BALD ANGEL VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT La Grande Ranger District Wallowa-Whitman National Forest December 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NUMBER I. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ...............................................................................1 A. Introduction.......................................................................................................................1 B. Background ......................................................................................................................1 C. Purpose and Need ..........................................................................................................1 D. Proposed Action..............................................................................................................3 E. Decisions to be Made .....................................................................................................7 F. Desired Condition............................................................................................................7 G. Project Area Description ................................................................................................8 H. Key Issues ........................................................................................................................9 I. Other Issues...................................................................................................................18 J. Summary of Scoping Process.....................................................................................24 II. ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION................................................26 A. Introduction.....................................................................................................................26 B. Alternative Development Process ..............................................................................26 C. Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed Study...............................26 D. Alternatives Considered in Detail................................................................................27 Elements Common to the Action Alternatives ..........................................................27 Alternative Descriptions................................................................................................36 A. Alternative 1 – No Action..................................................................................36 B. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action......................................................................36 C. Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative ..............................................................39 D. Alternative 4 – No Roads .......................................………………………… 42 Management Requirements, Constraints, and Mitigation Measures....................46 Alternative Comparison at a Glance ..........................................................................58 Comparison of How the Alternatives Respond to the Key Issues.........................59 Monitoring Plan..............................................................................................................60 III. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...............................................................................63 A. Introduction.....................................................................................................................63 B. Alternative Evaluation as They Respond to the Key Issues...................................63 Silviculture/Vegetation Management....................................................................64 Wildlife Resource – Old Growth/Big Game.........................................................68 Fire and Fuels Management..................................................................................80 C. Alternative Evaluation as They Respond to the Other Issues................................93 Economic Effects.....................................................................................................93 Fisheries and Watershed Resources...................................................................97 Soil Quality and Productivity............................................................................... 105 Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species (PETS)......... 115 Sensitive Plant Species....................................................................................... 115 Access and Travel Management....................................................................... 123 Management Indicator Species (MIS)............................................................... 125 Primary Cavity Excavators (Snags and Log Habitat)..................................... 128 Neotropical Migratory Birds ................................................................................ 132 Unique and Sensitive Habitats ........................................................................... 135 Rangeland Resources & Noxious Weeds ........................................................ 138 Recreation/Visuals ............................................................................................... 143 Forest Plan Amendment for LOS....................................................................... 148 D. Required and Additional Disclosures ...................................................................... 150 IV. CONSULTATION WITH OTHERS ................................................................................ 153 V. INTERDISCIPLINARY PARTICIPATION ..................................................................... 154 APPENDICES: A. Alternative 2 – Data Table and Map B. Alternative 3 – Data Table and Map C. Alternative 4 – Data Table and Map D. Cumulative Effect Process and Area Activities E. Public Comments to Environmental Assessment Changes Post Comment Period: An earlier addition of Chapter 2 was inadvertently mailed out to the public during the comment period. The primary change from the version of Chapter 2 mailed out to this updated version is the treatment of snags within the project area. The previous version called for use of the District Snag Policy which had been changed to “No snag removal” and is accurately reflected in this version. Refer to the pages listed below for specifics. Chapters One and Three were correct in the mailing and already reflected the effects of this change in snag direction for the project. Page 28 – Connective Corridor Units: Changed from 4-6 snags per acre retained to All snags would be retained. Page 35 – Common Elements - Added 7. Snags section directing the retention of all snags > 12 inches dbh in all action alternatives. Page 51 – General Soil and Water Mitigations – Added Temporary road direction for location, design, and management. Page 63 – “Stocking levels exceeding recommendations on approximately 25%” was corrected to 52% as the numbers were accidentally transposed. Page 123 – Changed typo INFS to INFISH. BALD ANGEL VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT La Grande Ranger District Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Action A. Introduction The purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is to evaluate the environmental impacts of proposed activities designed to restore and enhance ecosystems, and reduce fire danger within the Bald Angel project area. B. Background The 36,700 acre Bald Angel analysis area (subwatersheds 13D-F and 29D-F, and H) consists primarily of the National Forest system lands beginning at Bald Hill south of the 77 Road, east to the 7740 Road above Velvet Creek, follows the private land boundary along the south end of the project area, and is bordered on the eastern edges by the 7035 road, Goose Creek and the East Fork of Goose Creek. The project area is due east of Medical Springs and approximately 12 miles southeast of Union, Oregon. The project area does not affect any roadless areas as described in the Roadless Area Conservation FEIS and has been allocated to timber production, big game winter range, and old growth in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Plan. Past management activities, aggressive fire suppression, drought, and insect and disease activity in the past contributed to the decline of forest and watershed conditions in this area over the last 20 years. Mountain Pine beetle and Western Pine Beetle are generally at endemic levels within the project area at the present time, however, they have shown an increase in recent years. The area around Langrell Gulch had beetle populations at epidemic levels with tree mortality spreading throughout the area. In response to this epidemic the Bald Angel Project Decision Memo was signed in 2004, and the insect mortality and overstocked stands immediately adjacent to the infestation were harvested the same year. Overstocked stand conditions increase the risk of further loss of tree species. The landscape in the Bald Angel project area (Powder River/Pondosa- watershed 13 and Powder River/Keating- watershed 29) is currently outside of the desired range of variability for late and old forest structure, as well as desired levels for snags, down woody material, and big game cover. Further analysis indicates that long-term restoration needs still exist within the area. Analysis of the existing condition for the Draft Powder River/Pondosa and Keeting Watershed Analysis (slated for completion in 2006) and field reconnaissance completed for this project during the summers of 2000 - 2003 indicated that the project area has a considerable number