not being visible after two years and natural appearing conditions with less dense and more open tree spacing conditions. Lazy River A total of 135 acres are to be treated. Unit 32 is within the Scenic Views Management Area with a Scenery Management System classification of Moderate Scenic Integrity – SMS (Partial Retention – VMS) in a Foreground landscape. Lodepole pine stands on the eastern edge of Lazy River Subdivision are to be thinned and mowed. These proposed treatments will complement work previously completed under the Lava Cast Project. The thinning and mowing of lodgepole pine stands in Unit 32 will meet Scenic Views Management Area standards and guidelines for a Scenery Management System classification of Moderate Scenic Integrity – SMS (Partial Retention – VMS) in a Foreground landscape with cleanup activities such as slash not being visible after two years and natural appearing conditions with less dense and more open tree spacing conditions. Fall River A total of 91 acres are to be treated. Unit 34 is within the Scenic Views Management Area with a Scenery Management System classification of Moderate Scenic Integrity – SMS (Partial Retention – VMS) in a Foreground Landscape. Trees are to thinned and brush mowed to the west of Fall River Estates and the Fall River Fish Hatchery. Treatments in this area, combined with work planned under the Junction Project and Myst

259 UDR Environmental Assessment

Project, will provide a continuous fuels treatment block on the north and west side of Fall River Estates and nearby private land. The thinning of trees and mowing of brush in Unit 34 will meet Scenic Views Management Area standards and guidelines for a Scenery Management System classification of Moderate Scenic Integrity – SMS (Partial Retention – VMS) in a Foreground landscape with cleanup activities such as slash not being visible after two years and natural appearing conditions with less dense and more open tree spacing conditions. Pringle Falls and Wild River A total of 137 acres are to be treated. Units 25 and 26 are within the Deschutes River Recreation Segment with a Scenery Management System classification of Moderate Scenic Integrity – SMS (Partial Retention – VMS) in a Foreground landscape. Thinning trees and mowing brush are proposed in Units 25-27 on the east side of Wild River subdivision and along the access road to Pringle Falls campground. Portions of this treatment area were treated with the Dilman Project. Units 25 and 27 lie within Key Elk Habitat and treatments will be designed to maintain cover requirements. Thinning trees and mowing brush in Units 25 and 26 will meet Scenery Management standards and guidelines for a Recreation Segment of the Deschutes River by reducing fuels with cleanup activities such as slash not being visible after two years and natural appearing conditions with less dense and more open tree spacing conditions. Haner Park A total of 80 acres are to be treated. Unit 21 is within the Deschutes River Recreation Segment with a Scenery Management System classification of Moderate Scenic Integrity – SMS (Partial Retention – VMS). Thinning lodgepole and mowing brush are proposed around the western portion of the subdivisions and along FS Road 4370, a primary ingress and egress for Haner Park residents. Thinning lodgepole trees and mowing brush in Unit 21 will meet Scenery Management standards and guidelines for a Recreation Segment of the Deschutes River by reducing fuels with cleanup activities such as slash not being visible after two years and natural appearing conditions with less dense and more open tree spacing conditions. Newberry Estates A total of 1,000 acres are to be mowed east and south of Newberry Estates. Unit 40 is within the Scenic Views Management Area with a Scenery Management System classification of Moderate Scenic Integrity – SMS (Partial Retention – VMS) in a Foreground Landscape. This unit was previously treated with the Crossings Project. Mowing in Unit 40 will meet Scenic Views Management Area standards and guidelines for a Scenery Management System classification of Moderate Scenic Integrity – SMS (Partial Retention – VMS) in a Foreground landscape with cleanup activities such as slash not being visible after two years and natural appearing conditions with less dense and more open tree spacing conditions. Ponderosa Pines A total of 480 acres will be treated. Units 1 and 3 are within the Scenic Views Management Area with a Scenery Management System classification of Moderate Scenic Integrity – SMS (Partial Retention – VMS) in a Foreground landscape. The proposed treatment of Units 1-6 will improve ingress and egress along Ponderosa Lane. Unit 7 will reduce fuels on the northwest corner of the Ponderosa Pines subdivision. Units 8 and 9, a plantation area located within the 1984 Wampus Butte Fire area, will be thinned and pruned. Also include in this area are 288 acres of underburning along Ponderosa Lane, the primary ingress and egress for subdivision residents. Thinning and pruning in Units 1 and 3 will meet Scenic Views Management Area standards and guidelines for Moderate Scenic Integrity – SMS (Partial Retention – VMS) in a Foreground landscape with cleanup activities

260 UDR Environmental Assessment

such as slash not being visible after two years and natural appearing conditions with less dense and more open tree spacing conditions. Cumulative Effects Past projects within and surrounding the project area have not provided large enough fuels treatments to maintain and enhance scenic views or to guarantee safe access during potential wildfire situations. The no action alternative would also increase the likelihood of heightened danger and risks to residents and visitors from potential wildfire affecting ingress and egress along scenic travel routes and main access roads throughout the project area. In the proposed action in combination with past treatments throughout the area, opportunities for opening scenic views to vistas, lava features, and highlighting large old growth ponderosa pine would be occurring over time so the desired future condition for scenic views would be met. Within Unit 40, there is a proposal from Midstate Electric to clear 50 feet to install a parallel transmission powerline. The powerline would be adjacent to an existing BPA transmission line clearing of 125 feet. Since this area is already a designated major utility corridor, the addition of the proposed maintenance mowing will not cumulatively effect the scenic resources. Other future vegetation and fuel management projects are on other portions of the Deschutes National Forest and will not overlap in time and space with this project. Therefore, there are no cumulative effects to scenic resources. Human Health and Safety, Air Quality Under the action alternative, danger trees would be felled along all haul routes. The signing of project activity areas, in addition to notification of additional project-related traffic, would promote a safe environment for forest visitors during project implementation. Implementation of action alternatives would increase the potential for encounters on roadways between forest visitors and equipment associated with harvest. This elevated level of risk would be present for the short-term (approximately 5 years). Safety measures such as informational signing, flaggers, and road maintenance activities, such as brushing roads for increased visibility, would be enforced in the timber sale contract. The work environment during all phases of logging operations would be physically demanding and potentially hazardous; effects to worker health and safety would be possible. Activities with the highest potential for serious injury would include tree felling. All project activities carried out by Forest Service and Forest Service contract employees would comply with State and Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards. All Forest Service project operations would be consistent with Forest Service Handbook 6709.11 (Health and Safety Code). The Clean Air Act lists 189 hazardous air pollutants to be regulated. Some components of smoke, such as polycyclic aromic hydrocarbons (PAH) are known to be carcinogenic. Probably the most carcinogenic component is benzo-a-pyrene (BaP). Other components, such as aldehydes, are acute irritants. In 1994 and 19972, air toxins were assessed relative to the exposure of humans to smoke from prescribed and wildfires. The five toxins most commonly found in prescribed fire smoke were: Particulate matter - Particulates are the most prevalent air pollutant from fires, and are of the most concern to regulators. Research indicates a correlation between hospitalizations for respiratory problems and high concentrations of fine particulates (PM2.5, fine particles that are 2.5 microns in diameter or less). Particulates

2 Results of an April 1997 conference to review the results of health studies and develop a risk management plan for the protection of fire crews were published by Missoula Technology Development Center in Health Hazards of Smoke, Technical Report 9751-2836-MTDC.

261 UDR Environmental Assessment

can carry carcinogens and other toxic compounds. Overexposure to particulates can cause irritation of mucous membranes, decreased lung capacity, and impaired lung function. Particulate matter is analyzed for each alternative in the Air Quality section, page 75. Acrolein - An aldehyde with a piercing, choking odor. Exposure severely irritates the eyes and upper respiratory tract. Formaldehyde - Low-level exposure can cause irritation of the eyes, nose and throat. Long-term exposure is associated with nasal cancer. Carbon Monoxide - CO reduces the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood, a reversible effect. Low exposures can cause loss of time awareness, motor skills, and mental acuity. Also, exposure can lead to heart attack, especially for persons with heart disease. High exposures can lead to death due to lack of oxygen. Benzene - Benzene causes headache, dizziness, nausea and breathing difficulties, as well as being a potent carcinogen. Long-term exposure can cause anemia, liver and kidney damage, and cancer. The closest Smoke Sensitive Receptor Area (SSRA) to the analysis area is the city of Bend, Oregon; the communities of Sunriver and La Pine are also near the analysis area but are not as highly populated. The greatest risk of exposure to airborne toxins from prescribed fires or wildfires would be to firefighters and forest workers implementing the prescribed burning. It is unlikely the general public would be exposed to toxin levels adverse to human health during implementation of prescribed burning operations in the UDRI analysis area because of the application of prescriptions designed to lessen the release of particulate matter. People who suffer from breathing ailments may experience some difficulty during periods of prescribed burning, especially during atmospheric conditions that do not favor dispersion of smoke. The Forest Service voluntarily follows the guidelines assigned by Oregon Smoke Management to limit state-wide exposure on a cumulative basis, in compliance with the Clean Air Act. Forest workers and firefighters can face unhealthy levels of smoke when patrolling or holding fire lines on the downward edge of a wildfire or prescribed fire, or while mopping intense hot spots. In most cases, measures such as education on the effects of short and long term exposure, rotation out of the smoke, and the use of respirators can reduce exposure levels. OSHA regulates exposure to hazardous materials in the workplace. All project activities carried out by Forest Service and Forest Service contract employees would comply with State and Federal OSHA standards. Wetlands and Floodplains Floodplains: Executive Order 11988 provides direction to avoid adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. Avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. Floodplains are defined by this order as, “. . . the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including flood prone areas of offshore islands, including at a minimum, that area subject to a one percent [100-year recurrence] or greater chance of flooding in any given year.” Alternatives 2 would have no impacts to floodplains. The BMPs including equipment buffers would protect riparian vegetation and ground cover within floodplains. Wetlands: Executive Order 11990 provides direction to avoid to the extent possible adverse impacts associated with destruction or modification of wetlands. Avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative. Wetlands are defined by this order as, “. . . areas inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to support and under normal circumstances does or would support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds.” Alternatives 2 would have no adverse impacts to the wetlands within the project area because of the BMPs, including an adjacent equipment buffer. 262 UDR Environmental Assessment

Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forestland All alternatives are consistent with the Secretary of Agriculture memorandum 1827 for the management of prime farmland. The UDRI project area does not contain any prime farm land or rangelands. Prime Forestland, as defined in the memorandum, is not applicable to lands within the National Forest System. Civil Rights and Environmental Justice Civil rights legislation directs an analysis of the proposed alternatives as they relate to specific subsets of the American population. The subsets of the general population include ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, elderly and low-income groups. None of the alternatives would affect minority groups, women, or consumers differently than other groups. These groups may benefit from employment opportunities and by-products that proposed actions would provide. None of the alternatives adversely affect civil rights. All contracts that may be awarded as a result of implementation would meet equal employment opportunity requirements. Data regarding minorities or people with disabilities employed in the region in the timber, mining, road construction, forestry services, and recreation sectors is unavailable. Some firms contracted by the Forest Service for reforestation work have traditionally hired Hispanic workers that comprise a minority workforce in the area. Asian and Pacific Islanders use of the area include commercial mushroom harvesting and camping associated with this activity. Some timber sale contracts on the forest are reserved for award to minority businesses under the USDA Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization and the Small Business Administration. Under No Action, all current uses of the National Forest System lands would continue, including recreation, harvesting of non-timber forest products, special-use permits, subsistence uses, and spiritual/aesthetic uses. Effects to minority populations, disabled persons, and low-income groups would not be disproportionate with other users of the National Forest System lands. No jobs would be created that might provide opportunities to minorities. All action alternatives would provide a variety of opportunities for potential contracts at various levels. Alternatives would have no impact on the contracting process or the USDA Small Business Administration program for reserving contracts for minority groups for tree planting, precommercial thinning, and road restoration. Employment and income would be available to all groups of people, subject to existing laws and regulations for set-asides, contract size, competition factors, skills and equipment, etc. Set-asides for Small Business Administration Contracting opportunities would not be affected. Employment by firms that have hired Hispanic workers or other minority groups or low-income workers associated with reforestation or other potential contracting needs would not differ from those employed in the sectors as a whole. In the short-term (3-5 years), reforestation needs would potentially benefit this group. Climate Change This proposed action would affect approximately 2,300 acres of forest by commercially thinning smaller trees from the stand, retaining a residual stand of about 30 to 50 percent of the original stand by basal area. This scope and degree of change would be minor relative to the amount of forested land in the Deschutes National Forest; (about 1.5 million acres) this project would affect less than 1% of the forested land on the Deschutes National Forest. Climate change is a global phenomenon because major greenhouse gasses (GHG) mix well throughout the planet’s lower atmosphere (IPCC 2013). Considering emissions of GHG in 2010 was estimated at 49 ± 4.5 gigatonnes3 globally (IPCC 2014) and 6.9 gigatonnes nationally (US EPA, 2015), a project of this magnitude

3 A gigatonne is one billion metric tons of CO2; equal to about 2.2 trillion pounds. 263 UDR Environmental Assessment

makes an infinitesimal contribution to overall emissions. Therefore, at the global and national scales, this proposed action’s direct and indirect contribution to greenhouse gasses and climate change would be negligible. In addition, because the direct and indirect effects would be negligible, the proposed action’s contribution to cumulative effects on global greenhouse gasses and climate change would also be negligible. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has summarized the contributions to climate change of global human activity sectors in its Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC 2014). In 2010, anthropogenic (human-caused) contributors to greenhouse gas emissions came from several sectors: • Industry, transportation, and building – 41% • Energy production – 35% • Agriculture – 12%. • Forestry and other land uses – 12% There is agreement that the forestry sector contribution has declined over the last decade (IPCC, 2014; Smith et al., 2014; FAOSTAT, 2013). The main activity in this sector associated with GHG emissions is deforestation, which is defined as removal of all trees, most notably the conversion of forest and grassland into agricultural land or developed landscapes (IPCC 2000). This project does not fall within any of these main contributors of greenhouse gas emissions. Forested land will not be converted into a developed or agricultural condition. In fact, forest stands are being retained and thinned to maintain a vigorous condition that supports trees, and sequesters carbon long-term. US forests sequestered 757.1 megatonnes4 of carbon dioxide after accounting for emissions from fires and soils in 2010 (US EPA, 2015). However there is growing concern over the impacts of climate change on US forests and their current status as a carbon sink. There is strong evidence of a relationship between increasing temperatures and large tree mortality events in forests of the western US. There is widespread recognition that climate change is increasing the size and frequency of droughts, fires, and insect/disease outbreaks, which will have major effect on these forests’ role in the carbon cycle (Joyce et al. 2014). The project is in line with the suggested practice of reducing forest disturbance effects found in the National Climate Assessment for public and private forests (Joyce et al. 2014). Here specifically, the project proposes to [examples –reduce stand densities to increase resistance to drought and insect mortality, using prescribed fire and thinning to increase resistance and resilience to wildfire, thinning, removal of small trees, etc]. The release of carbon associated with this project is justified given the overall change in condition increases forest resistance to release of much greater quantities of carbon from wildfire, drought, insects/disease, or a combination of these disturbance types (Millar et al. 2007). This project falls within the types of options presented by the IPCC for minimizing the impacts of climate change on forest carbon, and represents a potential synergy between adaptation measures and mitigation. Actions aimed at enhancing forest resilience to climate change by reducing the potential for large-scale, catastrophic disturbances such as wildfire also prevents release of GHG and enhances carbon stocks (Smith et al. 2014). The proposed action reflects the rationale behind these recommendations because it will improve health of residual trees, and make stands more resistant to both insects, diseases and fire; thus maintaining and increasing biomass production over the long term. Timber management projects can influence carbon dioxide sequestration in four main ways: (1) by increasing new forests (afforestation), (2) by avoiding their damage or destruction (avoided deforestation), (3) by manipulating existing forest cover (managed forests), and (4) through transferring carbon from the live biomass to the harvested wood product carbon pool. Land-use changes, specifically deforestation and regrowth, are by far the biggest factors on a global scale in forests’ role as sources or sinks of carbon dioxide, respectively (IPCC,

4 A megatonne is one million metric tons of CO2; equal to about 2.2 billion pounds. 264 UDR Environmental Assessment

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2000). Projects like the proposed action that create forests or improve forest conditions and capacity to grow trees are positive factors in carbon sequestration.

265 UDR Environmental Assessment Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State and local agencies, tribes and non-forest service persons during the development of this environmental assessment: Interdisciplinary Team Members Alex Enna Team Leader Scott McBride Recreation Brock McCormick Wildlife Charmane Powers Botany and Invasive Weeds Anne Trapanese NEPA Planner Lauren DuRocher NEPA Planner Dan Leonard Silviculture Dan Newsome Heritage Resources Robin Gyorgyfalvy Visual Resources Sarah Hash Soils Steve Bigby Road Engineering Tom Walker Fisheries Kyle Wright Hydrology Robert Newey Fuels

Agencies and Persons Consulted State Historic Preservation Office The Forest has completed necessary reporting for the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) following guidelines in the Regional Programmatic Agreement among USDA-Forest Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Oregon SHPO. A cultural resource inventory and report have been completed. Consultation has been completed and the SHPO office has issued a determination “no effect” for this project.

266 UDR Environmental Assessment Works Cited Vegetation Booser, J. and White, J. 1996. Calculating maximum stand density indexed (SDI) for Deschutes National Forest plant associations. 9 p Anderson, Paul. Research Forester- Pacific Northwest Sciences Laboratory, Corvallis Oregon. Verbal Communication during Pringle Falls Experimental Forest Meeting pertaining to Upper Deschutes Fuels Reduction Project. October 29th, 2015. Cawrse, Dave; Keyser, Chad; Keyser, Tara; Sanchez-Meador, Andrew; Smith-Mateja, Erin; Van Dyck, Mike. 2009. Forest Vegetation Simulator Model Validation Protocols (Revised 2010). Validation Subcommittee FVS Steering Team. Internal Rep. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center. 10p. Cochran, P.H., Geist, J.M., Clemens, D.L., Clausnitzer, Rodrick, R., Powell, David, C. 1994. Suggested Stocking Levels for Forest Stands in Northeastern Oregon and Southeastern Washington. Internal Rep. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 26p. Connaughton, James L. "Office of Management and Budget and President's Council on Environmental Quality MEMORANDUM ON ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION." Letter to Secretary/Administrator:. 28 Nov. 2005. MS. N.p Crookston, Nicholas, L. 1990. User’s Guide to the Event Monitor: Part of Prognosis Model Version 6. General Technical Report INT-275. US Department of Agriculture, US Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Moscow, Idaho. 21 p. Dixon, Gary, E. 2002. Essential FVS: A User’s Guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator (revised 2012). Intermal Rep. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture – Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center, 226 p. Ernst, R.L. and Knapp, W.H. 1985. Forest stand density and stocking: concepts, terms, and the use of stocking guides. USDA Gen. Tech. Report WO-44. 8p. Fierst, Jim; White, Diane; Allen, John; High, Tom; Green, Sarah. 1993. Region 6 Interim Old Growth Definitions. Internal Rep. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Xp. Grahm, R.T; Harvey, A.E; Jain, T.B.; Tonn, J.R.1999. The effects of thinning and similar stand treatments on fire behavior in western forests. General Technical Report. PNW-463.Portland, OR:USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 27p. Hawksworth, F.G. 1977. The 6-class dwarf mistletoe rating system. General Technical Report RM-48. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rock Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 7p. Hopkins, B.; Simon, S.; Schafer, M. Lillybridge, T. 1993. Region 6 interim old growth definition for ponderosa pine series. In: Region 6 interim old growth definition for Douglas-fir series, grand fir/white fir series, interior Douglas fir, lodgepole pine, pacific silver fir, ponderosa pine, port-orford-cedar and tanok (redwood), subalpine fir, and western hemlock series. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region. Keyser, Chad E., comp. 2008 (revised November 17, 2014). South Central Oregon and Northeast California (SO) Variant Overview – Forest Vegetation Simulator. Internal Rep. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center. 92p. Lighthall, Kate. Deschutes County: Upper Deschutes River Natural Resources Coalition Revised Community Wildfire Protection Plan. N.p.: Deschutes County (Or.), 2013. Print. O’Hara, Kevin, L., Latham, Penelope, A., Hessburg, Paul, Smith, Bradley, G. 1996. A Structural Classification for Inland Northwest Forest Vegetation. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, Vol. 11, No. 3, 97-102. 267 UDR Environmental Assessment

Oliver, Chadwick, D., Larson, Bruce, C. 1996. Forest Stand Dynamics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York City, NY. 520p. Powell, David C. Suggested Stocking Levels for Forest Stands in Northeastern Oregon and Southeastern Washington: An Implementation Guide for the Umatilla National Forest. Pendleton, Or.: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Region, Umatilla National Forest, 1999. Print. Powell, David C. "Estimating Crown Fire Susceptibility For Project Planning."Fire Management Today 70.3 (2010): 8-15. "Pacific Northwest Research Station." - Pringle Falls Experimental Forest and Research Natural Area. US Forest Service, n.d. Web. 12 Jan. 2016 Scott, Joe. "Glossary of Fire Science Terminology." Fire Words. N.p., Aug. 2007. Web. Feb. 2016. Scott, J.H.; Reinhardt, E.D. 2002. Estimating canopy fuels in conifer forests. Fire Management Today. 62(4): 45-50. Shaw, J.D. 2006. Reineke’s Stand Density Index: Where are we and where do we go from here? Proceedings: Society of American Foresters 2005 National Convention. October 19-23, 2005, Ft. Worth, TX. [published on CD-ROM]: Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, MD. Rebain, Stephanie A. comp. 2010 (revised March 23, 2015). The Fire and Fuels Extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator: Updated Model Documentation. Internal Rep. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center. 403p. Reineke, L.H. 1933. Perfecting a stand density index for even-aged forests. Journal of Agricultural Research 46(7):627-638.Reinhardt, E.D.; Crookston, N.L., Tech. Eds. 2003. The Fire and Fuels Extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. USDA Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-116. 133 p. Stine, Peter; Hessburg, Paul; Spies, Thomas; Kramer, Marc; Fetting, Christopher, J.; Hansen, Andrew; Lehmkuhl, John; O’Hara, Kevin; Polivka, Karl; Singleton, Peter; Charnley, Susan; Merschel, Andrew; White, Rachel. 2014. The ecology and management of moist mixed-conifer forests in eastern Oregon and Washington: a synthesis of the relevant biophysical science and implications for future land management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR- 897. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 254p. Tappeiner, John, C., Maguire, Douglas, A., Harrington, Timothy, B. 2007. Silviculture and Ecology of Western U.S. Forests. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, OR. 440p. USDA (Unknown). 1996. Draft Plant Association Average Stocking Curves for the Deschutes National Forest, May 1996. Internal Rep. Bend, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 106p. USDA. 2001. Dilman Environmental Assessment. Internal Rep. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Deschutes National Forest, Bend/Fort Rock Ranger District. Bend, OR USDA (Unknown). 2014a. Common Stand Exam Users Guide – Natural Resource Information System: Field Sampled Vegetation. Internal Rep. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. USDA (Unknown). 2014b. Forest Service Activity Tracking System User Guide – Natural Resource Information System. Internal Rep. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 540p. Van Dyck, Michael, G., Smith-Mateja, Erin, E., comp. 2000 (revised September 2015). Keyword Reference Guide for the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Internal Rep. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center. 122p. Volland, Leonard A. 1985. Plant associations of the central Oregon Pumice zone. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region. R6-ECOL-104-1985. 138 p.

268 UDR Environmental Assessment

Wright, Henry A. 1978. The effect of fire on vegetation in ponderosa pine forests: A state-of-the-art review. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, Department of Range and Wildlife Management. 21 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Youngblood, Andrew, Timothy Max, and Kent Coe. "Stand Structure in Eastside Old-growth Ponderosa Pine Forests of Oregon and Northern California." Forest Ecology and Management 199.2-3 (2004): 191-217. Web. Fire and Fuels Agee, J. K. (1993). Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Washington D. C.: Island Press. Agee, J. K., & Skinner, C. N. (2005). Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management, 211, 83-96. Alexander, M., Cruz, M., Vaillant, N., & Peterson, D. (2013). Crown fire behavior characteristics and prediction in conifer forests: a state-of-knowledge synthesis. Final Report. Arno, S. F. (1996, June). The Concept: Restoring Ecological Structure and Process in Ponderosa Pine Forests. The Use of Fire in Fire Restoration, General Technical Report INT-GTR-341. Arabas, K.B., K.S. Hadley, and E.R. Larson. 2006. Fire history of naturally fragmented landscape in central Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36:1108-1120. Bork, J. L. (1984). Fire history in three vegetation types on the eastern side of the Oregon Cascades, Ph D. Thesis. . Oregon State University. Deschutes Land Trust. (2014, June 17). Retrieved from http://www.deschuteslandtrust.org/ Fettig, C.J., K.D. Klepzig, R.F. Billings, A.S. Munson, T.E. Nebeker, J.F. Negron, & J.T. Nowak. (2007). The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States. For. Ecol. Mange. 238:24-53. Finney, M. A. (2005). The challenge of quantitative risk analysis for wildland fire. Forest Ecology and Management, 211, 97-108. Finney, M. A., Brittain, S., & Seli, R. (2006). FlamMap Version 3.0. Joint Fire Sciences Program. Rocky Mountain Research Station, US Bureau of Land Management, Systems for Environmental Management. Fitzgerald, S. A. (2005). Fire Ecology of Ponderosa Pine adn the Rebuilding of Fire-Resilient Ponderosa Pine Ecosystems. USDA Forest Service. USDA Forest Service. Hardy, C. C. (2005). Wildland fire hazard and risk: Problems, definitions, and context. Forest Ecology and Management, 1-10. Hessburg, P. F., & Agee, J. K. (2003). An environmental narrative of Inland Northsest United States forests, 1800- 2000. Forest Ecology and Management, 179, 23-59. Keyes, C. R. (2006). Foliar Moisture Content of North American Conifers. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS- P-41 (p. 5). Portland: OR. Lighthall, K. (2013). Upper DeschutesRiver Coalition Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Project Wildfire. Lighthall, K. (2015). Greater La Pine Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Project Wildfire. McCauley, P. (1993). Deschutes National Forest Fire History, 1908-1992. Internal Report. McCullough, D. G., Werner, R. A., & Neumann, D. (1998). Fire and Insects in Northern and Boreal Forest Ecosystems of North America. Annu. Rev. Entomol., 43, 107-127. Millar, C. I., Stephenson, N. L., & Stephens, S. L. (2007). Climate Change and Forests of the Future: Managing in the Face of Uncertainty. Ecological Applications, 17(8), 2145-2151.

269 UDR Environmental Assessment

Mitchell, R., & Preisler, H. (1998). Fall rate of lodgepole pine killed by the mountain pine beetle in central Oregon. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 13, 23-26. National Wildfire Coordinating Group. (2012, July). NWCG Website. Retrieved June 25, 2014, from NWCG Glossary of Wildland Fire Terminology, PMS 205: http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/pubs/glossary/glossary.htm NFMD. (2014, June 30). National Fuel Moisture Database. Retrieved from http://www.wfas.net/nfmd/public/index.php NWCG. (2012, July). Glossary of Wildland Fire Terminology. Retrieved from National Wildfire Coordinating Group: http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/pubs/glossary/index.htm Oregon Health Authority and Oregon Department of Forestry. (2014). Impacts of the Pole Creek Wildfire on Fish, Wildlife and Aquatic Habitat, and on Public Health. Salem, OR: Oregon Health Authority. Retrieved from http://www.oregon.gov/odf/docs/20140210_HB3109_ODF- OHA_ImpactsOfPoleCreekWildfire2012_Report.pdf Saltenberger, J. a. (1993, September). Weather Related Unusual Fire Behavior in the Awbrey Hall Fire. National Weather Digest, 18(2), 20-29. Scott, J. H., & Burgan, R. E. (2005). Standard fire behavior fuel models: a comprehensive set for use with Rothermel's surface fire spread model. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-153, 72. Twitter. (2014, June 24). Retrieved from #twobullsfire: https://twitter.com/hashtag/twobullsfire?src=hash&mode=photos Twitter. (2015). Retrieved from #roosterrockfire: https://twitter.com/hasthtag/roosterrock?src=hash&mode=photos sistersoregonhomes.com US EPA (1998). Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires USGS. (2010). Landfire 2010 - LF 1.2.0 Fuel Themes. LANDFIRE. U. S. Department of the Interior,. Retrieved from www.landfire.gov Vaillant, N. M., Ager, A. A., Anderson, J., & Miller, L. (2012). ArcFuels User Guide and Tutorial: for use with ArcGIS 10.0. Internal Report. Prineville: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Western Wildland Environmental Threat Assessment Center. Weatherspoon, C. 1996. Fire-silviculture relationships in Sierra forests. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystems Project, Final Report to Congress, II: Assessments, scientific basis for management options, ed., vol. II: Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Center for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California, Davis, Water Resources Center Report No. 37, pp. 1167- 1176. Youngblood, A., Max, T., Coe, K., 2004. Stand structure in eastside old-growth ponderosa pine forests of Oregon and northern California. Wildlife APLIC. 2006. Avian powerline interaction committee: suggested practices for avian protection on powerlines – the state of the art in 2006. Edison Electric Institute, APLIC and the California Energy Commission. Washington DC and Sacramento, CA. Altman, B. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds of the east-slope of the cascade mountains in Oregon and Washington. Version 1.0. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 81 pp. Andrews H. 2010a. Silver-bordered fritillary species factsheet. Interagency special status and sensitive species program. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml

270 UDR Environmental Assessment

Andrews H. 2010b. Johnson’s hairstreak species factsheet. Interagency special status and sensitive species program. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml Aubry, K. and C. Raley. 2006. Update to the study ecological characteristics of fishers (martes pennanti) in the southern Oregon Cascade Range. Olympia ,WA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 30 p. Bend-Fort Rock District Files. Deschutes National Forest. 63095 Deschutes Market Road. Bend, OR. Bryan, T. and E. D. Forsman. 1987. Distribution, abundance, and habitat of great gray owls in south central Oregon. The Murrelet, 68, 45-49. Bull, Evelyn L., and Thad W. Heater. 2001. Home range and dispersal of the American marten in northeastern Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist 82:7-11. Bull, E.L., G.G. Parks, and T.R. Torgerson. 1997. Trees and logs important to wildlife in the interior Columbia river basin. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-39. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. 55 pp. Bull, E. L. and M. G. Henjum. 1990. Ecology of the great gray owl. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-265. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 39 p. Bull, Evelyn L., Thad W. Heater, and Jay F. Shepard. 2005. Habitat selection by the American marten in northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science 79(1):37-43. Buskirk, S.W., S.C Forrest, Martin G. Raphael, and H.J. Harlow. 1989. Winter resting site ecology of marten in the central Rocky Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management 53(1):191-196. Buskirk, L.J., and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994. Chapter 2 – American marten. Pgs 7-37 In. Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski. (Technical editors). The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the Western United States. General technical report RM-254. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins CO. 184 p. Clark T. W., E. Anderson, C. Douglas, and M. Strickland. 1987. Martes americana. Mammalian Species 289. Coe, F.C. and J. Woodward. 2013. Wildlife in Managed Forests: Deer and Elk. Oregon Forest Resources Institute. Portland, Oregon. Copeland, J. P., J. M. Peek, C. R. Groves, W. E. Melquist, K. S. McKelvey, G. W. McDaniel, C. D. Long, and C. E. Harris. 2007. Seasonal habitat associations of the wolverine in central Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(7):2201-2212. Csuti Blair, Oneil T.A., Shaughnessy M.M., Gaines E.P., Hak J.C. 2001. Atlas of oregon wildlife distribution, habitat, and natural History. Oregon State University, Corvallis Oregon. 525 pp. DeGraaf, Richard M., Virgil E. Scott, R.H. Hamre, Liz Ernst, and Stanley H. Anderson. 1991. Forest and rangeland birds of the united states natural history and habitat use. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook 688. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/forest/index.htm (Version 03NOV98). DeGraaf, R. M., Rappole, J. H. 1995. Neotropical migratory birds: natural history, distribution, and population change. Comstock Publishing Associates. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York Duncan, N., T. Burke, S. Dowlan, and P. Hohenlohe. 2003. Survey protocol for survey and manage terrestrial mollusk species from the Northwest Forest Plan. Version 3.0. USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Available from USDA Forest Service, Rogue River National Forest, Medford, OR.

271 UDR Environmental Assessment

Ehrlich P.R., D.S. Dobkin and.Wheye. 1988. The birders handbook: a field guide to the natural history of north American birds. Simon and Schuster/Fireside Books: New York, NY. 785pp. Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq. (2002), available at http://endangered.fws.gov/esa.html Federal Register. 2011. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: removal of the gray wolf in wyoming from the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife and removal of the wyoming wolf population's status as an experimental population. 76 FR 61782. October 5, 2011. FEIS (Fire Effects Information System). 2015, available at http://www.feis-crs.org/beta/ Gilligan, J., Smith, M, Rogers, D., Contreras, A. 1994. Birds of oregon: status and Distribution. Cinclus Publications, McMinnville, OR. pp 78. Gruver J.C. and D. A. Keinath. 2006. Townsend’s big-eared bat: a technical conservation assessment. Rocky Mountain Region species conservation project. Available at http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r2/landmanagement/?cid=stelprdb5177128 Hayward, G. D. and J. Verner, tech. eds. 1994. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in the united states: a technical conservation assessment. General Technical Report RM-253. Fort Collins, Colorado: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station. 214 p. 3 maps. Jepsen, S. 2014. Western bumblebee species factsheet. Interagency special status and sensitive species program. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml Johnsgard, P. A., 1990. Hawks, eagles, & falcons of north america. p.260-268. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press. Johnson, Bruce K., Michael J. Wisdom, and John G. Cook. 2005. Issues of elk productivity for research and management. Pp. 81-93 in Wisdom, M.J, tech. ed., The Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources conference, Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, KS. IN. Oregon Forest Resources Institute. 2007. Wildlife in Managed Forests. Portland, Oregon. USA. Jordan S.F. 2010. Shiny tightcoil species factsheet. Interagency special status and sensitive species program. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml Kaufman K. and Brock J.P. 2003. Field guide to butterflies of North America. Houghton Mifflin Company: New York, NY. 392pp. Keinath D. A. 2004. Fringed myotis: a technical conservation assessment. Rocky Mountain Region species conservation project. Available at http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r2/landmanagement/?cid=stelprdb5177128 Kennedy, PL. 2003. Northern goshawk: A technical conservation assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project. Krohn, W.B., W.J. Zielinski, and R.B. Boone. 1997. Relationships among fishers, snow, and martens in California: results from small-scale spatial comparisons. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004, Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form, Fisher, West Coast Distinct Population Assessment. La Sorte, F. A., R. W. Mannan, R. T. Reynolds, and T. G. Grubb. 2004. Habitat associations of sympatric red-tailed hawks and northern goshawks on the kaibab plateau.. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:307–317. Lind G.S. 1976. Production, nest site selection and food habits of ospreys on deschutes national forest. Oregon State University scholar archives. Available at http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/ Linder, K.A. and S.H. Anderson. 1998. Nesting habitat of Lewis’ woodpeckers in southeastern Wyoming. Journal of Field Ornithology. 69(1):109-116.

272 UDR Environmental Assessment

Luce R.J and D Keinath. 2007. Spotted bat: a technical conservation assessment. Rocky Mountain Region species conservation project. Available at http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r2/landmanagement/?cid=stelprdb5177128 Marshall, D.B., M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras. 2006. Birds of oregon: a general reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 pp. McIntyre, C. L., Collopy, M. W., Kidd, J. G. and Stinkne, A. A. 2006. Characteristics of the landscape surrounding golden eagle nest sites in denali national park and preserve, Alaska. J. Raptor Res 40(1):46-51. Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds. (December 08, 2008). Mellen-McLean, K, B.G. Marcot, J.L. Ohmann, K. Waddell, S.A. Livingston, E.A. Willhite, B.B. Hostetler, C.Ogden, and T. Dreisbach. 2012. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of washington and oregon. Version 2.20. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest Research Station; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office; Portland, Oregon. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/index.shtml Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 1918. 16 U.S.C. 703-712; Ch. 128; July 13, 1918; 40 Stat. 755, as amended. NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2003. Oregon’s elk management plan. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon, USA. Newey, Robert. 2015. [Personal communication]. February 1, 2016. Bend, OR O’Reilly, Jennifer. 2015. [Personal communication]. August 7. Bend, OR Palmer, R.S., Ed. 1988. Handbook of north american birds, Vol. 4-5: diurnal raptors. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT. Preston, C. R. 1980. Differential perch site selection by color morphs of the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis). The Auk, Vol. 97, No. 4 (Oct. 1980): 782-789. Reynolds, R. T., E. C. Meslow, and H. M. Wight. 1982. Nesting habits of coexisting accipiter in oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:124-31. Reynolds, R. T. 1989. Accipiters. Pp. 92-101 in Proceedings of the western raptor management symposium and workshop (B. A. Giron Pendleton, Ed.). Scientific and Technical Series No. 12, Institute for Wildlife Research and National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D. C. Reynolds, RT et al. 1992. Management Recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern united states. General Technical Report RM-217. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station and Southwestern Region. Fort Collins, CO. 90 pp. Rose, C. L., B. G. Marcot, T. K. Mellen, J. L. Ohmann, K. L. Waddell, D.L. Lindley, and B. Schreiber. 2001. Decaying wood in Pacific Northwest forests: concepts and tools for habitat management. Pp. 580-623 in: D.H. Johnson and T. A. O'Neil, ed. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis OR. Rose et al. 2001 Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, J.L. Lyon, and W.L. Zielinski, tech eds. 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. General Technical Report. RM-254. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and range Experiment Station. 184pp. Slauson, Keith M. 2003. Habitat selection by american martens (Martes Americana) in coastal northwestern California. M.S. Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis. 112 p.

273 UDR Environmental Assessment

Slauson, Keith M., William J. Zielinski, and John P. Hayes. 2007. Habitat selection by american martens in coastal california. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:48-468. Sibley D.A. 2000. The sibley guide to birds. Chanticleer Press, Inc/Random House, Inc. New York, NY. 544 pp. Smith, FW., and JN Long. 1987. Elk hiding and thermal cover guidelines in the context of lodgepole pine stand density. Western journal of applied forestry. 2(1): 6-10. Stephenson, John. 2016. [Personal Communication]. July 7, 2016. Bend, OR. Tait C. 2007. Conservation assessment of the great basin population of the columbia spotted frog. Interagency special status and sensitive species program. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species- index/fauna-amphibians.shtml Tesky, Julie L. 1994. Buteo jamaicensis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2011, May 25]. Timmossi, I.C. and R. H. Barrett. 1995. Habitat suitability models for the use with ARC/INFO: red-tailed hawk. California Department of Fish and Game, CWHR Program, Sacramento, CA. CWHR Technical Report No. 19 25 pp. USDA FS. 1990. Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). Bend, OR. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. USDA FS. 1994a. Newberry national volcanic monument comprehensive management plan. Bend, OR. USDAForest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. USDA FS. 1994b. Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Tree and Log Implementation Strategy. Bend, OR. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. USDA FS. 1995. Environmental assessment for the continuation of interim management direction establishing riparian, ecosystem and wildlife standards for timber sales (eastside screens). Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. USDA FS. 1996. Upper deschutes wild and scenic river and state scenic waterway comprehensive management plan. Bend, OR. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. USDA FS. 1997. Forest Service Manual, All Issuances (Service-wide and Field). §2600 Wildlife, Fish and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management. Washington, DC. US Department of Agriculture. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/dughtml/fsm.html USDA FS. 2014. Joint Aquatic and Terrestrial Programmatic Biological Assessment for Federal Lands within the Deschutes and John Day River Basins Administered by the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests. Bend, OR. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. USDA FS. 2015a. Wildlife report on management indicator species and landbirds for the upper Deschutes river wildland-urban interface fuels reduction project. Bend, OR. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.USDA FS. 2015a. Wildlife report on management indicator species and landbirds for the upper Deschutes river wildland-urban interface fuels reduction project. Bend, OR. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. USDA FS. 2015b. Update of the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Lists and Transmittal of Strategic Species List. July 21. Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. USDA FS. 2015c. Aquatic resource report for the upper Deschutes River wildland-urban interface fuels reduction project. Bend, OR. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 274 UDR Environmental Assessment

Van Riper, C., and J.W. van Wagtendonk. Home range characteristics of great gray owls in yosemite national park. (in press). In Sears, C. L. 2006. Assessing distribution, habitat suitability, and site occupancy of great gray owls (Strix nebulosa) in California. Thesis, University of California, Davis, USA. Vana-Miller, S.L. 1987. Habitat suitability index model: osprey. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82 (10.154). 46 pp. Wahl, T. R., B. Tweit, and S. G. Mlodinow, editors. 2005. Birds of washington: status and distribution. Corvallis, OR, U.S.A Oregon State Univ. Press. 436 pp. Weir R.D. and F.B. Corbould. 2010. Factors affecting landscape occupancy by fishers in north central british columbia. The journal of wildlife management 74(3): 405-410. Whitfield, M.B., and M. Gaffney. 1997. Great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) breeding habitat use within altered forest landscapes. biology and conservation of owls of the northern hemisphere. USDA GTR-NC-190. p498-505 Wightman C.S., V.A. Saab, C. Forristal, K. Mellen-McLean, and A. Markus. 2010. White-headed woodpecker nesting ecology after wildfire. The journal of wildlife management 74(5):1098-1106. Wisdom, M.J., R.S. Holthausen, B.C. Wales, C.D. Hargis, V.A. Saab, D.C. Lee, W.J. Hann, T.D. Rich, M.M. Rowland, W.J. Murphy, M.R. Eames. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the interior Columbia basin: broad-scale trends and management implications. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-485. Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 3 Vol. Soils Busse, M.D., P.H. Cochran and J.W. Barrett. 1996. Changes in Ponderosa Pine Site Productivity Following Removal of Understory Vegetation. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60(6): 1614-1621. Busse, M.D. and G.M. Riegel. 2005. Managing Ponderosa Pine Forests in Central Oregon: Who Will Speak for the Soil? USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech Rept. PSW-GTR-198. Busse, M.D., P.H. Cochran, W.E. Hopkins, W.H. Johnson, G.M. Riegel, G.O. Fiddler, A.W. Ratcliff and C.J. Shestak. 2009. Developing resilient ponderosa pine forests with mechanical thinning and prescribed fire in central Oregon’s pumice region. Can. J. For. Res. 39(6): 1171-1185. Busse, M.D., C.J. Shestak and K.R. Hubbert. 2013. Soil heating during burning of forest slash piles and wood piles. Int. J. Wildland Fire 22: 786-796. Busse, M.D., K.R. Hubbert, and E.E.Y. Moghaddas. 2014. Fuel Reduction Practices and Their Effects on Soil Quality. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-241. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station Cochran, P.H. 1971. Pumice particle bridging and nutrient levels affect lodgepole and ponderosa pine seedling development. U.S. Forest Service Research Note PNW-150, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. 10 pp. Craigg, T. 1997. Changes in Bulk Density and Strength in Volcanic Ash Soils. Soil Monitoring Report, Deschutes National Forest. Internal document available upon request. Craigg, T. 2000. Subsoiling to Restore Compacted Soils. Presented at the Forest Vegetation Management Conference, Redding, CA, January 2000. Deschutes National Forest, 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Available online at http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/deschutes/landmanagement/planning/?cid=fsbdev3_035906.

275 UDR Environmental Assessment

Dyrness, C.T. and C.T. Youngberg. 1966. Soil-Vegetation Relationships within the Ponderosa Pine Type in the Central Oregon Pumice Region. Ecology 47: 122-138. Froehlich, H.A., D.E. Aulerich and R. Curtis. 1981. Designing Skid Trail Systems to Reduce Soil Impacts from Tractive Logging Machines. Research Paper 44, Oregon State University Forest Research Lab. 18 pp. Available online at http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/handle/1957/8240. Froehlich, H.A. and D. H. McNabb. 1983. Minimizing Soil Compaction in Pacific Northwest Forests. Paper presented at the Sixth North American Forest Soils Conference on Forest Soils and Treatment Impacts, Knoxville, TN, June 1983. Available online at http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/smp/solo/documents/RPs/Froehlich_McNabb_1983.pdf. Greacen, E.L. and R. Sands. Compaction of forest soils: A review. Aust. J. Soil Res. 18:163-189. Hash, S.J. 2011. Deschutes National Forest 2010 Soil Monitoring Report. Internal document available upon request. Hebel, C.L., J.E. Smith and K. Cromack Jr. 2009. Invasive plant species and soil microbial response to wildfire burn severity in the Cascade Range of Oregon. Applied Soil Ecology 42: 150-159. Homann, P.S., B.T. Bormann, R.L. Darbyshire and B.A. Morrissette. 2011. Forest Soil Carbon and Nitrogren Losses Associated with Wildfire and Prescribed Fire. Soil Science Society of America Journal 75(5): 1926-1934. Jensen, R.A. and L.A. Chitwood. 2000. Lava Butte Eruption and Lake Benham. Friends of the Pleistocene, Pacific Northwest Cell Guidebook. Available online at https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/taylor/g407/jen_chit_01.pdf Johnson, L.R., D. Page-Dumroese and H. Han. 2007. Effects of Machine Traffic on the Physical Properties of Ash- Cap Soils. In: Volcanic-Ash-Derived Soils of the Pacific Northwest: Properties and Implications for Management and Restoration. November 2005; Coeur d’Alene, ID. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS- P-44. Kaiser, K.E., B.L. McGlynn and R.E. Emanuel. 2013. Ecohydrology of an outbreak: mountain pine beetle impacts trees in drier landscape positions first. Ecohydrol. 6: 444-454. Larsen, D.M., 1976. Soil Resource Inventory, Deschutes National Forest. Pacific Northwest Region, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Massman, W.J. and J.M. Frank. 2004. Effect of a controlled burn on the thermophysical properties of a dry soil using a new model of soil heat flow and a new high temperature heat flux sensor. Int. J. Wildland Fire. 13: 427-442. Miller, S., C. Rhoades, L. Schnackenburg, P. Forwalt and E. Schroder. 2015. Slash from the Past: Rehabilitating Pile Burn Scars. Science You Can Use Bulletin, Issue 15. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 9 p. Available online at http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/49554 Monsanto, P.G. and J.K. Agee. 2008. Long-term post-wildfire dynamics of coarse woody debris after salvage logging and implications for soil heating in dry forests of the eastern Cascades, Washington. Forest Ecology and Management 255: 3952-3961. Oliver, C.D. and B.C. Larson. 1996. Forest Stand Dynamics. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., USA. Parker, R.T., D.A. Maguire, and D.D. Marshall. 2007. Ponderosa pine growth response to soil strength in the volcanic ash soils of central Oregon. West. J. Appl. For. 22(2): 134-141. PRISM Climate Group. 2010. Oregon State University. 30-Year Climate Normals 1981-2010 (gridded data). Available online at http://prism.oregonstate.edu. Shea, R. 1993. Effects of prescribed fire and silvicultural activities on fuel mass and nitrogen redistribution in Pinus ponderosa ecosystems of central Oregon. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 163 p. M.S. Thesis.

276 UDR Environmental Assessment

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. FS-990a. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2012. Soil Quality and Soil Health webpage. http://soils.usda.gov/sqi WRCC. 2015. Western Regional Climate Center. Climate Summaries webpage. Summary for Wickiup Dam, Oregon (359316). http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?or9316 Youngberg, C.T. and C.T. Dyrness. 1963. Some physical and chemical properties of pumice soils in Oregon. Soil Science 97: 391-399. Botany USDA Forest Service, July 5, 2001, Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices, Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District Geographic Information Systems (GIS) layers Forest Service Region 6 Record of Decision, Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants, Oct. 2005 Larsen, 1976. Soil Resource Inventory, Deschutes National Forest. Recreation Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, Clark and Stankey (1979) Campground concessionaire 2015 revenue data, Hoodoo Recreation Sun-Lava Paved Path 2015 counter use data, Sunriver Homeowners Association USFS corporate GIS data. Aquatics Buchanan, David V; Hanson, Mary L; Hooton, Robert M. 1997. Status of Oregon's bull trout : distribution, life history, limiting factors, management considerations, and status. Bonneville Power Administration, .Portland, OR. Duncan, N. 2008. Survey Protocol for Aquatic Mollusk Species: Preliminary Inventory and Presence/Absence Sampling, Version 3.1. Portland, OR. Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 6. 52 pp. Frest, T.J. and E.J. Johannes. 1995. Interior Columbia Basin mollusk species of special concern. Final report: Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Walla Walla, WA. Contract #43-0E00-4-9112. 274 pp. plus appendices. Gannett, M.W., K.E. Lite, Jr., D.S. Morgan, and C.A. Collins. 2001. Ground-Water Hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon. Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4162. U.S. Geological Survey. Giersch, J.J. 2002. Masters Thesis: Revision and Phylogenetic analysis of the verrula and Alberta species groups of Rhyacophila pictet 1834 with description of a new species (Trichoptera: Rhyacophilidae). Montana State University. Bozeman, Montana. Lakel III, W.A., W.M. Aust, M.C. Bolding, C.A. Dollof, P. Keyser, and R. Feldt. 2010. Sediment Trapping by Streamside Management Zones of Various Widths after Forest Harvest and Site Preparation. Forest Science 56(6), PP. 541-551. Luce, C.H. 1995. Chapter 8: Forests and wetlands. In: Ward, A.D.; Elliot, W.J. (eds.). Environmental hydrology. Boaca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers: 263–284 Manga, Michael, 1997. A model for discharge in spring-dominated streams and the implications for the transmissivity and recharge of quaternary volcanics in the Oregon Cascades 277 UDR Environmental Assessment

Meehan, W.R. 1991. USDA Forest Service. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitat. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Minshall, G.Wayne (2003) Responses of Stream Macroinvertebrates to Fire, Forest Ecology and Management, Issues 1-2. Pp. 155-161 NatureServe. 2009. “Elimia hemphilli”. Version 7.1 (2 February 2009). Data last updated: October 2009. Available at: www.natureserve.org/explorer (Accessed 17 May 2010). Oregon Water Resources Department Website at www.wrd.state.or.us, access 1/6/2016 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Designated Beneficial Uses, www.deq.state.or.us, accessed 1/5/2015 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2003a. Bull Trout Habitat Designation: Technical Work Group Recommendations. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2003b. A Description of the Information and Methods Used to Delineate the Proposed Fish Use Designations for Oregon’s Water Quality Standards: Attachment H to EQC Staff Report, November, 2003. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1996. Upper Deschutes River Sub-basin Fish Management Plan. Bend, Oregon Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2015. Monitoring Salmonid Occupancy using Catacraft Electrofishing in the Upper Deschutes River. Information Report Number 2105-02. Phelps, S.R., S. Cierebiej and B.Baker, 1996. Genetic Relationships and Estimation of Hatchery Introgression in 28 Collections of Redband trout from the upper Deschutes River, Crooked River, Malheur Lake Basin and Goose Lake Basin, Oregon. Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia , Washington. Suttle, Kenwyn. Power, Mary. Levine, Johathan, McNeely, Camille. (2004) How Fine Sediment in Riverbeds Impairs Growth and Survival of Juvenile Salmonids. Ecological Applications, 14(4), pp. 969-974 USDA, 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. USDA, 1990. Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA, 1995. Inland Native Fish Strategy Environmental Assessment. USDA, 1996a. Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River Record of Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement. USDA, 1996b. Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River and State Scenic River Waterway Comprehensive Management Plan. USDA 1976. Soil Resource Inventory. Deschutes National Forest. USDA, Forest Service and USDI, Bureau of Land Management, 1999. Protocol for Addressing Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Listed Waters. USDA, Forest Service and USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 2005. Rhyacophila Chandleri , a caddisfly. Species Fact Sheet. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. Portland, Oregon. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/planning-documents/species-guides.shtml USDA, Watershed Condition Framework, http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/watershed/condition_framework.html accessed 1/6/15

278 UDR Environmental Assessment

USDA, Forest Service, and USDI, Bureau of Land Management, 2014. Joint Aquatic and Terrestrial Programmatic Biological Assessment For Federal Lands within the Deschutes and John Day River Basin’s Administered by the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Chapter 7, Deschutes Recovery Unit, Oregon. 62 p. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland. Oregon. Scenic Resources USDA Forest Service, 1990. Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) USDA Forest Service, 1994. Newberry National Volcanic Monument Management Plan USDA Forest Service, 1996. Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River and State Scenic Waterway Comprehensive Management Plan USDA Forest Service, 1996. Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management

Climate Change FAOSTAT (2013). FAOSTAT database. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://faostat.fao.org/ IPCC 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ IPCC, 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.). IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/ IPCC 2000. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Special Report on Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry, Summary for Policy Makers, 2000. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. 20 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=0 Joyce, Linda A.; Running, Steven W.; Breshears, David D.; Dale, Virginia H.; Malmsheimer, Robert W.; Sampson, R. Neil; Sohngen, Brent; Woodall, Christopher W. 2014. Chapter 7: Forests. In: Melillo, Jerry; Richmond, Terese (T.C.); Yohe, Gary, eds. Climate change impacts in the United States: The third national climate assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program: 176–194. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/sectors/forests Millar, Constance I; Stephenson, Nathan L.; Stephens, Scott L. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future: Managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications. 17(8): 2145-2151. http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/31774 Smith P., M. Bustamante, H. Ahammad, H. Clark, H. Dong, E. A. Elsiddig, H. Haberl, R. Harper, J. House, M. Jafari, O. Masera, C. Mbow, N. H. Ravindranath, C. W. Rice, C. Robledo Abad, A. Romanovskaya, F. Sperling, and F. Tubiello, 2014. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 121 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter11.pdf US EPA 2015. US Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2013. Executive Summary. EPA 430- R15-004 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 27 pp. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html 279 UDR Environmental Assessment

280

APPENDIX A: Deschutes National Forest Sensitive Plant Species List Sixty-nine plants are currently on the Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List (FSM 2670.44, Dec. 2011) for the Deschutes National Forest, as follows (BFR = Bend/Fort Rock District, CRE = Crescent District, SIS = Sisters District). Listing status updated July 2015.

Scientific Name Common Name Listing Status District BFR CRE SIS Agoseris elata Tall agoseris ORBIC List 2 S S D Anastrophyllum minutum (LIVERWORT) ORBIC List 2 S S S Anthelia julacea (LIVERWORT) ORBIC List 2 S S S Arnica viscosa Shasta arnica ORBIC List 2 D S S Astragalus peckii Peck’s milk-vetch ORBIC List 1 D D S Blepharostoma arachnoideum ORBIC List 2 S S S (LIVERWORT) Boechera suffrutescens var. horizontalis Crater Lake rockcress Sp. Of Concern --- S --- ORBIC List 1 Botrychium pumicola Pumice moonwort ORBIC List 1 D D D Brachydontium olympicum (MOSS) ORBIC List 2 S S S Calamagrostis breweri Brewer’s reedgrass ORBIC List 2 S D S Carex capitata Capitate sedge ORBIC List 2 D D D Carex diandra Lesser panicled sedge ORBIC List 2 S S S Carex lasiocarpa var. americana Slender sedge ORBIC List 2 D S S Carex livida Pale sedge ORBIC List 2 S S S Carex retrorsa Retrorse sedge ORBIC List 2 S S S

281

Carex vernacula Native sedge ORBIC List 2 S S S Castelleja chlorotica Green-tinged ORBIC List 1 D S S paintbrush Cephaloziella spinigera (LIVERWORT) ORBIC List 2 S S S Cheilanthes feei Fee’s lip-fern ORBIC List 2 S S S Collomia mazama Mt. Mazama collomia ORBIC List 1 S S S Conostomum tetragonum (MOSS) ORBIC List 2 S S S Cyperus acuminatus Short-pointed cyperus ORBIC List 2 D D S Cyperus lupulinus ssp. lupulinus Cyperus ORBIC List 2 S S S Elatine brachysperma Short-seeded ORBIC List 2 S S S waterwort Encalypta brevipes (MOSS) ORBIC List 2 S S S Entosthodon fascicularis (MOSS) ORBIC List 2 S S S Eucephalus gormanii Gorman’s aster ORBIC List 1 S S S Gentiana newberryi var. newberryi Newberry’s gentian ORBIC List 2 D S D Haplomitrium hookeri (LIVERWORT) ORBIC List 2 S S S Harpanthus flotovianus (LIVERWORT) ORBIC List 2 S S S Helodium blandowii (MOSS) ORBIC List 4 D S S Heliotropium curassavicum Salt heliotrope ORBIC List 2 S S S Lipocarpha aristulata Aristulate lipocarpha ORBIC List 2 S S S Lobelia dortmanna Water lobelia ORBIC List 2 S S D Lophozia gillmanii (LIVERWORT) ORBIC List 2 S S S Marsupella sparsifolia (LIVERWORT) ORBIC List 2 S S S

282

Nardia japonica (LIVERWORT) ORBIC List 2 D on D on D on DES DES DES Lycopodiella inundata Bog club-moss ORBIC List 2 S D S Lycopodium complanatum Ground cedar ORBIC List 2 S S S Muhlenbergia minutissima Annual dropseed ORBIC List 2 S S S Ophioglossum pusillum Adder’s-tongue ORBIC List 2 S S S Penstemon peckii Peck’s penstemon Sp. Of Concern S S D ORBIC List 1 Pilularia americana American pillwort ORBIC List 2 S S --- Pinus albicaulis Whitebark pine Federal D D D Candidate ORBIC List 4 Polytrichum sphaerothecium (MOSS) Not in ORBIC S S S 2013 booklet Potamogeton diversifolius Rafinesque’s ORBIC List 2 D on D on D on pondweed DES DES DES Preissia quadrata (LIVERWORT) ORBIC List 2 D on D on D on DES DES DES Pseudocalliergon trifarium (MOSS) ORBIC List 2 S S S Rivulariella gemmipara (LIVERWORT) ORBIC List 1 S D S Rorippa columbiae Columbia cress ORBIC List 1 S D S Rotala ramosior Lowland toothcup ORBIC List 2 S S S Scheuchzeria palustris ssp. americana Scheuchzeria ORBIC List 2 D S S Schistidium cinclidodonteum (MOSS) ORBIC List 2 S S S

283

Schistostega pennata (MOSS) Dropped—“too S D S common” Schoenoplectus subterminalis Water clubrush ORBIC List 2 S D S Schofieldia monticola (LIVERWORT) ORBIC List 2 S S S Splachnum ampullaceum (MOSS) ORBIC List 4 S S S Texosporium sancti-jacobi (LICHEN) Sp. of Concern S S S ORBIC List 2 Tomentypnum nitens (MOSS) ORBIC List 4 D D D Trematodon asanoi (= T. boasii) (MOSS) ORBIC List 2 S S S Tritomaria exsectiformis (LIVERWORT) Dropped—“too D D D common” Utricularia minor Lesser bladderwort ORBIC List 2 D S D FUNGI (detection issues) Gastroboletus vividus ORBIC List 1 S S S Helvella crassitunicata ORBIC List 2 D on D on D on DES DES DES Pseudorhizina californica (FUNGUS) ORBIC List 2 S D S Ramaria amyloidea (FUNGUS) ORBIC List 2 S D S Rhizopogon alexsmithii (FUNGUS) Not in ORBIC S D S 2013 booklet CODES: --- = Not documented or suspected D = Documented S = Suspected

Species of Concern = Federal Designation; neither Endangered or Threatened

284

ORBIC List 1 = Oregon Natural Heritage Program List: Contains species which are endangered or threatened throughout their range or which are presumed extinct.

ORBIC List 2 = Oregon Natural Heritage Program List: Contains species which are threatened, endangered or possibly extirpated from Oregon, but more common or stable elsewhere. ORBIC List 2-ex = Extirpated in Oregon.

ORBIC List 3 = Oregon Natural Heritage Program List: Contains species for which more information is needed before status can be determined, but which may be threatened or endangered in Oregon or throughout their range.

ORBIC List 4 = Oregon Natural Heritage Program List: Contains species of concern which are not currently threatened or endangered.

285

APPENDIX B: Unit soils

Table 81 - SRI Unit Summary for the UDR WUI Project Area - General Soil and Landform Characteristics Depth to Depth to Acres SRI Slope Broad Forest Surface Landform Parent Materials Bedrock / Restrictiv Unit Range Type Texture Bedrock Type e Layer 1** Barren, recent lava 0-30% Nonforest N/A—non-soil unit At surface/Basalt N/A N/A -- flows 5 Wet depressions, 0-10% Nonforest Alluvium and N/A Variable Sandy meadows, nonforested meadows organic materials gravels to 61 bottomlands peat 8 Stream bottomlands 0-30% Mixed conifers Alluvium and N/A N/A Variable, outwash often 13 gravelly 15 Depressions and flats 0-10% Lodgepole pine Sandy volcanic Variable depth, Variable Pumiceou ash, pumice lapilli variable rock s loamy 5 types sands over gravel 35 Steep sideslopes of 25-60% Ponderosa Sandy, pumiceous N/A >50” Loamy dissections in an pine volcanic ash and sand outwash zone pumice lapilli over 5 waterlain sands and gravels 41 Gentle to moderately 0-25% Ponderosa Sandy, pumiceous N/A >50” Loamy sloping outwash plains pine volcanic ash and sand and terraces pumice lapilli over 796 waterlain sands and gravels 43 Gently sloping outwash 0-5% Lodgepole pine Sandy, pumiceous N/A Average Coarse plains and bottomlands volcanic ash and 22” (water sandy pumice lapilli, table) loam 1 alluvium, glacial outwash

286

Depth to Depth to Acres SRI Slope Broad Forest Surface Landform Parent Materials Bedrock / Restrictiv Unit Range Type Texture Bedrock Type e Layer 44 Gently sloping outwash 0-5% Lodgepole pine Sandy, pumiceous N/A Average Loamy plains volcanic ash and 48” (water sand 96 pumice lapilli over table) glacial outwash 45 Gently sloping outwash 0-10% Lodgepole pine Sandy, pumiceous N/A >45” Loamy plains volcanic ash and coarse 781 pumice lapilli over sand glacial outwash 63 Gently sloping lava 0-10% Lodgepole pine Sandy, pumiceous 24-60”/Basalt 36” Loamy plains volcanic ash and sand pumice lapilli over 438 sandy to loamy buried soils 64 Gentle to moderately 0-30% Ponderosa Sandy, pumiceous 24-60”/Basalt 45” Loamy sloping uneven lava pine volcanic ash and sand plains pumice lapilli over 78 sandy to loamy buried soils 65 Uneven lava flow lands 0-30% Mixed conifers Sandy, pumiceous 24-60”/Basalt 45” Loamy and gentle lava plains volcanic ash and sand pumice lapilli over 34 sandy to loamy buried soils 68 Steep side slopes of 30-60% Ponderosa Sandy, pumiceous 24-60”/Basalt, 28” Loamy ridges and buttes pine volcanic ash and andesite and sand pumice lapilli over rhyolite sandy to loamy 3 buried soils of residuum and colluvium

287

Depth to Depth to Acres SRI Slope Broad Forest Surface Landform Parent Materials Bedrock / Restrictiv Unit Range Type Texture Bedrock Type e Layer 70 Gently sloping lava 0-30% Lodgepole pine Sandy, pumiceous 30-65”/Basalt 45” Loamy plains volcanic ash and and andesite coarse pumice lapilli over sand 123 sandy to loamy buried soils 76** Uneven, broken lava 0-30% Ponderosa Sandy volcanic ash 10-40”/Basalt 38” Very flows pine and pumice lapilli cobbly -- mixed with highly sandy fractured lavas loam 81 Cinder cones 25-70% Ponderosa Sandy, pumiceous N/A >60” Loamy pine volcanic ash and sand pumice lapilli over 1 cindery buried soils 82 Cinder cones 25-70% Mixed conifers Sandy, pumiceous N/A >60" Loamy volcanic ash and sand pumice lapilli over 8 cindery buried soils 6J Gently sloping lava 0-30% Ponderosa Sandy, pumiceous 30-50”/Basalt 32” Loamy plains and lava flow pine- volcanic ash and and andesite sand lands Lodgepole pine pumice lapilli over 1300 sandy to loamy buried soils LD Complex of 1 and 76 22 LQ Complex of 63 and 64 77 MN Complex of 63 and 45 69 MP Complex of 63 and 41 2 WF Complex of 44, 43, and 5 50 XH Complex of 44 and 45 177 **Occurs only as part of a mapping unit complex within the UDR WUI Vegetation Management Planning Area

288

Table 82 - SRI Unit Summary for the UDR WUI Project Area - Sensitivities and Limitations Expected Impacts Limitations for SRI Timber Surface Erosion Susceptibility Susceptibility to Productivity from Ground-Based Regeneration Unit Suitability Hazard to Compaction Displacement Logging Unsuited N/A (unsuited) N/A (unsuited) 1** Barren N/A N/A N/A (nonforest) 5 Unsuited High Low Moderate Low N/A (unsuited) N/A (unsuited) High/Moderate— High water table on Soil displacement, some sites, local Low to High Low to rutting, and erosion; stoniness, periodic 8 High (periodic Moderate Low moderate increased flooding flooding) sedimentation to streams Low/Moderate—Soil Frost heaving, low Unsuited to 15 Very Low Low Low/Moderate Low/Moderate compaction and fertility, temperature Very Low displacement extremes High—Soil Steep southerly displacement, visual aspects, high surface 35 Low Moderate Moderate Low High impact from temperatures, exposure of light- droughtiness colored subsoils Moderate/Low—Soil Droughtiness displacement, some 41 Moderate Moderate Low Low/Moderate Low/Moderate compaction and erosion High/Moderate— High watertable Rutting and soil displacement, 43 Low to very low Moderate Low/Moderate Low Low/Moderate disruption of drainage systems, increased sedimentation

289

Expected Impacts Limitations for SRI Timber Surface Erosion Susceptibility Susceptibility to Productivity from Ground-Based Regeneration Unit Suitability Hazard to Compaction Displacement Logging Low/Moderate—Soil Surface temperature Moderate to 44 Moderate Low Low/Moderate Low/Moderate compaction extremes, potential high for gophers Moderate/Low—Soil Surface temperature displacement, some extremes 45 Moderate Moderate Low Low/Moderate Low/Moderate compaction, frost hazard in openings Moderate/Low—Soil Frost, droughtiness, displacement and grass competition compaction, visual 63 Moderate Moderate Low Low/Moderate Low impact from exposure of light- colored subsoils Moderate/Low—Soil Brush competition displacement and High to compaction, visual 64 Moderate Low/Moderate Low Moderate moderate impact from exposure of light- colored subsoils Moderate/Low—Soil Brush and sedge displacement and competition compaction, visual 65 High High Low/Moderate Low Moderate impact from exposure of light- colored subsoils High—Soil Steep southerly displacement, visual aspects, Low to impact from droughtiness, brush 68 Moderate Moderate Low High moderate exposure of light- competition colored subsoils, brush increase

290

Expected Impacts Limitations for SRI Timber Surface Erosion Susceptibility Susceptibility to Productivity from Ground-Based Regeneration Unit Suitability Hazard to Compaction Displacement Logging Moderate/Low—Soil Frost damage, displacement, droughtiness (coarse 70 Moderate Moderate Low Low/Moderate Low/Moderate compaction, frost soils), low fertility hazard in openings Low—Soil Stoniness displacement, visual 76** Low Moderate Low Low Low impact from exposure of light- colored subsoils High—Soil Brush competition, displacement, visual droughtiness, steep impact from slopes, low fertility exposure of light- 81 Low Moderate Moderate Low High colored subsoils, increased soil temperatures in openings High – displacement, Brush competition exposure of low- 82 Low High Moderate Low High fertility subsoil, visual impacts Moderate/Low—Soil Grass and brush 6J Moderate Moderate Low Low Low/Moderate displacement and competition, compaction droughtiness Complex of 1 LD and 76 Complex of 63 LQ and 64 Complex of 63 MN and 45

291

Expected Impacts Limitations for SRI Timber Surface Erosion Susceptibility Susceptibility to Productivity from Ground-Based Regeneration Unit Suitability Hazard to Compaction Displacement Logging Complex of 63 MP and 41 Complex of 44, WF 43, and 5 Complex of 44 XH and 45 **Occurs only as part of a mapping unit complex within the UDR WUI Fuels Reduction Project Area

Table 83 – Summary of Treatment Prescriptions, Unit Acres, and Soil Mapping Units for the UDR WUI Project EA Unit Prescription Total Unit Acres Soil Mapping Units 1 Mechanical thin, mow, underburn 28 acres SRI 41 (22 acres); SRI 45 (6 acres) 2 Mechanical thin, mow, underburn 56 acres SRI 41 (53 acres); SRI 45 (2 acres) 3 Mechanical thin, mow, underburn 70 acres SRI 41 (47 acres); SRI 45 (23 acres) 4 Mechanical thin, mow, underburn 63 acres SRI 41 (63 acres) 5 Mechanical thin, mow, underburn 58 acres SRI 41 (58 acres) 6 Manual thin, mow, underburn 11 acres SRI 41 (11 acres) 7 Mechanical thin, mow 28 acres SRI 41 (7 acres); SRI 65 (20 acres); SRI 82 (1 acre) 8 Manual thin, mow 27 acres SRI 41 (27 acres) 9 Mechanical thin, mow 137 acres SRI 41 (116 acres); SRI 65 (15 acres); SRI 82 (6 acres) 10 Mechanical thin, mow 13 acres SRI 6J (8 acres); SRI WF* (5 acres) 11 Manual thin, mow 5 acres SRI WF* (5 acres) 12 Mechanical thin, mow 17 acres SRI 6J (17 acres) 13 Mechanical thin, maintenance mow 19 acres SRI 6J (19 acres)

292

EA Unit Prescription Total Unit Acres Soil Mapping Units 14 Mechanical thin, maintenance mow, 302 acres SRI 6J (218 acres); SRI 45 (63 acres); SRI XH* (9 acres); SRI WF* (7 acres); underburn SRI 70 (5 acres) 15 Mechanical thin, maintenance mow, 37 acres SRI 6J (32 acres); SRI 70 (5 acres) underburn 16 Manual thin, mow 11 acres SRI WF* (11 acres) 17 Manual thin, mow 2 acres SRI WF* (2 acres) 18 Mow 8 acres SRI WF* (8 acres) 19 Mechanical thin, mow 26 acres SRI XH* (18 acres); SRI WF* (8 acres) 20 Manual thin, mow, underburn 142 acres SRI 44 (89 acres); SRI 5 (53 acres) 21 Mechanical thin, mow 80 acres SRI XH* (79 acres); SRI 43 (1 acre) 23 Manual thin, mow 6 acres SRI XH* (4 acres); SRI MP* (1 acre); SRI 5 (1 acre) 24 Manual thin, mow 43 acres SRI 64 (42 acres); SRI 81 (1 acre) 25 Manual thin 49 acres SRI 41 (49 acres) 26 Manual thin, mow 44 acres SRI 41 (44 acres) 27 Mechanical thin, mow 40 acres SRI 41 (40 acres) 28 Manual thin 1 acre SRI 5 (1 acre) 29 Manual thin 5 acres SRI 5 (5 acres) 30 Mechanical thin, maintenance mow, 227 acres SRI 6J (204 acres); SRI 70 (23 acres) underburn 31 Mechanical thin, maintenance mow, 191 acres SRI 6J (161 acres); SRI XH* (30 acres) underburn 32 Mechanical thin, mow 132 acres SRI 6J (132 acres) 34 Mechanical thin, mow 90 acres SRI 45 (39 acres); SRI LD* (22 acres); SRI MN* (14 acres); SRI 8 (13 acres); SRI 44 (2 acres)

293

EA Unit Prescription Total Unit Acres Soil Mapping Units 35 Manual thin, mow, underburn 22 acres SRI 6J (13 acres); SRI 44 (5 acres); SRI MN* (4 acres) 36 Mechanical thin, mow, underburn 280 acres SRI 6J (191 acres); SRI 70 (89 acres); 37 Maintenance mow 8 acres SRI 6J (7 acres); SRI 68 (1 acre) 38 Maintenance mow 110 acres SRI MN* (50 acres); SRI LQ (34 acres); SRI 6J (24 acres); SRI 68 (2 acres) 39 Maintenance mow 44 acres SRI LQ* (43 acres); SRI 68 (1 acre) 40 Maintenance mow 1,000 acres SRI 45 (647 acres); SRI 41 (258 acres); SRI 6J (90 acres); SRI 35 (5 acres) 41 Underburn 7 acres SRI 45 (6 acres); SRI 5 (1 acre) 42 Maintenance mow 15 acres SRI XH* (11 acres); SRI WF* (4 acres) 44 Manual thin, mow 29 acres SRI XH* (26 acres); SRI 45 (2 acres); SRI 5 (1 acre) 45 Maintenance mow 214 acres SRI 63 (209 acres); SRI 15 (5 acres) 46 Maintenance mow 28 acres SRI 63 (28 acres) 47 Mow 22 acres SRI 63 (22 acres) 48 Mow 17 acres SRI 63 (17 acres) 49 Maintenance Mow 4 acres SRI 63 (4 acres) 50 Mow 47 acres SRI 63 (47 acres) 51 Maintenance Mow 75 acres SRI 63 (65 acres); SRI 6J (10 acres) 52 Maintenance Mow 43 acres SRI 6J (40 acres); SRI 63 (3 acres) 53 Mow 199 acres SRI 6J (115 acres); SRI 63 (43 acres); SRI 64 (41 acres) 54 Mow 19 acres SRI 6J (19 acres) *Complex mapping unit which has two or more component units which occur on the landscape in such a pattern that they cannot be mapped separately. See Table 81 for Complex Mapping Unit components and descriptions.

294

Table 84 – Summary of Past Activities for Treatment Units in the UDR WUI Project Area Unit Forest Activities Database Record Other Evidence of Past Activity Number Unit bounded by roads on all sides; LiDAR hillshade shows 1 None evidence of roading/skid trails (not distinct); ~9% in roads and skid trails digitized from LiDAR Unit bounded by roads on all sides; LiDAR hillshade shows Two acres of Stand Clearcut (1986) and Thinning for Hazardous 2 evidence of roading/skid trails; ~8% in roads and skid trails Fuels (2004) in southwest corner; None for rest of unit digitized from LiDAR Heavily roaded, skid trails distinct on LiDAR hillshade; ~11% in 3 None roads and skid trails digitized from LiDAR Three acres of Stand Clearcut (1986) and Thinning for Unit bounded by roads on all sides; skid trails distinct on LiDAR 4 Hazardous Fuels (2004) in southwest corner; None for rest of hillshade; ~10% in roads and skid trails digitized from LiDAR unit Unit bounded by roads on all sides; other roads and skid trails distinct on LiDAR hillshade; ~7% in roads and skid trails Approximately 17 acres of Stand Clearcut (1986) and Thinning digitized from LiDAR, other disturbances are diffuse and for Hazardous Fuels (2004) in western end; approximately 40 5 difficult to put distinct lines on—Stand Clearcut would have acres of Precommercial Thin (1986) and Thinning for Hazardous had high levels of DSC (25% or greater), and PCT indicates Fuels (2002) in eastern end previous management activity to warrant this treatment. Estimate at high end of 10-20%. Thinning for Hazardous Fuels (2003) on approximately 5 acres Heavily roaded, skid trails distinct on LiDAR hillshade; ; ~17% in 6 in southern half; Stand Clearcut (1986) and Precommercial Thin roads and skid trails digitized from LiDAR (2004) on 6 acres in northern half Heavily roaded, gridded skid trails distinct on LiDAR hillshade; 7 None ~12% in roads and skid trails digitized from LiDAR 23 acres of Stand Clearcut (1986); 6 acres of Thinning for Heavily roaded, little evidence of skid trails on LiDAR hillshade; 8 Hazardous Fuels (2004) ~9% in roads and skid trails digitized from LiDAR

295

Unit Forest Activities Database Record Other Evidence of Past Activity Number Several roads present on borders and within unit; skid trails on Whole unit Stand Clearcut (1986); 60 acres Thinning for 9 LiDAR hillshade are faint, only ~3% in roads and skid trails Hazardous Fuels (2004) in eastern end digitized from LiDAR Adjacent to Big River Boat Launch/Campground, lots of 10 6 acres Salvage Cut (intermediate) (1972) south of road recreational impacts; ~16% in roads and skid trails digitized from LiDAR 11 Overstory Removal Cut (1984) Some user trails and dispersed use; no roads/skid trails evident Whole unit Single Tree Selection Cut (1969) and PCT (1973); 12 Bounded by roads on 2/3; skid trails evident on LiDAR hillshade 12 acres PCT (1998), Commercial Thin (1998), Thinning for in southern half; assume 5% decrease in DSC on the 12 acres Hazardous Fuels (2000), subsoiling (2002) subsoiled; ~14% in roads and skid trails digitized from LiDAR Commercial Thin and PCT (1998), Thin for Hazardous Fuels Heavily roaded; assume 5% decrease in DSC for subsoiling; 13 Reduction (2002); subsoiling (2002) ~14% in roads and skid trails digitized from LiDAR Roads and skid trails distinct on LiDAR hillshade; ~6% in roads 14 Overstory Removal Cut (1983), Precommercial Thin (1987) and skid trails digitized from LiDAR Single-tree Selection Cut (1969), Precommercial Thin (1973), Bounded on three sides by roads, skid trails distinct on LiDAR 15 Commercial Thin (2005), Thinning for Hazardous Fuels (2006) hillshade; ; ~15% in roads and skid trails digitized from LiDAR Between highway and river near Big River Campground, heavy 16 Thinning for Hazardous Fuels (2006) recreational usage, trails visible on LiDAR hillshade; ~15% in roads and skid trails digitized from LiDAR Between highway and river near Big River Campground, heavy 17 Thinning for Hazardous Fuels (2006) recreational usage, trails visible on LiDAR hillshade; ~19% in roads and skid trails digitized from LiDAR Trails and old roads distinct on LiDAR hillshade; ~13% in roads 18 Thinning for Hazardous Fuels (2006) and skid trails digitized from LiDAR Old dump site present, about three acres total disturbance. A 19 None few trails/skid trails visible on LiDAR hillshade; ~18% in roads, trails, and large disturbances digitized from LiDAR

296

Unit Forest Activities Database Record Other Evidence of Past Activity Number Some trails visible on LiDAR hillshade, old drainage channel present, recreational trails present, disturbances associated 20 Precommercial Thin (2009) (14 acres in SW of unit) with historic Camp Abbott; ~3% in roads and skid trails digitized from LiDAR Some trails visible on LiDAR hillshade, assume 5% reduction in Salvage Cut (1991) subsoil (1996) (most of unit), 21 DSC from mid-90’s subsoiling; ~12% in roads and skid trails Precommercial Thin (1997) (on five acres in eastern end) digitized from LiDAR 23 None Some roads and trails visible on LiDAR hillshade Some roads and trails visible on LiDAR hillshade; ~5% in trails 24 None digitized from LiDAR Roads and skid trails visible on LiDAR hillshade, heavier in north 25 Single-tree Selection Cut (1990) (northernmost 14 acres) end adjacent to river; ~11% in roads and skid trails digitized from LiDAR Single-tree Selection Cut (1990) (whole unit); Precommercial Adjacent to Pringle Falls campground, roads and skid trails Thin (1989) (southern half of unit); Thinning for Hazardous 26 evident on LiDAR hillshade; ~15% in roads and skid trails Fuels (2004) and underburn (2009) (15 acres in northwestern digitized from LiDAR part of unit) Shelterwood Removal Cut (1974), Precommercial Thin (1976) (20 acres in eastern half of unit); Shelterwood Removal Cut Roads and faint skid trails visible on LiDAR hillshade; ~8% in 27 (1990), Precommercial Thin (1990), underburn (1992), Thinning roads and skid trails digitized from LiDAR for Hazardous Fuels (2004), underburn (2003) (12 acres in southwestern part of unit) 28 None None Paved path present, recreational use; 9% in trails digitized from 29 None LiDAR

297

Unit Forest Activities Database Record Other Evidence of Past Activity Number Bounded by roads, skid trails distinct on LiDAR hillshade; 4% in Overstory Removal Cut (1989), Precommercial Thin (1991), 30 roads and skid trails digitized from LiDAR, though many more Underburn (2006) diffuse disturbances that are difficult to digitize are present. Heavily roaded, skid trails distinct on LiDAR hillshade, assume Commercial Thin (1998), Precommercial Thin (1998 and 2001), 5% reduction in DSC from subsoiling; 5% in roads and skid trails 31 Subsoiling (2002) digitized from LiDAR, though many more diffuse disturbances that are difficult to digitize are present. Precommercial Thin (1991), Commercial Thin (2008) (22 acres Old roads and some skid trails visible on LiDAR hillshade; 6% in 32 in northern part of unit); Commercial Thin (2008), roads and skid trails digitized from LiDAR, though many more Precommercial Thin (2012) (14 acres in southern part of unit) diffuse disturbances that are difficult to digitize are present. On-the-ground evidence of historic large-tree harvest in 23 Commercial Thin (2006), Thinning for Hazardous Fuels (2007), acres of forested lavas noted during field reconnaissance (large Subsoiling (2011) (six acres in northeast corner); Subsoiling stumps, trails visible) even though not visible on LiDAR. Skid 34 (2011) (11 acres in southeastern part of unit, north of trails are visible on LiDAR hillshade in other portions of unit highway); Precommercial Thin (2003), Thinning for Hazardous (especially in northern half and between creek and the Fuels (2003) (8 acres south of highway) highway). 5% in roads and skid trails digitized from LiDAR. Skid trails distinct on LiDAR; 16% in roads and skid trails 35 Thinning for Hazardous Fuels (2005) digitized from LiDAR, obvious previous harvest history not accounted for in FACTS data Commercial Thin (2005), Thinning for Hazardous Fuels (2006) (23-acre strip along the 4320 road); Single-tree Selection Cut Unit bounded by roads, skid trails faintly visible on LiDAR 36 (1969), Precommercial Thin (1983) (79 acres in southern part of hillshade; 6% in roads and skid trails digitized from LiDAR unit) Some roads and trails distinctly visible on LiDAR, though LiDAR Precommercial Thin (1983), Commercial Thin (1998), 37 is darkened in this area and is difficult to interpret. 9% in roads Precommercial Thin (1998 and 2000), subsoil (2002) and skid trails digitized from LiDAR

298

Unit Forest Activities Database Record Other Evidence of Past Activity Number Old roads and skid trails distinct on LiDAR hillshade; around Commercial Thin (1998), Precommercial Thin (1998 and 2000), Anns Butte and associated cinder pit (an area that receives a Subsoiling (2002) (98 acres comprising most of the unit); 38 lot of recreational/OHV usage); assume 5% reduction in DSC Thinning for Hazardous Fuels (2005) (45 acres in northeastern from subsoiling activities on portion where it occurred; DSC block of unit) from roads and trails on LiDAR not calculated Old roads and skid trails distinct on LiDAR hillshade; around Commercial Thin (1998), Precommercial Thin (1998), Subsoiling Anns Butte and associated cinder pit (an area that receives a 39 (2002) lot of recreational/OHV usage); assume 5% reduction in DSC from subsoiling; Many activities listed in FACTS database – because this is a very large unit with only mowing proposed, they are not listed Extensive skid trail and road systems evident on LiDAR 40 individually here. Proposed activities are not expected to hillshade; DSC from roads and trails on LiDAR not calculated contribute meaningfully to overall detrimental soil condition. Skid trails/old roads evident on LiDAR hillshade; 13% in roads 41 Improvement Cut (2009) and skid trails digitized from LiDAR Skid trails/old roads evident on LiDAR hillshade; 7% in roads 42 Precommercial Thin (2008) and skid trails digitized from LiDAR Roads and a few faint trails visible on LiDAR hillshade; 3% in 44 Precommercial Thin (2009) (9 acres in eastern half of unit) roads and skid trails digitized from LiDAR Commercial Thin (1991) (25 acres in center of unit) Overstory Roads and skid trails faintly visible on LiDAR hillshade; 6% in 45 Removal Cut (1986) (28 acres in northern arm of unit) roads and skid trails digitized from LiDAR Commercial Thin (2009), Precommercial Thin (2011), Public Roads and skid trails distinct on LiDAR hillshade; 20% in roads 46 Fuelwood (2011) (whole unit); Commercial Thin (1991) (2 acres and skid trails digitized from LiDAR in northeast part of unit) Commercial Thin (2009), Precommercial Thin (2012) (14 acres Roads and skid trails distinct on LiDAR hillshade, 12% in roads 47 in south and west of unit) and skid trails digitized from LiDAR

299

Unit Forest Activities Database Record Other Evidence of Past Activity Number Roads and some very faint skid trails visible on LiDAR hillshade; 48 Commercial Thin (1986) (11 acres in southern part of unit) 10% in roads and skid trails digitized from LiDAR Commercial Thin (1991), Commercial Thin (2009), PCT (2012), Roads and skid trails distinct on LiDAR hillshade; 24% in roads 49 Subsoiling (2013) and skid trails digitized from LiDAR Faint skid trails visible on LiDAR hillshade; 7% in roads and skid 50 Overstory Removal Cut (1986), Precommercial Thin (1987) trails digitized from LiDAR; other diffuse disturbances visible but not easily digitizable Roads and faint skid trails visible on LiDAR hillshade; 10% in 51 Commercial Thin (1991), Precommercial Thin (1995) roads and skid trails digitized from LiDAR Very distinct skid trails and roads on LiDAR hillshade; 16% in 52 Commercial Thin (2009), Precommercial Thin (2010) roads and skid trails digitized from LiDAR Commercial Thin (2009), Precommercial Thin (2010 and 2014) (eastern half); Commercial Thin (1991), Precommercial Thin Distinct skid trails and roads on LiDAR hillshade; many faint 53 (1995) (14 acres in northwest of unit); Commercial Thin (2009), disturbances that are difficult to digitize; 10% in roads and skid Precommercial Thin (2010) (western half of unit); no activities trails digitized from LiDAR on approximately one quarter of unit Distinct skid trails and roads on LiDAR hillshade, including area Commercial Thin (2009), Precommercial Thin (2010) (about half 54 with no activities information; 13% in roads and skid trails of unit area) digitized from LiDAR

300

Table 85 - Unit Summary for the UDR WUI Fuels Reduction Project Area - Proposed Treatments, Expected DSC, and Subsoiling Acres Expected DSC Class EA Unit Prescription Total Unit Acres Existing DSC Class* Acres to Subsoil Post-Treatment* 1 Mechanical thin, mow, underburn 28 acres 2 2 0 2 Mechanical thin, mow, underburn 56 acres 2 3 4 3 Mechanical thin, mow, underburn 70 acres 2 3 5 4 Mechanical thin, mow, underburn 63 acres 2 3 4 5 Mechanical thin, mow, underburn 58 acres 2 3 4 6 Manual thin, mow, underburn 11 acres 2 2 0 7 Mechanical thin, mow 28 acres 2 3 2 8 Manual thin, mow 27 acres 3 3 0 9 Mechanical thin, mow 137 acres 3 3 10 10 Mechanical thin, mow 13 acres 3 3 1 11 Manual thin, mow 5 acres 3 3 0 12 Mechanical thin, mow 17 acres 2 3 1 13 Mechanical thin, maintenance mow 19 acres 2 2 0 14 Mechanical thin, maintenance mow, 302 acres 2 3 15 underburn 15 Mechanical thin, maintenance mow, 37 acres 3 3 3 underburn 16 Manual thin, mow 11 acres 2 2 0 17 Manual thin, mow 2 acres 2 2 0 18 Mow 8 acres 2 2 0 19 Mechanical thin, mow 26 acres 2 3 2

301

Expected DSC Class EA Unit Prescription Total Unit Acres Existing DSC Class* Acres to Subsoil Post-Treatment* 20 Manual thin, mow, underburn 142 acres 1 1 0 21 Mechanical thin, mow 80 acres 2 3 6 23 Manual thin, mow 6 acres 1 1 0 24 Manual thin, mow 43 acres 2 2 0 25 Manual thin 49 acres 2 2 0 26 Manual thin, mow 44 acres 3 3 0 27 Mechanical thin, mow 40 acres 3 4 3 28 Manual thin 1 acre 1 1 0 29 Manual thin 5 acres 1 1 0 30 Mechanical thin, maintenance mow, 227 acres 3 4 16 underburn 31 Mechanical thin, maintenance mow, 191 acres 2 3 13 underburn 32 Mechanical thin, mow 132 acres 2 2 0 34 Mechanical thin, mow 90 acres 2 3 5 35 Manual thin, mow, underburn 22 acres 3 3 0 36 Mechanical thin, mow, underburn 280 acres 2 3 8 37 Maintenance mow 8 acres 2 2 0 38 Maintenance mow 110 acres 2 2 0 39 Maintenance mow 44 acres 2 2 0 40 Maintenance mow 1,000 acres 2 2 0 41 Underburn 7 acres 2 2 0

302

Expected DSC Class EA Unit Prescription Total Unit Acres Existing DSC Class* Acres to Subsoil Post-Treatment* 42 Maintenance mow 15 acres 2 2 0 44 Manual thin, mow 29 acres 1 1 0 45 Maintenance mow 214 acres 2 2 0 46 Maintenance mow 28 acres 3 3 0 47 Mow 22 acres 2 2 0 48 Mow 17 acres 2 2 0 49 Maintenance Mow 4 acres 3 3 0 50 Mow 47 acres 3 3 0 51 Maintenance Mow 75 acres 3 3 0 52 Maintenance Mow 43 acres 3 3 0 53 Mow 199 acres 2 2 0 54 Mow 19 acres 2 2 0 Totals 4,151 acres -- -- 102 acres *DSC classes are described in Section 4.1.4: Class 1 = <10% DSC; Class 2 = 10-20% DSC, Class 3 = 20-30% DSC; Class 4 = >30% DSC

Table 86 - Unit Summary for the UDR WUI Project Area - Unit-Specific Soils Concerns Used to Develop PDCs Existing Expected DSC Unit Acres DSC Class Post- Specific Soils Concerns Number Class Treatment 1 28 2 2 None 2 56 2 3 Expected to exceed 20% DSC post-activity 3 70 2 3 Expected to exceed 20% DSC post-activity

303

Existing Expected DSC Unit Acres DSC Class Post- Specific Soils Concerns Number Class Treatment 4 63 2 3 Expected to exceed 20% DSC post-activity 5 58 2 3 Expected to exceed 20% DSC post-activity 6 11 2 2 None 7 28 2 3 Expected to exceed 20% DSC post-activity; slopes approaching 30% in western portion, pay particular attention to limiting displacement on steeper slopes (>15%); three segments of temp road on existing disturbances totaling ~2,450 feet will need scarification/drainage work/blockage (~1,250 feet on decommissioned road prism that is currently drivable) 8 27 3 3 Expected to exceed 20% DSC post-activity 9 137 3 3 Expected to exceed 20% DSC post-activity; some slopes over 30% on sensitive soil type (SRI 82) in western portion of unit, pay particular attention to limiting displacement on steeper slopes (>15%); ~2,220 feet of temp road proposed (~680 feet of new disturbance that will require full obliteration/subsoiling/recontouring; remainder on decommissioned sections that will require scarification, drainage work, and blockage) 10 13 3 3 Expected to exceed 20% DSC post-activity; short temp road section (~200 feet) on previously disturbed surface that will require scarification, drainage work, and blockage 11 5 3 3 Expected to exceed 20% DSC post-activity; potentially-sensitive soil type (SRI WF) with potential high water table; mow during dry season when water table is greater than two feet from soil surface 12 17 2 3 Expected to exceed 20% DSC post-activity 13 19 2 2 None 14 302 2 3 Expected to exceed 20% DSC post-activity; rocky outcrops may limit where subsoiling can be accomplished; long temp road segment (~4,080 feet) on well-used non-system road that will require, at a minimum, hydrologic stabilization/drainage work and blockage. 15 37 3 3 Expected to exceed 20% DSC post-activity

304

Existing Expected DSC Unit Acres DSC Class Post- Specific Soils Concerns Number Class Treatment 16 11 2 2 Potentially-sensitive soil type (WF), though high water tables are not expected in this delineation. 17 2 2 2 Potentially-sensitive soil type (WF), though high water tables are not expected in this delineation. 18 8 2 2 Potentially-sensitive soil type (WF), though high water tables are not expected in this delineation. 19 26 2 3 Expected to exceed 20% DSC post-activity; large dump/waste sites present that could benefit from potential revegetation and mulch or slash application. Potentially-sensitive soil type (WF), mechanical buffers will protect riparian vegetation and wet soils. Short temp road (~290 feet) on existing disturbance that will require scarification, drainage work, and blockage. 20 142 1 1 Sensitive soil type (SRI 5) present roughly half the unit. Do not traffic wet soil areas or areas of riparian vegetation. Apply riparian buffers as specified by hydrologist/fish biologist. Do not skid in/along drainageways or riparian stringers. Skid trails that must cross drainage features should cross at a right angle and use ample slash or small material to armor the crossing. Temp road (~1,400 feet) will be new disturbance that will require full obliteration/subsoiling/recontouring/blockage. 21 80 2 3 Do not skid along draws/drainageways. Avoid crossing drainageways. Apply riparian buffers as specified by fish biologist/hydrologist. Restrict mechanical operations to upland terrace above floodplain. 23 6 1 1 Potentially sensitive soil (SRI 5) in southern corner; do not traffic wet soils 24 43 2 2 None 25 49 2 2 Apply riparian buffers as specified by fish biologist/hydrologist. 26 44 3 3 Expected to exceed 20% DSC post-activity; apply riparian buffers as specified by fish biologist/hydrologist. 27 40 3 4 Expected to exceed 20% DSC post-activity

305

Existing Expected DSC Unit Acres DSC Class Post- Specific Soils Concerns Number Class Treatment 28 1 1 1 Sensitive soil type (SRI 5), conduct all work by hand 29 5 1 1 Sensitive soil type (SRI 5), conduct all work by hand 30 227 3 4 Expected to exceed 20% DSC post-activity; rocky outcrops may limit where subsoiling can be accomplished 31 191 2 3 Expected to exceed 20% DSC post-activity; rocky outcrops may limit where subsoiling can be accomplished; several segments of temp road totaling ~5,030 feet proposed, all on existing disturbances (~1,300 feet on decommissioned road prisms) that will require scarification, drainage work, and blocking. 32 132 2 2 None 34 90 2 3 Expected to exceed 20% DSC post-activity; potentially-sensitive soil types (SRI 8) along creek, avoid trafficking wet soils and apply riparian buffers as directed by fish biologist/hydrologist; avoid or limit machine traffic on forested lavas (SRI LD) (sensitive soil type), subsoiling not possible on forested lavas. Short temp road segment (~540 feet) on existing disturbance that will require scarification, drainage work, and blockage. 35 22 3 3 Expected to exceed 20% DSC post-activity 36 280 2 3 Expected to exceed 20% DSC post-activity; rocky outcrops may limit where subsoiling can be accomplished 37 8 2 2 Some slopes approaching 30% in western portion of unit, pay particular attention to limiting displacement on steeper slopes (>15%) 38 110 2 2 Some slopes approaching 30% in western portion of unit, pay particular attention to limiting displacement on steeper slopes (>15%) 39 44 2 2 Some slopes approaching 30%, pay particular attention to limiting displacement on steeper slopes (>15%) 40 1,000 2 2 Isolated pockets of slopes >15%, pay particular attention to limiting displacement on steeper slopes (>15%)

306

Existing Expected DSC Unit Acres DSC Class Post- Specific Soils Concerns Number Class Treatment 41 7 2 2 None (underburn only) 42 15 2 2 Areas of potentially sensitive soils (SRI WF), high water tables not expected in this delineation, but avoid trafficking wet soils when mowing 44 29 1 1 Apply riparian buffers as directed by fish biologist/hydrologist; areas of potentially sensitive soils (SRI 5), high water tables not expected in this delineation, but avoid trafficking wet soils when mowing 45 214 2 2 Frost pocket soil types (SRI 15) present in southern part of unit, avoid placing landings or temp roads in frost pockets 46 28 3 3 Expected to exceed 20% DSC post-activity 47 22 2 2 None 48 17 2 2 None 49 4 3 3 Expected to exceed 20% DSC post-activity 50 47 3 3 Expected to exceed 20% DSC post-activity 51 75 3 3 Expected to exceed 20% DSC post-activity 52 43 3 3 Expected to exceed 20% DSC post-activity 53 199 2 2 None 54 19 2 2 None

307

Figure 70 - Soil Map, Deschutes River Woods, Unit 24

308

Figure 71 – Soil Map, Sunriver, Units 45 to 54

309

Figure 72 - Soils Map, Ryan Ranch Aspen, Unit 41

310

Figure 73 - Soils Map, Sunriver Units 28 and 29; Spring River Unit 20

311

Figure 74 - Soils Map, Deschutes River Recreation Homesites, Sundance, River Meadows, and Cougar Grove, Units 10 to 18, 30, 31, and 35 to 39

312

Figure 75 - Foster Road and River Forest Acres, Units 19, 23, 42 and 44

313

Figure 76 - Soils Map, Lazy River Subdivision, Unit 32

314

Figure 77 - Soils Map, Fall River, Unit 34

315

Figure 78 - Soils Map, Pringle Falls and Wild River, Units 25, 26, and 27

316

Figure 79 - Soils Map, Haner Park, Unit 21

317

Figure 80 - Soils Map, Newberry Estates, Unit 40

318

Figure 81 - Soils Map, Ponderosa Pines, Units 1 to 9

319

Figure 82 – Using LiDAR Bare Earth Hillshade Models to Estimate DSC in Previously-Harvested Stand

320

APPENDIX C: Wildlife Applicable Cumulative Species Curves (Mellen-Mclean 2012). Applicable species name abbreviations are as follows: black-backed woodpecker (BBWO), hairy woodpecker (HAWO), red-naped sapsucker (RNSA), northern flicker (NOFL) and white-headed woodpecker (WHWO). In DecAID, a tolerance level as it relates to wildlife data is defined as follows: “Tolerance levels are estimates of the percent of all individuals in the population that are within some specified range of values” (Mellen-McLean et al 2012). DecAID is not a viability model and tolerance levels should not be interpreted as population viability thresholds. DecAID tolerance levels may be interpreted as three levels of assurance: low (30% tolerance level), moderate (50% tolerance level), and high (80% tolerance level) (Mellen-McLean et al 2012). The higher the tolerance level, the higher the assurance that snag habitat is being provided. Tolerance levels are shown on the following graphs indicating wildlife habitat needs. Labels shown in pink indicate post disturbance requirements. Figure 83 Ponderosa Snag DBH Species Tolerance Levels for Nesting:

321

Figure 84:Ponderosa Snag Density Species Tolerance Levels for Nesting (Small & Large):

322

Figure 85 Ponderosa snag DBH species tolerance for Foraging:

323

Figure 86 Lodgepole DBH for Nesting/Denning:

Figure 87 Lodgepole DBH for Foraging:

324

Figure 88 Lodgepole DW Diameter for Denning:

Figure 89 Lodgepole DW Cover for nesting/denning:

325

APPENDIX D: Response to Comment The Bend-Fort Rock Ranger District received 8 unique comment letters and emails from individuals or organizations. The table below lists the commenters on the draft EA, and where relevant identifies the organization that the commenter represents.

Commenter Organization/Agency 1 Mike Supkis La Pine Rural Fire Protection District 2 Tom Partin American Forest Resource Council 3 Doug Heiken Oregon Wild 4 Jim Larsen Upper Deschutes River Coalition 5 Dick Artley 6 Christopher and Daniele Kell Jeff Wieland Glenda Jorgensen Julie and Jeff Glover Robert Russell and Cynthia Carlson John VanLandingham Franck McCullar and Mary Wells Frank Sieglitz Kathy and Art Glading 7 Karen Coulter Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project 8 Dean Richardson

Supportive Commenters “…the La Pine Rural Fire Protection District strongly supports this very important effort and the proposed treatments especially ladder fuels thinning, mowing, and understory burning. Obviously community safety from catastrophic wildfire is the district’s primary concern – but also know the proposed actions are essential to forest health (along with wildlife benefits) and will result in more natural and lower intensity (and much safer) natural wildfire regimen. It should be noted many of the project boundaries border on lands protected by the fire district and the 8,000 plus homes the fire district protects. Also many USFS parcels in the project area are upwind from the prevailing SW, W, and NW winds commonly associated with the regions summer warm front and high pressure weather patterns - putting them at even higher risk to a catastrophic wildfire.” (Comment 1.1) “The plans for thinning, mowing, and prescribed burning along the WUI border would create defensible space around communities in event of a wildfire. The UDR project will complement the Junction project, extending fuels reduction West of the urban interface to reduce the impact of a wildfire driven by prevailing West winds. I hope a decision will be made to proceed with the proposed action this Fall.”(Comment 4.1) I participated in the fields trips with Alex Enna that USFS set up for areas near River Meadow and Spring River…Everything I’ve seen, heard or read conveys confidence in what is proposed. The treatment of these landscapes was thoughtfully considered and I’m looking forward to all the good work to be done on the ground. (8.1)

326

Purpose and Need/Proposed Action/Other NEPA related items The final NEPA document will also violate 40 CFR 1500.1(b) because the Chapter 3 environmental effects section written by IDT members is contrary to the “best science” statements written by hundreds of well- respected, independent scientists in the Opposing Views Attachments. With this being the case, the agency effects disclosures are not “high quality” and an “accurate scientific analysis. (Comment 5.4) Response: Science used in this analysis is cited in the Work Cited section on the EA pages 266- 280. The opposing views documents have been reviewed and do not provide new additional science for consideration in the EA. …the proposed commercial logging is inconsistent with the implied purpose and need of reinstating historic conditions and reducing fire severity. (Comment 7.1) Response: The purpose and need for this project does not include reinstating historic conditions. These conditions were discussed in the context of understanding the existing and desired conditions, but not as purpose of the project. The proposed commercial thinning will help minimize the potential for crown fire. It would also help with the secondary purpose to improve forest health and increase resilience to fire and insects in stands. (EA at 12). Crown bulk density reduction, mature tree logging, and “temporary” road building are not necessary to meet the purpose and need for the UDR WUI project. Wildfires are primarily climate and weather driven and fine, flashy fuels are the most important to reduce, not residual trees left from prior logging left to meet wildlife, soil and recreational needs.(Comment 7.9) Response: An alternative was considered to use non-commercial thinning and prescribed fire instead of commercial logging. This was eliminated from detailed study since it would not effectively reduce crown fire potential in those units. In addition, the spacing is needed to allow for mowing for treating surface fuels. Thinning smaller trees will have some impact on average canopy base heights but will not reduce crown bulk density, which is a key input for crown fire propagation. The stands are above the upper management zone (UMZ) for its related plant association. Overstocked stands are less vigorous, more susceptible to bark beetle attacks and fire related mortality. Thinning is often necessary to prevent stagnation or excessive mortality due to suppression and to create vigorous trees and stands in the absence of insects and disease (EA at 28) ..please take additional action to further reduce the risk to people’s homes and the lives of family members in the Sunriver, La Pine and Greater Bend WUI areas should a wildfire start nearby… The Purpose & Need for this project does not reflect the goal to save lives and homes in the WUI using all available methods. The current P&N describes an action (fuels removal) rather than a goal to reduce or eliminate fire damage risk. Broadening the P&N would open the door to use other fire damage risk reduction methods in addition to fuels logging. Fuels logging is an alternative … not a primary purpose and goal. Indeed, the homeowners living close to the national forests where a fire might start should be given all the protection possible by the USFS…This member of the public is surprised that a USFS line- officer isn’t aware of the research conclusions of Lyle Laverty who is another fire expert also employed by the USFS. Also, there is a vast amount of peer reviewed independent scientific research that reveals logging does not mitigate fire behavior. Modify the Proposed Action to do the following in addition to hazardous fuels removal:

• distribute Firewise handouts to WUI residents describing the fine fuels removal methods (where and how).

327

• contact the people living in the WUI and announce Firewise workshops will be held to answer questions. • offer to remove the fine fuels (with written permission) on private property owned by elderly and disabled homeowners who cannot do the work themselves. • modify the P&N to reflect what should be the prime goal of this timber sale: reduce the chance that homes will burn in the WUI should a wildfire start in the area. Fuels reduction would then be an alternative, but this would open the door to the 3 actions shown above.” (Comment 5.6) Response: The treatments proposed are within the Upper Deschutes River Coalition (UDRC) Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). Others are within the Sunriver, La Pine and Greater Bend CWPP. The treatment units are identified as high priority in the CWPPs and were identified through public input from homeowner groups. This project would complement work completed by private property owners within their residential areas. (EA at 12). Project Wildfire is a community organization in Deschutes County that works with landowners and agencies to do much of this Firewise education and outreach to local property owners. Please post your responses to public comments online as well as maintaining a hardcopy in the Project File. (Comment 5.7) Response: Response to comments will be included as an appendix to the Final EA and posted online. Assure that all (emphasis added) issues identified by the public are listed in the body of the NEPA document posted online. (Comment 5.8) Response: The interdisciplinary team reviewed the comments to develop key issue and analysis issues to be addressed in this assessment. There were no key issues. Key issues describe a dispute or present an unresolved conflict associated with potential environmental effects of the proposed action. Since there were no key issues, a second action alternative was not analyzed in detail. Non-significant issues were identified as those outside the scope of the proposed action; already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level document; irrelevant to the decision to be made; or conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. Analysis issues include environmental components which would be considered in the effects section in chapter 3 as a way to compare the alternatives. Known as analysis issues, these items did not result in differing design elements among alternatives but are important for providing the Responsible Official with complete information about the effects of the project. Analysis issues include Forest Vegetation, including analysis of forest health, Fire and Fuels, Air Quality, Wildlife issues including Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species and analysis of Snags; Management Indicator Species; Focal Landbird Species; and Birds of Conservation Concern, Soils, Recreation, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Botanical Species, Invasive Plants, and Cultural Resources. (EA at 27) Please respond to the opposing views contained in the Opposing Views Attachments to these comments. Request for changes to be made to the final NEPA document: Each opposing viewpoint is different and is related to a unique subject, therefore a single response attempting to deal with all opposing views simultaneously does not respond to opposing views as required by law. Please respond to each opposing view and post the responses online for the public to see… Include the source literature for particularly relevant science quotes contained in the Opposing Viewpoint Attachments in the References section of

328

the final EIS and cite the quotes contained in the attachments in the body of the final EIS. (Comment 5.11) Response: The opposing views documents have been reviewed and do not provide new additional science for consideration in the EA. Make the documents that currently reside in the Project File available as online Appendices to the NEPA document, or clearly indicate the link to the documents where they appear in the References section. (Comment 5.12) Response: The EA and full copies of draft specialist reports are available online for the public to read as supporting documents in the project file. Any other referenced documents in the project file can be requested by contacting the Ranger District. Large Trees/Old Growth Use of the Van Pelt old growth guidelines could limit opportunities to harvest ponderosa pine less than 21 inches in diameter. Just because a tree exhibits old growth characteristics does not mean it is healthy and should remain. Care should be taken to leave only the healthiest trees regardless of bark characteristics. Tree spacing is more important. Often older ponderosa pine that are less than 21 inches have significant value to purchasers, and if these trees have poor form or health AFRC believes they should be removed. (Comment 2.6)

We strongly support retention of all large trees as well as all trees exhibiting old-growth characteristics (regardless of size). (Comment 3.1) Response: The thinning in the UDR WUI project is defined as a low thinning or a thinning from below with the purpose of reducing ladder fuels, breaking up crown continuity and promoting increased growth and vigor in the upper crown classes. (EA at 29-30). Thinning will target the smaller trees in the stand, retaining large trees and tress that exhibit Van Pelt’s old growth characteristics. Trees with old growth characteristics are not common in this landscape and will be retained to better protect wildlife habitat. Change the 70 acres of Ponderosa pine OFMS conversion to OFSS to retention of OFMS structure but with understory non-commercial size (7-9”dbh limit) lowest limb pruning and-or limited fuel break mowing only where really needed thus providing adjacent to communities fire risk reduction without eliminating needed OFMS wildlife habitat structure and recreational scenic values.(Comment 7.25) Response: Ponderosa pine OFMS is within the Historic Range of Variability (HRV) in the project area, while OFSS is below HRV(See Table 26, page 87 in EA). Post implementation of Alt 2, Ponderosa OFMS would remain within the historic range. (EA at 91). For there to be no net loss of LOS structure as promised in the EA (p.95), there needs to be no removal of large snags and logs, and more live mature trees left to provide replacement large line trees, large snags, and large logs over time. We are concerned that enough green replacement trees would be left after logging to provide for these LOS structural components at natural abundance levels…(Comment 7.26) Response: The project would not cut trees >21” dbh. Thinning will target the smaller trees in the stand, retaining large trees and tress that exhibit Van Pelt’s old growth characteristics. A full analysis of snags and green tree replacements is on pages 167-179 in the EA. Old growth management areas in Ponderosa pine are supposed to provide for the habitat needs of northern goshawk on the Deschutes. See EA p. 177. Further Old Growth management areas “are

329

intended to provide habitat for plant and animal species associated with old growth forest ecosystems” (UDR Ea p 177). There is supposed to be no programed logging (“harvest”) or wood removal in these old growth management areas. (Comment 7.50) Response: Forest plan standards for MA-15 (Old Growth) state “vegetation manipulation may occur to perpetuate or enhance old growth characteristics.” This project will preserve and encourage the development of future large tree structure on 43 acres of the Old Growth Management Areas. Why is there no cumulative effects analysis for effects to old growth and connectivity corridors?(Comment 7.51) Response: The section labeled old growth and connectivity corridors is addressing consistency with the Forest Plan, (EA at 178-180) based on the effects analysis throughout Chapter 3. Density/Basal Area AFRC supports the proposed action, Alternative 2. However, since approximately 60% of the project is proposed for non-commercial thinning, mowing, or underburning, AFRC is concerned about the economics of getting all of the area treated. To accomplish the work and fire proof the stands, AFRC suggests thinning the ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine 7”-21” dbh to a density less than the proposed 100 trees per acre. This will help reduce the crown fire potential while harvesting more trees to make the project more economical. (Comment 2.1)

Response: All units are proposed to be thinned to the lower and upper management zones of the dominant plant association group for the particular unit. Target densities are in the range of 40-60 ft2 basal area per acre. Target densities by unit are listed in Table 23 in Appendix A in the Silviculture report. This is estimated to reduce density in commercial thinning stands to less than 100 trees per acre, ranging from 14-59 trees per acre. See Table 13 and 14 in the EA at 70- 72.

Commercial sale is one way to get work from this project completed. Much of the non- commercial work could be implemented using funding awarded to the Deschutes NF from the Joint Chief’s Landscape Restoration program as well as through annual hazardous fuel reduction funding.

AFRC suggests taking this management opportunity to treat as many acres as possible during this entry to reduce wildfire risk. This includes heavier thinnings in high-risk areas such as unit #20 which lies between Spring River and the Deschutes River, and leaving a minimum buffer width between Forest Service and private lands. (Comment 2.2)

Response: The proposed action would reduce fire hazard to low on over 84% of the project area with only 8% remaining as high post implementation. The proposed treatments would reduce the fire hazard in Unit 20 from high to low. To meet the purpose and need of this project, additional heavier thinning is not needed.

We urge the FS to retain adequate basal area to ensure cover for wildlife and future recruitment of large trees and snags and down wood. Commercial logging always represents a sacrifice in terms of future recruitment of snags and dead wood. This should be mitigated by retaining more basal areas as well as

330

retaining generous unthinned "skips." Where there are lots of small trees we recommend variable density thinning to 60-80 sq ft/acre basal area, retaining the largest trees that will become the next generation of old growth. Since larger trees have a higher ratio of basal area to leaf area, sites with abundant large trees can sustain higher basal areas, and we recommend retaining 100-140+ sq ft/acre….Basal area retention should be variable but not be too low in any one unit. Enough trees need to be retained to retain and recruit large and old trees and snags now and in the future. Basal area targets should be adjusted higher to account for the following actors:

• Prescribed basal area retention should be weighted to accommodate relatively greater retention in stands with large trees and desirable clumps of trees that contribute to LOS structural conditions. • All things being equal, large and old trees are more sustainable and resilient than small trees, so where large and old trees are abundant, the site can sustain higher basal area and the mature and old trees do not need to be thinned. • Retention patches should be excluded from the basal area calculation. Basal area should not be averaged across the stand, but rather across the treated portion of the stand. We recommended 3-4 clumps per acre of 2-10 individual trees as well as the skips to emulate natural historic stand structures. Basal area can be higher in riparian areas, area with higher water table, north slopes, etc... (Comment 3.5) Cutting basal area down to 30-40 ft2/acre is too low. We urge the agency to retain at least 60-120 ft2/acre of basal area. 30-40 ft2/acre might be OK in small patches within units as part of a variable prescription, but the average over a unit must be much higher than that in order to ensure adequate cover for wildlife, and adequate dead wood recruitment through time. (Comment 3.6) Response: The areas were classified using the plant association group and associated site conditions. Within each classification Stand Density Index and Basal Area ranges were calculated. These are average calculations and site specific prescriptions will be based on the specific plant association found within the unit/stand and will not be based on averaged values. (EA at 61). On average the overall desired basal area per acre is 40-60 ft². Target basal areas will be set by the dominant plant association group for the unit. Target basal areas can be found in Table 24 in Appendix A of the Silviculture report. We support thinning from below, with the idea of retaining representative trees of all size classes. We urge that thinning prescriptions be as variable as possible, using "ICO" or similar methods. Thinning should variable both within and between units. Leaving a few clumps of trees on every acre is important. We urge the Forest Service to focus fuel reduction on surface and ladder fuels. Avoid thinning canopy trees for the sake of fuel reduction. The EA says that the intent of thinning is to "break up crown continuity." This does not require space between every tree. I can be done with space between large and small groups of trees. Canopy fuels are generally not very hazardous because they help maintain a cool, moist, less-windy micro-climate. HFRA only grants authority to remove “hazardous fuels.” Do not remove any tree that provides useful shade to keep fuels cool and moist or that helps suppress the growth of future ladder fuels. (Comment 3.2) Response: The thinning in the UDR WUI project is defined as a low thinning or a thinning from below with the purpose of reducing ladder fuels, breaking up crown continuity and promoting increased growth and vigor in the upper crown classes. Lidar data, which tends to underestimate small tree numbers, shows that current tree stocking for all tree size classes in

331

the planned commercial units ranges from 109-372 tpa. Under the action alternative, commercial harvest is planned for on approximately 40% of the project acres Project design feature 76 (labeled 74 in the draft EA) includes retaining untreated clumps throughout units to provide cover and to break up larger opening. (EA at 50). We want to see more trees per acre left than 14! And a variable range of basal area across sale unit, with the lower end at least 60ft2. (Comment 7.18) From 1,128 trees and 129ft basal area per acre to only 37 trees and 58ft. of basal area in stem exclusion Ponderosa pine stands would be an abrupt shock to wildlife and recreational scenic values, not ecologically sound restoration. Restoration (not that this is ‘restoration’) should be phased in over time gradually. We want more trees left per acre, higher basal areas, variable density, and retention of all existing snaps and large down wood. Basal areas should be at least 60-80 ba per acre. (Comment 7.19) Response: The areas were classified using the plant association group and associated site conditions. Within each classification Stand Density Index and Basal Area ranges were calculated. These area average calculations and site specific prescriptions will be based on the specific plant association found within the unit/stand and will not be based on averaged values. (EA at 61). The plant association group that will be used for prescriptions is Ponderosa Pine/Bitterbrush/Needle Grass (CPS2-12). Based on stocking tables from (Cochran, 1994) and (Booser and White, 1996), the lower and upper stocking levels of these sites are 40-60 ft² of basal area per acre. The large ponderosa pine will supply the majority of the basal area for these units when fully stocked at the upper management level. Refer to Units 1, 2, and 7 (Table 27) in Appendix B within the Silviculture report. The modeling outputs that show 14 trees per acre post treatment are in units 1, 2, and 7. This modeling depicts the conditions that are found in units 1-4 and 7. These units are contain an overstory that is dominated by large ponderosa pine (21 inches and greater) with an understory comprised primarily of lodgepole pine. The modeling shows the residual 14 trees per acre would contain 57 ft² basal area per acre meeting the upper stocking levels for this particular plant association group. The proposed treatment will reduce the crown bulk density of the stands, which meets the recommendations of the UDRC CWPP. Plants Table 9 on page 57 states: Removal of Invasive Plants, treatment through herbicide application or hand pulling.” I am saddened that you still believe all herbicides are similar and don’t bother to tell the public the herbicide brand name and formulation that will be sprayed. All (emphasis added) herbicides are toxic to mammals (including humans), birds and fish. A few can be lethal.(Comment 5.2)

Response: Table 8 (labeled Table 9 in the Draft EA) shows other ongoing and future actions that may overlap in time and space, not actions proposed in this project. This project does not propose herbicide use.

332

Drop logging and other use of heavy equipment (e.g. for mowing) in the units with existing invasive plant populations to avoid further spreading them. These sale units include 10, 16, 21, 21, 26, 27, 28, 41, 52 , &54…Invasive plant risk is much better avoided by not brining heavy equipment into sale units with existing invasive plant populations, as heavy equipment/ground disturbance is the number one weed introduction risk vector. This must include not commercially logging or mowing in or adjacent to infested units. Logging and “temporary” road construction also opens more access to OHV, the third riskiest invasive plant vector. (Comment 7.55)

Response: Project Design features are included on pages 46-47 to help prevent the spread of invasive weeds. These measure include cleaning of equipment before and after entering Forest Service lands and when moving to other project sites, using only weed free fill (if needed), and avoidance of sites where applicable. The proposed action effect to invasive species is also analyzed on pages 210-215.

Drop commercial logging and all use of machinery in Unit 34 – use prescribed burning only. Outstanding and vulnerable values of Unit 34 include old growth and plant biodiversity as well as unique forested lava habitat. Unit 34 also has two riparian areas which need to be protected for biodiversity. The good quality habitat for Castilleja chlorotica in unit 34 and for Botrychinn pumicola in unit 40 should also be fully protected from ground disturbance, including logging, mowing, and temporary road-building, and any other use of heavy equipment.(Comment 7.54)

Response: Project design features are included to protect these values. For example, PDF 53 states “The habitat for the pumice moonwort (BOPU) will be avoided by all operations in unit 40” (EA at 45). Unit 34 also has measures in place to protect sensitive plants. All treatment areas will have old growth tree characteristics protected by using the Van Pelt guidelines which include all of the following: 1) orange bark with plates generally more than three times wider than the darker fissures that separate them, 2) rounded crown, and 3) below the main crown, few if any dead branches present and knots not noticeable.

Temp Roads Logging road construction causes significant ecological harm. Please analyze an action alternative in detail that does not construct any new roads (temporary or system)… This alternative is very important because it eliminates road-construction related adverse natural resource impacts. Without exception, road construction and reconstruction are activities that cause damage to some important natural resources in the forest. New road construction is particularly detrimental to aquatic and wildlife resources. (Comment 5.1) Dropping commercial size mature tree logging in units 7,10,14,31 and 34 would also reduce the perceived “need” to re-open previously closed roads. Further, why should non-commercial thinning, mowing, or prescribed fire use “necessitate” “temporary” road building? There are far too many roads in the UDRWUI project area already. (Comment 7.7) Response: No new system roads are proposed within this project. The temporary roads are proposed to facilitate the thinning units within 8 units totaling about 3.1 miles. These roads are necessary to access the interior of units more efficiently and reduce ground based impacts from

333

skidding long distance without the use of road. The majority of these temporary roads will be on previously disturbed land to limit new resource impacts. No temporary roads are proposed within RHCAs to protect aquatic and riparian resources.

An alternative was considered to use only non-commercial thinning and prescribed fire instead of commercial thinning. Reasons for why this alternative was not considered for detailed study are outlined on page 28 of the EA. Temporary roads will be obliterated at the end of management activities. (EA at 34).

Are Forest Plan road density standards being met in the UDR WUI project planning area? This seems unlikely. Many roads should be proposed for closure and decommissioning, not for reopening or new construction. (Comment 7.6)

Response: The purpose and need of this project is focused on hazardous fuel reduction. No changes to the Forest Service road system are proposed with this project. Temporary roads would be obliterated after management activities are completed.

Wildlife The wildlife BE should have been included in the EA or as an appendix to the EA.(Comment 7.27) Response: The EA summarizes the effects to wildlife described in the wildlife report and BE. Full versions of the draft wildlife report and BE were posted on the Deschutes National Forest website for the project. How is potential population for all vegetation types determined regarding PDF measure 71, as 100% potential population could be whatever number of trees are out there. We prefer a 15” dbh limit on logging to ensure wildlife habitat needs are met.(Comment 7.13) Response: More information on the maximum potential population (mpp) for all vegetation types is on page 165-166 of the EA. MPP direction comes from the Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Tree and Log Implementation Strategy as cited in the EA as USDA FS 1994b. Don’t do prescribed burning during the spring reproductive season to avoid harming fledglings, young animals in burrows, sensitive plants, and to avoid drying out soils right before the dry season. Early Spring burning before snow melt may be ok. (Comment 7.12) Response: Project design features are in place for burning to protect soils and sensitive plants. Affects to wildlife are analyzed in the Wildlife section of the EA as well as in the Wildlife Specialist Report. The effects of mowing and noncommercial size thinning may be so short lived as to have no effects on wildfires.(Comment 7.32) Again the Forest Service can’t have it both ways- claiming on one hand that shrub mowing is necessary for fire risk reduction, then admitting that it has only a short term effect over 5-10 years and will return after that to “comparable abundance negating effects to bat prey (and other impacts) and not discussing whether shrubs would be mowed again then (and the area re-noncommercial thinned, prescribed burned, etc) to perpetuate fire risk reduction (aka fire suppression).(Comment 7.34)

334

Response: The proposed mowing and ladder fuel reduction would reduce the fire risk to low. As described on page 30 of the EA, mowing and ladder fuel reduction effectiveness is estimated to last about 5 years and 15 years, respectively. Future assessments of the areas will determine if maintenance mowing or other management actions will be needed. In several units, mowing is needed to facilitate use of fire and to limit mortality in surrounding trees from prescribed or wildfire. If only a canopy cover of less than 51% is (theoretically) needed to create low crown fire susceptibility, increase the post-logging crown cover just below that, not to such dramatic reduction to allow wildlife habitat use of these areas, more biodiversity in plants and wildlife, and much better recreation and scenic aesthetic values. See EA p.83 part 3.(Comment 7.23) Response: The proposed treatments will minimize the potential for crown fire and reduce potential surface fire intensities by reducing surface, ladder and canopy fuels and interrupt fuel continuities. The commercial treatments will increase stand resiliency to fire and improve forest health. Birds, bats and butterflies The pre-decisional EA does not discuss how the timber sale’s logging and slash/RX burning activities will be mitigated to assure protected bird species’ individuals and their habitat are not harmed in any way. Identify the birds that exist in and near the project area that are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and discuss how these birds will be protected during burning and timber harvest operations. The Act makes no allowance to consciously harm these birds for any reason. (Comment 5.5) Response: Per the MOU with the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Wildlife Section addresses effects to Birds of Conservation Concern and other required species (EA at 161-167).

We are greatly concerned by such greatly reduced crown closure % for wildlife-especially for any sale units with suitable or active habitat for N. goshawk, Blackbacked woodpecker, American Three-toed woodpecker, pileated woodpecker, coopers hawk and Norther Pygmy owl.(Comment 7.21) Reduction stand densities by 60-83% is too great (and sudden) to support any density associated wildlife, such as deer, elk, accipiter hawks, and Norther pygmy owls, as well as most woodpecker species. These sale units would also resemble virtual clear-cuts after logging, which would be a shock to local residents and recreational visitors. (Comment 7.22) As with Ponderosa pine, Lodgepole pine stem exclusion stands being reduced from 420 trees per acre and 98ft ba/acre to only 58 trees per acre and only 33 ft ba, is too much of a shock to wildlife. All active woodpecker use units should be dropped from logging in lodgepole stands to protect the viability of Black backed woodpecker (under petition for uplisting) and American Three-toed woodpecker, which is increasingly rare due to clearcutting and other heavy logging of its habitat. NCTing and burning in buffers near occupied homes could still provide some fire protection.(Comment 7.20) Response: Pileated woodpecker do not have known, suspected, or suitable habitat in or near the project area. For this reason, effects were not analyzed in detail. Northern Pygmy Owls are not a Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, or Management Indicator Species for the Deschutes National Forest. Effects to Northern Goshawk, Cooper’s hawk, and black-backed woodpecker, including an open canopy structure and reduced densities, are in the EA at 132-133; 134-135; 147-148. Additional analysis on stand conditions and their suitability for woodpecker habitat can be seen in snag and downed wood analysis at 167–177. Additional information has been added

335

to the final EA regarding American three-toed woodpecker. Reduced density and condition that favor development of large trees would improve habitat conditions for some species. Please do pre-implementation surveys in suitable habitat acres for White headed woodpecker nests and buffer and avoid any nesting areas found to prevent reproduction failure to disturbance.(Comment 7.33) Response: As described in the EA at 146, 149-151, the majority of proposed treatment in white- headed woodpecker habitat as mapped is mowing and underburning – which is expected to have limited impacts. Additionally, currently suitable nesting structure (large snags) is very limited within treatment units – reducing the likelihood of disturbance. Nesting structure is not targeted by any proposed treatment activities. There are currently no known nest sites within treatment units. We ask that any prescribed burning not be done near likely or known bat hibernation caves or structures from late October through April to protect bats from disturbance-related energetic costs at critical periods during hibernation, emergence from hibernations, migration, and pregnancy. Prescribed fire may also reduce needed insect-prey during these critical periods or cause females to abandon their young. (Comment 7.35) Response: Analysis of effects to bats species are located in the EA on 122-125. Known cave entrances have been buffered from treatment. The effects of the proposed burning to bats have been analyzed in the wildlife section. Without any population surveys demonstrating population status and trends, reproduction success rates and viability thresholds, it can’t be known that this project would not contribute to a trend, uplisting of this species or to its eventual loss of viability. Conditions and mistletoe availability is not guaranteed at the historical abundance with which the butterfly species evolved.(Comment 7.36) Response: Where population monitoring data are not available, due to lack of funding or feasibility of monitoring populations, the amount and quality of habitat can be used as a proxy for determining viability effects of projects. Surveys are difficult since Johnson hairstreak reside in the forest canopy. (EA at 127-8) Reduce mowing to narrow buffer strips immediately adjacent to major roads and homes to reduce impacts to Western Bumblebee foraging plants, Mule deer winter forage, and native plant diversity. Do prescribed burning in a patchy mosaic leaving areas further away from home and access routes less burned for the same reasons. Reduce ground disturbance in sale units to minimal levels by less heavy equipment use overall and dropping commercial logging in sale units with multiple resource/natural value concerns to better protect Sensitive Western Bumblebee from impacts to nesting bees and overwinter queens, as well as to reduce detrimental soil impacts in general and to better protect small mammal, native plat, insect and bird diversity. (Comment 7.37) Response: Project design features 76 would encourage a patchy mosaic mowing pattern (EA at 49). Effects to Western Bumblebees are disclosed on pages 128-129. There may be disturbance from project actions, but the treatments are expected to create a mosaic of understory conditions that will continue to provide foraging opportunities for western bumblebees. See response to 7.3 and 7.45 regarding effects to deer and elk forage. See response to 7.54 regarding native plants. Buffer the great gray owl nest in unit 41 and the Bald eagle nest in unit 2 from any disturbance.(Comment 7.15)

336

Response: Project design features outlined on page 49-50 of the EA would restrict activities during particular time frames to protect nest sites. Analysis of cumulative effects to Cooper’s hawk fails to assess the combined effect of multiple similar projects across Bend-Ft Rock District and the Deschutes National Forest on Coopers hawk viability. (Comment 7.40) Assuming that consistency with the Forest Plan equates to continued viability of the Cooper’s hawk on the Deschutes NF. Viability of Cooper’s hawk and other Management Indicator Species cannot be assured with assessing reliable information from population studies on the ground as to the species population status, population trends, reproductive success rates and viability thresholds. (Comment 7.41) Response: Updated information has been added to the final EA to clarify. See the cumulative effects within the wildlife section on pages 105-106 of the EA. These tables review similar actions within the analysis area and are used for the reference of the Cooper’s Hawk cumulative effects analysis on page 135. Suitable habitat is used as surrogate for population data; suitable habitat was analyzed at a Forest scale to determine impacts to Cooper’s Hawk viability in the EA starting at 131. The project impacts less than 1% of suitable habitat across the Deschutes National Forest, the overall direct, indirect and cumulative effects will result in a small negative trend of habitat (increase in disturbance). The loss of habitat will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. (EA at 135) Don’t log or otherwise disturb any discovered Northern goshawk nest 30 acre buffer and don’t commercially log or noncommercialy thin the goshawk Post Fledgling area (400 acres designated.)”(Comment 7.14) Response: As outlined on page 49-50 of the EA, if a goshawk nest is found there will be a 30 acre no treatment buffer and the a 400 acre post fledging area delineated. There are no known goshawk nest sites in the project area. Logging too much canopy closure (below 60% eliminates potential N. goshawk nesting habitat and logging to below 40% canopy closure, eliminates potential goshawk foraging habitat, as goshawks evolved to take advantage of dense forest habitat niches and are threatened by competition by other edge adapted large raptors and owls if the forest is opened too much (as proposed with the UDR project). Further, logging of so many mature trees in commercial logging units eliminate future suitable large nesting tress and large snags for roosting…commercial logging, too much noncommercial thinning and increased human disturbance are all known to be detrimental to goshawk yet the inadequate analysis of effects to goshawk does not reflect this and is thus clearly biased toward project…(cut off from page)(Comment 7.38) Response: The thinning in the UDR WUI project is defined as a low thinning or a thinning from below with the purpose of reducing ladder fuels, breaking up crown continuity and promoting increased growth and vigor in the upper crown classes. (EA at 29). Thinning will target the smaller trees in the stand, retaining large trees and tress that exhibit Van Pelt’s old growth characteristics. PDC 74 would retain 10% of the treatment area in untreated clumps (.5 to 5 acres in size) throughout project area to provide some diversity of canopy cover. (EA at 132-3). Goshawk is analyzed as MIS (starting at 132) with a determination of Small Negative Impact. The cumulative effects analysis for goshawks is inadequate as it fails to consider the combined effects of the project plus other ongoing and future projects to goshawk viability.(Comment 7.39)

337

Response: Updated information has been added to the final EA to clarify. See the cumulative effects within the wildlife section on pages 106-107 of the EA. These tables review similar actions within the analysis area and are used for the reference of the Goshawk cumulative effects analysis on page 133. Snags/Down logs “We are very concerned by proposed burning or removal of existing “dead material” (down wood) within sale limits, as this could result in too much removal of biomass critical to wildlife habitat and plant niches and nutrient cycling, as well as depletion of carbon sequestration in down logs, standing snags, and line trees removed through logging.(Comment 7.4) Response: Effects to downed wood and snags is within the wildlife report on page 167-178 in the EA. Specifically, prescribed fire treatment effects were analyzed. Reductions in high abundance of small downed wood in both ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine would move current conditions into closer alignment with reference conditions (EA at 175). See figures on pages 171-172. This is very confusing (Figures on pages 167-170)- Which is the 50% tolerance level for whitehead woodpeckers? 3.9 snags per acre or 40.9snags per acres? For hairy woodpecker: 17 or 63.3 snags per acres? Even with snag size class differences these are huge discrepancies. What ate the arrows point out of the figure? What tolerance levels are these? 80% 100%? (Comment 7.47) Response: The pink bubbles within the figures refer to post fire conditions as described at 168. Additional cumulative species curves describing tolerance levels can be found in Appendix 2 of the Wildlife Report. The cumulative effects analysis fails to take into account the loss of future replacement snag and logs from…(cut off from page)(Comment 7.48) Response: Ongoing vegetation management projects in the analysis area generally focus on reducing understory vegetation to reduce risk of loss from wildfire. It is assumed that existing large snags and large downed wood will not be commonly impacted as a direct result of these projects. However, small snags and down wood may be reduced depending on treatments proposed. (EA at 175). Snag and log recruitment was considered in the EA at 167-178 using Decaid analysis. For more information visit the DecAid website at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/ as cited in the EA as Mellen-McLean et al 2012. Terrestrial Species Noise and Dust caused by Timber Harvest Adversely Affects Recreation and Wildlife, thus these Adverse Social and Environmental Impacts must be Analyzed in Chapter 3 with follow-up changes made to the timber sale design to eliminate these adverse effects… Request for final NEPA document modifications: Please disclose that noise and dust may adversely affect recreation experience of human visitors to the forest and some wildlife species that exist near the project area and analyze the effects that may occur to 1) recreation, and 2) vulnerable wildlife species in Chapter 3, and explain why such impacts are a justified tradeoff for the stated project benefits. (Comment 5.10) Response: Disturbance from implementation activities are included within the analysis for wildlife and recreation. Although dust and noise may not be singled out as an impact, these factors have been accounted for in possible displacement of recreations and disturbance to

338

wildlife. Seasonal restrictions near some bird nests and habitat are listed within the project design features in Chapter 2.

As the Gray wolf is still listed on the Deschutes National Forest, and as there have been at least two Gray wolves dispersing across the Deschutes NF (OR7) and nearby areas (OR28), effects to potential dispersal habitat for Gray wolves (a critical habitat for maintaining genetically viable population should have been analyzed for this timber sale/fuel reduction project, along with potential effect to Gray wolf prey-notably mule deer and Rocky Mt. Elk. (Comment 7.29) Response: Wolf dispersal was considered in the EA at 113. The No Effect determination for gray wolf is consistent with recent guidance on the changing population status of wolves on the Deschutes National Forest as coordinated with US Fish and Wildlife Service. Project effects to deer and elk were analyzed as MIS in the EA at 156-160. (In reference to American marten). The scale of the analysis area for cumulative effects remains undefined….(Comment 7.43) Response: This information was located within the Wildlife Report and has been added in the EA to clarify the analysis area for all species. The analysis area is defined on pages 105-106 of the EA. …deer are heavily dependent on Bitterbrush and Ceanothus (and likely Manzanita) for winter forage, and deer are in sharp decline on the Deschutes NF. Please restrict any mowing to narrow fuel breaks…(Comment 7.3) Why aren’t the impacts to Bitterbrush availability -as the primary forage for deer in the winter- from mowing and burning specifically addressed in the direct and indirect effects analysis? What about mowing impacts to the availability of other key winter forage shrubs for deer, such as ceanothus?...(Comment 7.45) Response: Effects to deer forage, including Bitterbrush and Ceanothus, are analyzed on pages 156-157. This includes impacts from mowing and burning. Brush mowing is limited to 50% or 80% of the treatment unit (EA at 50). Why does Table 57 only report 24 acres of elk thermal cover in proposed sale units while Table 56 only reports 105 acres of hiding cover in sale units, but Table 58 discloses 677 acres in the Ryan Ranch KEHA and 105 acres in the Fall River KEHA.(Comment 7.44) Response: Not all acres in the KEA are suitable as cover or thermal habitat. Table 60 in the Final EA shows the total overlap between KEA and treatment acres; Tables 58-59 in the Final EA show a subset of these acres, indicating the overlap between treatment units and suitable hiding/thermal acres. Both the cumulative effect analysis and the impact statement are faulty…the analysis fails to deeply consider the multiple interacting impacts of proposed management to deer and elk, who are already in decline on the Deschutes. Opening these areas as much as proposed with commercial and noncommercial logging could contribute to the sharp decline of deer in particular. Mule deer could also be substantially weakened by the combined effect of many similar projects.(Comment 7.46) Response: At 157, the EA references Tables 7-8 (at 56-57) which outline the past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable projects used for cumulative effects analysis. Aquatic Species

339

How close are the nearest sale units to Oregon Spotted Frog critical habitat? Some Sale units are listed in the EA as being within Aquatic management zones and/or RHCAs and some are listed as having high water table/sensitive soil concerns, so how was it determined that these units management activities would have no direct or indirect impacts to Oregon Spotted frog habitat? Why is there no analysis in the EA about this? E.g units in Aquatic management zones: 10,23,34, &44, plus#14&21 in RHCAs, plus #31 with high water table concerns.(Comment 7.28) Response: Analysis of effects to Oregon Spotted Frog is located in the EA at 111-112. No proposed treatments in critical habitat. The Forest Service can’t have it both ways: on the one hand, the EA lists units 10,23,34, &44 as being within Aquatic Management Zones, with these sale units plus #14 & 21 (and less #23) being listed as within RHCAs, as well as units 10,14,23,31,34, and 44 as having high water table concerns; on the other hand, p.115 of the EA claims that Bufflehead duck habitat will not be affected by the proposed action because “wetland and riparian habitats are not targeted for treatments, which is it? Commercial-size logging, proposed in units 10,14,23,31,34, and 44, could duck and Bald eagle made suitable habitat by greatly reducing the number of future replacement trees for existing (or non-existent) current large live trees and snags for roosting (Bald eagle), or nesting (Bald eagle and Bufflehead duck), yet this is not analyzed.(Comment 7.30) Response: For this project, the aquatic management zone is the RHCA (EA at 42). RHCAs widths are described on pages 231-232 of the EA and often go beyond the riparian vegetation along a stream or river. Project design features (updated in the Final EA) provide a buffers of 25ft and 50-75ft of no thinning and no thinning of trees >7” dbh within RHCAs (EA at 43). Snags and green tree replacements suitable for flicker excavation will be maintained to provide current and future nesting habitat. Of the 225 suitable bufflehead habitat acres proposed for treatment, thinning, mowing and/or underburning treatments may occur. This treatment may reduce the abundance and future potential for small snag structure (>10” DBH) but will encourage the development of large trees which will provide large future snags (>20” DBH) to create nesting habitat. (EA at 115). Effect to Bald Eagle nesting sites and overstory needs are analyzed on page 113. RHCA/Riparian “We urge the Forest Service to carefully conserve Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas and wild & scenic river corridors. Commercial removal, roads, and skid trails should be avoided in RHCAs. Non-commercial fuel reduction may be acceptable if it is carefully designed and implemented. For example, in Unit 20, especially Areas A and C2, the Forest Service needs to protect the RHCAs associated with Spring River and the Deschutes River. Disease prevention may not be an important priority in this area (near rivers) because the water table is high and trees are less stressed by drought.” (Comment 3.3) Response: No temporary roads are proposed in RHCAs. Project design features (EA at 42-44) provide a buffer regarding commercial thinning near streams and rivers and restrict heavy equipment to >75 ft from rivers and streams and >25 feet from riparian vegetation within RHCAs. In addition, if possible skid trails would be located outside of the RHCA. This buffering, along with other PDFs are in place to protect the RHCAs.

The pre-decisional EA does not contain recent (emphasis added) stream survey data that is essential to determine whether the stream conditions were harmed by timber sale activities. The only way to determine this is before and after measurements which require survey data before the timber sale is

340

implemented… Request for changes to be made to the final NEPA document: Include the measured results of recent stream surveys and display a stream monitoring schedule to be completed during and immediately following sale closure. (Comment 5.9) Response: The project will have no measurable changes in water quality due to project design features such as buffering streams and rivers combined with landscape features such a low slope and highly permeable soils. (EA at 248)

Logging of commercial size (mature) trees of heavy equipment does not “maintain or improve the riparian ecosystem and adjacent waterbody. Tree removal through logging is detrimental to needed wildlife and aquatic habitat by removing trees needed for canopy cover, shading, moisture retention, and large wood for forming pools for fish.(Comment 7.10)

Response: Several project design features, listed on pages 38-52 of the EA, are in place to protect various resources while still allowing for use of heavy equipment to get the treatments accomplished. Some of these include “Heavy equipment to remain >75 feet from rivers and streams and >25 from riparian vegetation” and “Machine pile slash outside of riparian vegetation and > 125 feet from rivers and streams. Heavy equipment used for piling to remain >75 feet from rivers and streams and >25 feet from riparian vegetation.” The proposed action would maintain the INFISH Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) within the project area. A full description of the RMOs and INFISH compliance is on pages 233-234 and 250-251 of the EA.

Soils AFRC is concerned about soil protection measure #10 which calls for maintaining spacing of 100 to 150 feet for all primary (main) skid trails. With the amount of work that will be done adjacent to private lands and the corners of property lines and other encumbrances, it may be difficult to achieve the needed work and meet these criteria. AFRC suggests looking on a case-by-case basis as to what is needed to remove merchantable timber and the skidding pattern needed. (Comment 2.5)

Response: The protection measure allows for closing skid trail spacing in complex terrain as long as it is approved in advance by the Sale Administrator. (EA at 39)

No mechanized equipment should be used on slopes greater than 30% in any sale unit – not just RHCAs. (Comment 7.5) . Response: Project design feature 15 outlines measures for slopes over 30% in all activity units, not just RHCAs (EA at 40). This includes prohibiting any new development of temporary roads, minimize designated skid trails, and restrict mechanical disturbance to existing roads and designated skid trails at all times. Drop proposed logging or roading in commercial logging units (#s 2,3,4,5,7,10,15,27,30,31,34 and 36) that would require subsoiling in order to meet Forest Plan (LRMP) standards for soil productivity. Subsoiling and other mitigation measures are not always implemented and are not always 100% effective even when they are fully implemented. Cumulative impacts should be mitigated through

341

avoidance of management activities that would cause or further exacerbate those impacts wherever possible. (Comment 7.8) Response: Effects to soil resources from the proposed actions is located in the EA at 180-209. This analysis includes a review of past subsoiling activities in soil types found in the project area and cumulative effects of these actions. Appendix B of the EA has a unit specific analysis and specifically Table 85 reviews soils concerns. The UDR project area is very likely to exceed 20% detrimental soil impacts (the forest plan limit) over almost half the total management acreage – 2,010 acres or more. Post logging mitigation such as subsoiling is not 100% effective and the same is true for project design criteria, both of which may not be fully or correctly implemented. Thus it is important to avoid causing detrimental sol impacts over Forest Plan standards by reducing planned management impacts – e.g. by dropping all commercial logging and most mowing. See Table 66 EA p 202. Note that non-commercial thinning by hand and underburning cause for less detrimental soil impacts.(Comment 7.52) Response: Except where there are detrimental conditions, soils across the majority of the project area would continue functioning to support and maintain long-term site productivity under the Action Alternative. Forest Plan Standards and Guides would be met once all prescribed mitigation measures were implemented. The extent of detrimental soil conditions would increase, but remain below Forest Plan and Regional Standards, where impacts were low prior to planned treatments. The extent of detrimental soil conditions would remain low to moderate in activity units where only manual understory treatments, mowing, and underburning would occur. Some stands are expected to initially exceed the 20% detrimental soil condition threshold once mechanized treatments are implemented, but mitigation in the form of subsoiling to decompact heavily disturbed surfaces and application of slash or other organic materials will help hasten recovery of soil function. Temporary roads, skid trails and landings would be targeted for these treatments. Summary of comments on pages 204-204: Commenter is opposed to use of temporary roads within the project area and is concerned about soil conditions and future use post implementations.(Comment 7.53) Response: No temporary roads are propose on sensitive soil types. After implementation, temporary roads would be blocked/obscured and hydrologically stabilized. Additionally, further restoration such as subsoiling, surface cover placement, revegetation may occur. (EA at 204). See PDC 18 at EA 41. See response to comment 5.1 regarding temporary roads. Wild and Scenic River Commercial logging degrades recreational values considerably (naturalness, beauty, escape from industrialization, wildlife and plan diversity, etc) and should not be done in Wild and Scenic River Corridors (Comment 7.59) This analysis rationale does not consider commercial logging and other visible management impacts to recreational and scenic value of the Wild and Scenic corridors.(7.61) Response: Analysis of the scenic value is found within the scenic resources section on pages 257-261. Additional information regarding the recreation value of the river has been added to the recreation section on page 222.The proposed action is consistent with the Wild and Scenic River standards and guidelines. Leave more mature trees in commercial logging units with RHCAs to provide for large wood recruitment over time to the creek or rivers.(Comment 7.58)

342

Yet pool formation is affected by the availability of large wood in the stream recruitment zone, which could be affected by adjacent commercial logging. (written on pages 249 of the EA). (Comment 7.62) Response: Project design features to protect riparian habitat in the EA have been updated to include no thinning of trees greater than 7" DBH within 50- 75 feet of rivers and streams (depending on the unit) and no thinning of any trees within 25 feet of rivers and streams (EA at 43). This will leave large trees within the recruitment zone. Recreation and Scenery This (referring to the Recreation section) is inadequate analysis for effect to recreation in that impairment of recreational values through logging, road construction and mowing extend well beyond the time of final project activity in the form of degraded visual and recreational aesthetic values, which include escape from a human-centric and industrialized society…There is not even any information given as to how each listed recreation site would be affected by the UDR project, e.g. whether sale unit management effects are visible from these sites and to what extent adjacent or near by natural forest would be altered. Which sale units are near these sites?(Comment 7.56) Response: These sites are shown on the maps of the proposed units on pages 13-23. For additional clarity, this information has been added to Table 70 within the recreation section. Pringle Falls – Unit 26 (LFR thin and mow) Big River CG/Group Site/Boat Launch – Adjacent to Unit 16 (LFR thin and mow) Fall River TH and ¼ mile of trail– Unit 24 ((LFR thin and mow) The area around developed sites are already altered with added infrastructure and hazard tree management. The ladder fuel reduction thinning of small trees and mowing will not noticeably change the recreation experience at these sites. The developed sites will also get the benefit of fuels reduction around these areas. This is inadequate cumulative effects analysis re: recreation. (7.57) Response: Clarifying information has been added to the recreation cumulative effects analysis. See page 219- 221 of the EA. The project will not result in cumulative effects to the recreation resource, either dispersed or developed. Given the staggered time of implementing these projects across the Forest, recreation users will have many places across the area including other developed recreation sites/campgrounds adjacent to the project units to continue to use for activities such as camping, launching boats, and hunting. Why is there no specific discussion of the effects of proposed commercial logging, reconstruction and new construction of temporary roads and mowing to recreational values?(Comment 7.58) Response: The proposed temporary roads are not near or within the proximity of developed recreation sites or Forest Service system trails. For this reason, no effects are expected from temporary roads and were not analyzed in detail in the EA. The effects of the proposed treatments, including the thinning, mowing, and underburning, to recreation are discussed on pages 218-221. Summary of pages 252 to 257 of comments: Commenter disagrees with Forest Plan direction regarding Scenic Views. In summary, the commenter finds management actions such as commercial thinning and mowing to degrade the natural scenic quality of the area. She disagrees with the Scenery management system and other standard and guidelines described in the Deschutes Forest Plan.(Comment 7.63)

343

Response: The comments were regarding current Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Amending or changing the standards and guidelines for Forest Plan Scenic Views (MA 9) is beyond the scope of this project. How would commercial logging in Unit 10 enhance the natural appearance of existing plants? How would commercial logging in unit 14 maintain natural appearing scenery in the foreground? How would the thinning and mowing of lodgepole pines stands in unit 32 meet scenic views standards and guidelines. (Comment 7.64) Response: Clarification has been added to the Final EA regarding Units 10, 14, and 32 meeting standards and guidelines. Commenter would like clarification through the scenic management section on which type of thinning is being discussed.(Comment 7.65) Response: See table 3 on pages 32-33 for a summary of the units and the proposed actions. These terms are defined on pages 29-30 of the EA. Unit 20 “…we urged the Forest Service in our May 2015 comments to leave this exceptional area undisturbed, except to the extent necessary to create a buffer zone toward Spring River Road and the houses to the south-west and south-east of the Unit.”(Comment 6.1) Response: With over 300 residential lots within a quarter mile, Unit 20 is firmly within the wildland-urban interface (WUI). The Three Rivers area is a “highest” priority for treatment within the Upper Deschutes River Coalition Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Recommended treatment is: “Within ¼ mile of any residential area and within 300’ of roads, trees should be thinned and widely spaced to protect and enhance the large trees on any given site. Ladder fuels and shrubs should be aggressively managed by mowing or prescribed burning. Lower branches should be trimmed. Additionally, it will be necessary to provide effective closures and signs to ensure these buffers are not abused by unmanaged OHV use (p. 51 UDRC CWPP).” Unit 20 treatments were designed to meet the recommendations outlined in the community wildfire protection plan and meet Forest Plan standards. Given the high level of interest in the treatments proposed in Unit 20, subunits were created and more detail was provided to describe proposed actions. (EA at 16-17). An alternative was considered to reduce treatment to within three hundred feet of Spring River Road. (EA at 28). To resolve concerns brought forward during scoping regarding visuals and wildlife habitat expressed by a couple nearby Spring River residents, the treatments were modified from those initially outlined during scoping. Further reduction in the unit 20 treatment area could reduce efficacy of fuel reduction. “Disappointingly the treatment of Unit 20 in the April 25, 2016 UDR EA reflects a decision to reduce the protection to be provided to wildlife in the Unit from the treatments being considered in the 10/21/15 outline of treatments. The area to be cleared around established ponderosas in area A has gone from 35-50 feet, to the full 50 feet. The same 50 foot clearing would now apply in the case of established ponderosas in area C-2 instead of around just the driplines. The variable spacing of lodgepoles in the stringers of area C-2 and in area D has gone from 5-20 feet to the full 20 feet. The proposed thinning in both area C and area D would preserve all lodgepoles larger than 7” DBH, which would seem to mitigate to some extent the effect of the greater spacing now proposed for those areas. Also, the remaining trees in area D would be limbed to a height of six feet, while the remaining trees in Area C would not be limbed. A 20 foot spacing of the remaining trees in the sub-area C-2 would eliminate the value of those

344

tree stringers as hiding cover for the elk and deer foraging in the open spaces or passing through the migration corridor of area C. (See UDR EA Special Design Feature #76 which provides that within portions of Unit 20, as key elk areas and other areas identified for maintaining important hiding cover — treatment will be limited to ladder fuel reduction within the dripline of dominant trees to maintain cover distribution.)” (Comment 6.3) In practical terms that would include, among the other items in our December 2015 comments: (i) limiting the cutting around established ponderosas in areas A and C to the driplines; (ii) leaving the stringers of sub-area C-2 in dense forest to maintain elk hiding cover and a wildlife corridor through area C and in any case limiting the cutting there to the originally proposed 5 to 20 foot average spacing for a tree density of 300 to 500 trees per acre; and (iii) permitting sufficient regeneration of young ponderosas in area B to achieve the spacing of trees in that area equivalent to the spacing proposed for the buffer in area D. (Comment 6.5) Response: Given the high level of interest in the treatments proposed in Unit 20, subunits were created and more detail was provided to describe proposed actions. (EA at 16-17).The level of detail provided in the description of unit 20 ladder fuel reduction thinning is greater than typically provided in an Environmental Analysis. Nearby Spring River subdivision residents who use unit 20 expressed concerns in the proposed thinnings. Several site visits and meetings between inter-disciplinary team members and residents took place during project planning. Through site visits and correspondence with the interested landowners, the original proposed treatments changed. Changes include reducing treatment in the northern part of the unit and a reduction in the amount of small diameter lodgepole thinned in the remainder of the unit. The level of detail provided in the EA was directed towards the interested landowners and provided to improve communication regarding what is planned and what the unit will look like post treatment. During initial communications with the interested landowners a range of 35’-50’ of thinning around the larger ponderosa pine and 5-20’ average spacing of lodgepole pine was provided. After further field review by district silviculturists and fuels specialists, 50’ around large trees and 20’ average spacing between lodgepole was determined to be a better representation of post treatment desired condition. Dripline thinning is aimed to release established ponderosa pine within Unit 20. This thinning is aimed to increase overall tree health and vigor to aid in the defense of mountain pine beetle attacks. The proposed action is to reduce the competition for the ponderosa pine above and below ground. From field reconnaissance the typical size of ponderosa pine is 15 inches DBH and greater. Using LiDAR tree point data, the average crown radius of these trees is 8.5 ft. Smith (1964) and others have found that ponderosa pine root spread can range from 1.2 to 5.4 times the crown radius. The maximum potential for root spread could be an average of 45.9 feet. The 50 feet is aimed to include the maximum potential root spread distance for ponderosa pine. A reduction in the competing lodgepole pine within the 50 buffer will allow more nutrient and water uptake for residual pine which would have a direct benefit to the health of ponderosa pine in Unit 20. The described treatments meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines and will sufficiently meet wildlife, silviculture and fuels desired conditions. As a result of past activities including logging, grazing and use during Camp Abbot era as a “grenade court” and artillery range, few large trees remain in unit 20. Over the last 20 years a prolific ingrowth of lodgepole has moved unit 20 above the upper management zone for the lodgepole pine plant associations and the legacy ponderosa pine trees are at risk for insect and

345

disease due to unnaturally high tree stocking levels. The purpose of removing all lodgepole < 21” DBH within a 50’ radius of these trees is to reduce the risk of insect and disease by reducing competition, providing growing space and improving tree vigor. In addition, the buffer will increase the larger ponderosa pines survivability during a fire by reducing potential fire intensities and flame lengths near the base of the trees.

The proposed treatments would remove lodgepole pine less than 7 inches DBH. Due to the diameter variability of existing lodgepole pine within the unit, spacing would vary from 5-20 feet. This would create a variable spacing of residual trees anywhere from 5-20 ft. The greatest distance proposed for residual trees would be 20 ft. A 20’x20’ spacing would produce 109 trees per acre. A spacing of 5’x5’ would have 1742 trees per acre. The proposed action would reduce the TPA to a density of at least 109 trees per acre or more. Hiding cover for elk Figure 90 Smith and Long (1987), Comparison of hiding and thermal cover to trees per acre and tree diameter (inches DBH). would not be diminished if the residual stand contained at least 109 trees per acre that are 7 inches DBH or greater (Figure 1). Fredrick W. Smith and James N. Long, “Elk Hiding and Thermal Cover Guidelines in the Context of Lodgepole Pine Stand Density” (1987), translated hiding and thermal cover guidelines into stand structure characteristics and, ultimately, into a silvicultural tool for implementation of those guidelines. Within the paper, Figure 1 displays that 109 trees per acre that are 7 inches DBH and greater provide hiding cover for elk. Based on the finding of this paper, the proposed actions will sustain the hiding cover longer into the future compared to the no action alternative. The exiting conditions of unit 20 include 371 trees per acre with a quadratic mean diameter of 5.2. When comparing the existing condition to the proposed action (109 trees per acre with residual trees 7 inches DBH and greater) the existing condition provided hiding cover (Figure 1, Orange Dot), but hiding cover will begin to diminish once the stand grows in both height and diameter. The proposed action (Figure 1, Yellow Dot) maintains hiding cover, and will allow more time for the stands to grow in both height and diameter while maintain hiding cover for a longer period of time. Smith, F.W. & J.N. Long (1987). Elk hiding and thermal cover guidelines in the context of lodgepole pine stand density. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 2(1): 6-10. Smith, J.H.G. 1964. Root spread can be estimated from crown width of Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine and other British Columbia tree species. For Chron. 40:456-473. “With regard to area A, given the stated objective of maintaining cover for wildlife in area A, the clearing around established ponderosas should be kept to as small a radius beyond the driplines as possible. With regard to area C, that area is an important migratory corridor for elk and mule deer, in addition to providing forage and hiding cover for the elk and deer while they are in Unit 20, and serious consideration should be given to creating an unbroken corridor of dense forest through area C, from area A in the north to area D in the south. And also with regard to area C, because the variable spacing of trees in the stringers in area C-2 would be same as the tree spacing in the buffer zone along Spring River

346

Road in area D, area C would in effect constitute an extension of the Area D buffer with the addition of a number of large clear-cuts (i.e., the open areas of C-1).” (Comment 6.2) Response: Analysis of effects to Mule Deer and Elk is on pages 156-160 of the EA. This analysis discloses effects to hiding and thermal cover across the project area. In regards to mule deer, lands on Deschutes National Forest fall within a category of either winter range, summer range or transition range. Unit 20 falls within the transition range classification. Proposed treatments meet transition range standards and guidelines in the Deschutes Forest Plan. This unit does not fall within identified big game migration paths on the Bend-Fort Rock Ranger District (although deer and may be seen using the area). Although there is no land management allocation specific to elk, the Deschutes LRMP identified 11 key elk habitat areas (KEA) totaling 59,825 acres that contain guidance for managing elk habitat. Unit 20 does not fall within a KEA. Project design features to minimize impacts to wildlife such as retention of clumps throughout units across the project area to maintain cover will be implemented in all treatment units (EA at 49). Unit 20 lies entirely within the “recreational river” segment of LRMP Management Area 17, Wild and Scenic Rivers. The proposed ladder fuel reduction thinning conforms to the objectives and LRMP and W&S River Plan standards and guidelines for this management allocation. “Unit 20 is unique because of the access to water, the existing cover from predators and the relative protection now provided from human interference. The Unit is also unique because the triangle is bounded by the broad water ways of Spring River on the north and west and the Deschutes River on the north and east, by the extensive wetlands along the north and east sides, by the proposed 300 foot buffer of area D along Spring River Road on the south, and by the extensively cleared 20 acre “Myst” project of area B in the south-west corner which provides a broad super-buffer along the east side of the Spring River subdivision. In effect Unit 20 is buffered on all sides. Those factors mitigate substantially the fire hazard to the surrounding areas that Unit 20 presents. Room is therefore available to shift the balance of values to a greater degree than currently proposed in favor of maintaining this special area as effective wildlife habitat. (Comment 6.4) Response: Although rivers can be effective barriers to surface fire spread they do not prevent fire spread through the spotting of embers. As an example, in 1990, the Awbrey Hall Fire, burned along the western flank of Bend starting near Shevlin Park and stopping in Deschutes river woods subdivision. The fire jumped three major roadways and the Deschutes River while burning 3,500 acres and 22 homes in 10 hours (EA at 10-11). The proximity to homeowners on to the east, south and west of the unit, makes this unit an important component of proposed treatments in the wildland urban interface (WUI). Treatment design considers a balance of wildlife needs and fuel reduction needs. Project design features outlined in Chapter 2 of the EA provide additional protection of wildlife habitat. In addition, the temporary road into Unit 20 as mapped on page 35 of the UDR EA would require cutting a swath of trees through area C-2. The road, if required, should be located from road 40 through the Myst project of area B and not through area C. (Comment 6.6) Response: Temporary roads are used to facilitate commercial harvest and access the interior areas of timber sale units to extract timber more efficiently and reduce ground based impacts from skidding long distances without the use of a road system (EA at 34). Changing the proposed location of the temporary road to the west into area B would require long skidding distances and may not meet the purpose of the temporary road.

347

Misc. Since there are so many miles of project area that abut private lands, AFRC emphasizes the need to have very clear property boundary and unit locations to prevent encroachment onto private lands by the operator. Most of the work will be done by mechanical methods, so it is important that the operators of the machinery can easily recognize unit boundaries. (Comment 2.4)

Response: Boundary lines will be professionally surveyed and marked prior to implementation of the project. Unit boundaries will also be marked using standard procedures.

“We strongly object to the "desired condition" of the M8 land allocation to "Continue to convert unmanaged stands to managed stands ... with all stands utilizing the site growth potential." This is grossly outdated and fails to recognize the high ecological value of natural, unmanaged forests and non- conifer vegetation. The Forest Service should amend the LRMP to eliminate this DFC.” (Comment 3.4) Response: Forest Plan amendments are beyond the scope of this project.

Some IDT members claim No Action will result in an increased probability of severe wildfires…The vast majority of independent science research findings reveal logging creates tragic natural resource damage in the forest… Provide independent science validating the IDT claims that logging reduces fire effects or remove the IDT’s claims that logging prevents fire from Chapter 3. Include the No Action effects for Old Growth, Human Health and Safety, Air Quality and Connectivity Corridors and Wetlands and Floodplains. (Comment 5.3) Response: The no action considers a baseline of the continued existing condition. Currently over half of the project area has a high or extreme fire risk. The probability of a wildfire is not analyzed rather the kind of fire behavior that current conditions would create are analyzed.

With climate change, it is likely that large weather driven fires of high severity will continue in drought years with low humidity, high winds speeds, and ignition sources. Stopping wildfires in extreme weather is virtually impossible except from changes in weather such as rain. The Forest Service cannot reasonably continue to assume the role of protecting growing inholdings and encroaching residential development from wildfire. Landowners must take responsibility for their own risks and risk reduction.(Comment 7.2) Response: Private property owners have worked to reduce fuels within their subdivision and the proposed treatments on the periphery USFS lands would complement the work done within the residential areas. (EA at 12). This project is planned using HFRA authorities. The HFRA directs the Department of Agriculture and the CEQ to improve regulatory process to ensure more timely decisions, greater efficiency and better results in reducing the risk of catastrophic wildland fires. (EA at 4). 42,318 acres of commercial logging over the next 10-20 years in this area poses tremendous and significant cumulative effects (impacts) to wildlife habitat, soil integrity, carbon sequestrating large wood structure for pools of fish, recreational values, and scenic integrity, which need to be analyzed in full for effects across the landscape cumulatively not just on a project by project scale or by listing alone.”(Comment 7.17) Response: Cumulative effects are analyzed within each resource area in Chapter 3. Tables 8 and 9 in the draft EA summarize past, present, and foreseeably future actions that were considered in the cumulative effects analysis. 42,318 acres across 279,011 acres in 14 subwatersheds that

348

overlap with the project area. The project area is about 4200 acres and makes up less than 2% of the potential cumulative effects area. There seem to be several problems with this UDR EA determination of HRV (historical range of variability for tree structure composition.) The most significant problem is that the HRV baseline is supposed to reflect pre-European colonization (pre-commercial logging) conditions. Apparently this HRV analysis relies instead on timber survey data from at the earliest, 1911 and forest cover types from a 1922 timber survey map – i.e post-commercial logging sources. The forest cover type mapping from the 1950’s is even more clearly from a period in which heavy commercial logging has taken place, leaving less trees on the landscape (less density, more open conditions, fewer mature and large trees.) This is not an appropriate reference condition baseline for determine historic pre-European forest cover types and forest structural composition and does not use the full range of best available science and historical data (see our attachments). The HRV analysis fails to account for changes in forest structure due to logging from 1911- 1950’s.(Comment 7.24) Response: HRV outlined in Eastside screes states “The HRV should be based conditions in the pre-settlement era; however 1900s photography may be acceptable” (Regional Forest’s Forest Plan Amendment #2, Page 3). This information has been used in past project planning for the Dillman EA and represents the best information the District has to complete HRV analysis. The Forest Service fails to support foundational assumptions of the UDR EA analysis with any field evidence studies recording effectiveness in 1)proposed logging, mowing, and NCTing actually reducing fire extend and severity, 2) the proposed intensity of logging actually accelerating the growth of larger trees and these trees actually being maintained on the landscape enough in the future to become LOS and 3) the proposed intensity of logging actually allowing sufficient long term development of large snag structure to support the habitat needs of Bald eagles, Lewis’ woodpeckers, Bufflehead ducks, Whiteheaded woodpeckers, and other snag dependent species that could be using the area.(Comment 7.31) Response: The EA and associated specialist reports cite the science, including field based studies, listed on pages 266-279. See the fuels, vegetation and wildlife sections within the EA. Specifically, work cited from Powell and Grahm discuss treatments and reducing fire severity and Cochran and Booser regarding accelerating the growth of larger trees. The wildlife section uses the updated science within the Decaid analysis at 167-178. Project effects to species are analyzed at 114-116 (bald eagle), 118-120 (Lewis’ woodpecker), 116-118 (bufflehead), and 120- 122 (white-headed woodpecker) with additional analysis on pages 160-166. Summary of comments on pages 268-269: Commenter states logging will contribute to emissions through removing carbon sequestering trees and deforestation. The analysis fails to analyze the net greenhouse gas emission contribution from the logging the project and unlogged areas with natural disturbances. The climate change analysis does not use adequate field evidence studies to support claims.(Comment 7.67) Response: Climate change is a global phenomenon because major greenhouse gasses (GHG) mix well throughout the planet’s lower atmosphere (IPCC 2013). Considering emissions of GHG in 2010 was estimated at 49 ± 4.5 gigatonnes globally (IPCC 2014) and 6.9 gigatonnes nationally (US EPA, 2015), a project of this magnitude makes an infinitesimal contribution to overall emissions. Therefore, at the global and national scales, this proposed action’s direct and indirect contribution to greenhouse gasses and climate change would be negligible.

349

Pages 263-264 of the EA discuss climate change.

350