Monument Fire Recovery Project Record of Decision and Non-Significant Amendment #57 USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region Malheur National Forest Prairie City Ranger District Grant and Baker Counties John Day, Oregon April 2004 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Purpose and Need/Proposed Action......................................................................................................... 2 Environmental Impact Statement ............................................................................................................. 2 Consultation with Tribes .......................................................................................................................... 3 Issues........................................................................................................................................................ 3 Alternatives Considered in Detail ............................................................................................................ 4 Decision and Rationale............................................................................................................................... 6 Active v. Passive Management ................................................................................................................ 6 Snags ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 RHCA Salvage......................................................................................................................................... 9 Commercial Thinning ............................................................................................................................ 10 Water Quality/Sedimentation................................................................................................................. 10 Economics.............................................................................................................................................. 12 Fuels ....................................................................................................................................................... 12 Soils........................................................................................................................................................ 13 Other Public Concerns ........................................................................................................................... 14 Cumulative Effects from Ongoing and Proposed Activities .................................................................. 16 Consultation/Conferencing with USFWS .............................................................................................. 16 Legal Requirements and Policy ............................................................................................................. 17 Other Policy or Guiding Documentation ............................................................................................... 18 Public Participation ................................................................................................................................ 18 The Environmentally Preferable Alternative ......................................................................................... 19 Design Measures/Mitigation Measures.................................................................................................. 20 Monitoring ............................................................................................................................................. 20 Forest Plan Consistency ......................................................................................................................... 20 Non-Significant Forest Plan Amendment #57 ....................................................................................... 21 Consistency with NFMA Requirements ................................................................................................ 25 Implementation ...................................................................................................................................... 25 Correction to the FEIS ........................................................................................................................... 26 Procedure for Change during Implementation ....................................................................................... 26 Appeal Rights......................................................................................................................................... 26 Contact Persons...................................................................................................................................... 28 Record of Decision and Non-Significant Forest Plan Amendment #57 Introduction This Record of Decision (ROD) documents my decision and rationale for the selection of Alternative 4 to be implemented for the Monument Fire Recovery Project. It also includes a non-significant Malheur Forest Plan amendment. Amendment #57 re- delineates Dedicated and Replacement Old Growth areas and allows for site specific snag distribution that better meets the needs of cavity nesters but would not meet Forest Plan standards within the salvage harvest and commercial thinning areas. In July 2002, the Monument Fire burned 24,525 acres, of which 20,186 acres were on the Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest. The other portions of the fire were on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest or private lands. The Monument Fire Recovery Project area refers to approximately 8,588 acres of the fire that burned outside the Monument Rock Wilderness on the Malheur National Forest. The project area is located approximately 23 air miles southeast of Prairie City, Oregon. The Monument Recovery Project area lies within the Upper North Fork Malheur River and Little Malheur River watersheds, which is part of the Upper Malheur sub-basin, of the Middle Snake/ Boise Basin. The impacted forested vegetative area is characterized primarily as a hot-dry/warm- dry biophysical environment. These forests are characterized by open grown ponderosa pine to multistoried mixed conifer stands dominated by ponderosa pine. The two major soil types include volcanic ash soils and residual loam/clay soils. The clay/loam soils located in the Camp Creek area are shallow and highly erodable. Both watersheds are important to rebuilding and sustaining populations of bull trout. Bull trout are not present in streams in the Upper North Fork Malheur watershed within the project area. Bull trout were historically present in the Little Malheur watershed but currently do not occupy the site because of warm water temperature. The Little Malheur River is currently on the Oregon DEQ 303(d) list of streams for exceeding the 64 degree F water temperature standard. The Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), as amended, has allocated lands within the project area to Management Area (MA) 1, General Forest; MA 2, Rangeland; MA 4A, Big Game Winter Range; MA 13, Dedicated Old Growth; and MA 14, Visual Corridors (FEIS, Vol.1, Map 4). There are no inventoried roadless areas within the project area (FEIS, Vol. 1, pp. 285 and 293). Monument Fire Recovery Project - Whitman Unit - Wallowa-Whitman National Forest A fire recovery project was also analyzed and a decision reached on the Wallowa- Whitman National Forest portion of the Monument Fire. Karyn L. Wood, Wallowa- Whitman Forest Supervisor, signed the Record of Decision on March 11, 2004 for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Monument Fire Recovery Project on the Whitman Unit. This decision will implement an alternative that includes: salvage harvest by helicopter only, 746 acres (8.7 million board feet); resting the West Camp grazing unit; closing roads; relocating a trailhead; reforest by planting 1,205 acres; planting 292 acres of riparian habitat; and treating noxious weeds. These activities were considered as cumulative effects in this analysis. The teams from the Malheur and Wallowa-Whitman Forests worked closely to address cumulative impacts between projects and to insure consistency between 1 analysis documents. A specific impact addressed in the Wallowa-Whitman FEIS is the haul of approximately 5-6 million board feet of timber harvested on the Malheur National Forest portion of the Monument Fire. Purpose and Need/Proposed Action The purpose of this action is to meet the direction assigned to National Forest System land in the planning area by the Malheur Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and to bring existing conditions toward the desired future condition. The action is needed here and now to: • Fuels: Reduce levels of dead and dying standing and down fuel, to reduce the potential for future high- severity fires and restore a low- intensity/ frequent-fire regime. • Forest Vegetation Structure: Improve forest vegetation resilience to insects, disease, wildfire, and other disturbances; restore ecologically appropriate structural and compositional characteristics of upland and riparian vegetation. • Forest Vegetation: Restore tree vegetation for wildlife habitat, stream shade, and for future timber products. • Old Growth: Replace Dedicated Old-Growth (DOG) and Replacement Old-Growth (ROG) areas that burned and are no longer in suitable old-growth condition. Re-delineate an additional DOG and ROG to bring them in compliance and direction with the Malheur Forest Plan. • Water Quality: Improve watershed condition and reduce road-related impacts. Recommendations from the Monument Roads Analysis report include (1) decommissioning specific roads and old skid trails that are contributing sediment and concentrating flows, resulting in adverse impacts to water quality and native fish habitat, and (2) reducing road densities where deer and elk security habitat has been affected by the fire. • Economics: Capture the economic value of those trees that are surplus to other resource needs, and to provide raw materials and jobs to aid in community stability. This action is needed in order to comply with the goals and objectives outlined in the Malheur Forest Plan, which guides natural resource management activities and establishes management standards for lands administered by the Malheur National Forest. The needs for the proposed action are derived from the differences between current conditions and desired resource conditions. Desired conditions are based on Forest Plan direction and management objectives. The proposed action is designed to move resource conditions closer to the desired conditions and address the management direction provided by the Malheur Forest Plan as amended. For a more detailed discussion on the purpose and need for action refer to the FEIS, Vol.1 – pages 6 through 12. Environmental Impact Statement I determined that proposed restoration actions and their effects could best be analyzed and disclosed to the public through an environmental impact statement (EIS). A Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on March 24, 2003. This was followed by release of the Monument Fire Recovery Project Draft 2 Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) the week of August 3, 2003. The Notice of Availability for comment on the DEIS was published on August 8, 2003. The final EIS (FEIS) Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register on March 19, 2004. Consultation with Tribes Consultation with the Burns Paiute Tribe, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon occurred prior to and during my decision. During the initial scoping of the project in January 2003, comments were solicited from the Tribes. In March 2003, a meeting to discuss the Monument project held with representatives from the Burns Paiute Tribe (Monument Project Record). Copies of the DEIS were mailed to the Tribes in August 2003. My decision is guided by the federal government’s responsibility to consult with these Tribes. Based on a government-to- government relationship, the purpose of the contact was to exchange information, answer questions, and to work closely and continuously with each other to integrate tribal rights and interests in the planning process. This is one of the several legal obligations that I considered as I made my decision, and consultation with the tribes provided me with valuable information in making that decision. During consultation, the Burns Paiute Tribe expressed a general concern regarding cultural plants and access management within all the areas burned by the fires in 2002. Cultural plants that have been identified within the project area are in upland areas. The plant sites will be avoided from ground disturbance during salvage harvest and may realize a limited positive effect under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, as fuel loading is addressed across the landscape (FEIS Vol.1, p.263). Even though the access within the Monument Fire area was not their principal concern, my decision maintains much of the current access for the tribe’s needs. Issues In response to my proposed action, six significant issues were identified by the public and the Forest Service. These issues were then used to develop alternatives to the Proposed Action. The issues are not in any order of priority. They include: Snag habitat: The standard for snags in the Malheur Forest Plan is based on species dependent on old structure, green stands. Retaining Forest Plan snag levels may not provide adequate snag habitat for dead- forest-dependent species and primary cavity excavators. Water quality and Sedimentation: There is concern that salvage harvest should not occur in areas that are severely burned or are located on erosive sites, riparian areas, or steep slopes (see Beschta report recommendations). Harvest on these areas could increase erosion potential in the fire area. The proposed action includes salvage harvest and tractor logging within both RHCAs and severely burned areas. Salvage harvest would occur within the Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) of the Little Malheur River: The Little Malheur River is proposed as critical habitat for bull trout. The river has also been identified on the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 303 (d) list for exceeding water temperature standards. There is concern that harvest activities in the project area could further degrade water quality, and prolong recovery of stream habitat in the fire area. Commercial Thinning (Green Tree Harvest): The proposed action includes harvest thinning to promote stand resiliency. There is concern that thinning the few remaining live stands of trees would negatively impact their value for wildlife habitat, landbird species habitat, moisture retention, and nutrient recycling. 3 Economics: Commercial value of fire- killed trees will deteriorate quickly if salvage does not occur within the next year. The recovery value of the timber will have an effect on the local economy. Any delays in harvest would affect the economic viability of timber sales within the fire project area. Fuels: There is a scientific controversy relevant to benefits of using salvage harvest to reduce fuels in order to reduce potential effects of future fire events. Some science advocates a passive approach to fuels management in burned areas, by recommending that natural processes are best for management of fuels. Others suggest that salvage harvest is the best way to reduce the potential for another cycle of heavy fuel accumulations therefore, limiting future management opportunity to use prescribed fire to restore the landscape to historical conditions. Soils: Concerns were expressed that using ground based mechanized equipment to harvest timber and reduce fuels would increase soil erosion and decrease soil productivity, especially on severe and moderate severity burned areas. Additional issues were considered in the assessment of effects, but were not used as the basis for alternative development as they were resolved in other ways (see FEIS, Chapter 1). Alternatives Considered in Detail Four action alternatives and a no action alternative were analyzed in the FEIS. The four action alternatives considered in the FEIS examine varying combinations and degrees of harvest activities and other restoration activities. Each was developed to address the significant issues and the purpose and need. For additional details on these alternatives, see the FEIS, Vol.1, Chapter 2 (Alternative 2, Alternative 3, Alternative 4 - Preferred Alternative, Alternative 5, and Alternative 1 -No Action). A number of other recovery actions outside of activities proposed in the FEIS will be implemented through administrative decisions or ongoing projects. These include post fire grazing guidelines (see FEIS, Volume 2, Appendix G) to protect upland and riparian vegetation, hardwood planting to restore riparian vegetation, and the continued closure of Forest Service Road (FSR) 1672457 that accesses the Little Malheur River trailhead to limit sedimentation. Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative The No Action alternative does not propose salvage or additional recovery efforts within the project area. This alternative is the baseline against which the effects of all other alternatives are measured. Activities already planned for the project area, based on previous decisions, such as reforestation, would be implemented as originally determined. Non-Timber Harvest Projects or Actions Common to Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 To reduce existing water quality related impacts within the project area, road decommissioning and old skid trail obliteration is proposed. Approximately 11.8 miles of open and closed roads would be decommissioned and 2.2 miles of old skid trails would be obliterated. The objective of these projects is to reduce sediment delivery to streams. These alternatives also include two options for gated road closures. The closures would be gated year-long closures to motorized vehicles and could be open as needed to provide public or administrative access. These closures are necessary to improve big game security and reduce the spread of noxious weeds by motorized vehicles. 4 Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would close approximately 7.0 miles while Alternative 5 would close 16.2 miles. The Monument fire adversely impacted a Malheur Forest Plan allocated Dedicated Old Growth area (DOG) and two Replacement Old Growth areas (ROG). Since the late and old forest structure of the stands was destroyed by the fire, they no longer function as habitat for either the pine marten or pileated woodpecker. Suitable forested stands outside the fire were identified to replace the Dedicated Old Growth and Replacement Old Growth Areas. A non-significant Forest Plan amendment is needed to make these adjustments. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was developed in response to the purpose and need identified in Chapter 1 of the FEIS. Alternative 2 would implement a series of projects that moves the existing condition of the project area toward the desired future condition. Alternative 2 would capture the economic value of approximately 30.0 million board feet (MMBF) of dead and dying timber. The salvage harvest method would be implemented mostly with helicopter (88%) and to a lesser degree tractor (12%) logging systems. This includes approximately 601 acres of helicopter salvage harvest in RHCAs. In addition to improve future forest stand resiliency, approximately 223 acres that burned with lower fire intensity would be commercially thinned and salvaged. No new system road construction is proposed. Several short, temporary roads are proposed to access 23 helicopter landings totaling approximately 0.6 miles. Approximately 69.5 miles of road maintenance and 0.2 miles of reconstruction would be required for haul routes. For a more detailed description of Alternative 2 refer to the FEIS, Chapter 1, pages 13 through 19 and Chapter 2, pages 36 through 39. Alternative 3 Alternative 3 was developed from public concerns during the initial scoping relating to timber harvest effects on water quality, sedimentation, and cutting of green trees. Key features in Alternative 3 reduce the risk of sedimentation by eliminating harvest in the RHCAs and not harvesting within 50 feet of the RHCAs for Category 2 and 100 feet for Category 4 streams (perennial and intermittent streams). To address snag habitat and retention of live tree concerns, more dead and dying trees than proposed in Alternative 2 are retained for snag habitat, and green/live trees would not be harvested to provide vegetative diversity. Alternative 3 would capture the economic value of approximately 14.4 million board feet (MMBF) of dead and dying timber. The salvage harvest method would be implemented mostly with helicopter (89%) and to a lesser degree tractor (11%) logging systems. There is no commercial thinning of green trees and no RHCA salvage harvest. As in Alternative 2, there is no new system road construction proposed. Several short, temporary roads are proposed to access 23 helicopter landings totaling approximately 0.6 miles. Approximately 69.5 miles of road maintenance and 0.2 miles of reconstruction would be required for haul routes. For a more detailed description of Alternative 3 refer to the FEIS, Chapter 2, pages 39 through 41. Alternative 4 The focus of Alternative 4 was to provide a different snag management strategy and to retain all the dead and dying trees in the RHCAs from what was proposed in Alternative 2. Concerns were raised during initial scoping that the strategy for managing snag habitat in the Proposed Action may not 5 meet snag retention needs for primary cavity excavator (PCE) needs. Snags in patches ranging in size from 4 to 90 acres would be left to better meet the needs of PCE species because cavity nesters as a group prefer patches as opposed to single snags retained in uniform, even spaced distribution. Alternative 4 would capture the economic value of approximately 26.5 million board feet (MMBF) of dead and dying timber. Salvage harvest would be implemented mostly with helicopter (86%) and to a lesser degree tractor (14%) logging systems. There is no RHCA salvage harvest. In addition to improve future forest stand resiliency, approximately 223 acres that burned with lower fire intensity would be commercially thinned and salvaged. No new system road construction is proposed. Several short, temporary roads are proposed to access 22 helicopter landings totaling approximately 0.4 miles. Approximately 69.5 miles of road maintenance and 0.2 miles of reconstruction would be required for haul routes. For a more detailed description of Alternative 4 refer to the FEIS, Chapter 2, pages 41 through 43 and all the design measures, mitigation and monitoring described in the FEIS, Chapter 2 pages 46 through 55. Alternative 5 Detailed consideration is given to an alternative considered but not analyzed in the DEIS (#3 Restoration Only, No Timber Harvest) and developed into Alternative 5 in the FEIS. There were numerous public comments on the DEIS requesting that this passive approach to management be fully analyzed in the FEIS and follow recommendations contained in the Beschta Report. This alternative includes many of the restoration activities included in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. It does not include salvage of dead and dying trees and it does not include commercial/precommercial green tree thinning to improve stand resiliency. For a more detailed description of Alternative 5 refer to the FEIS, Chapter 2, pages 44 through 45. Decision and Rationale It is my decision to select Alternative 4 as the Forest Service recovery plan for the Monument Fire Recovery Project area During the decision process for this project, I realized that I would not be able to fully satisfy all public concerns, as many of them are mutually exclusive. I have selected an alternative that balances the need to reduce future fuel loading and promote recovery of the burned landscape while capturing the economic value of the dead and dying trees. It also includes a practical restoration approach that reflects sensitivity to all the conflicting public concerns. In making this decision, I considered and balanced numerous factors. First, I had to determine if active or passive management was the best way to manage the area. Active v. Passive Management A concern that arose early in the process was how to manage a burned area. Scientific literature exists that could lead one to conclude either active or passive management may be best, depending upon circumstances. Beschta et al. (1995), suggested that “there is no ecological need for intervention on the post-fire landscape,” and that post-fire logging, reseeding, and replanting should be conducted only under limited conditions. The Beschta report also states that there is a lack of knowledge pointing to detrimental ecological effects of salvage harvest measured in association with any particular wildfire. Similarly, in his response to Beschta et al., Everett (1995) comments on the lack of good information, but states that the “custodial” approach advocated by Beschta may be in many cases less desirable than more active management 6 because of the possible soil degradation in the absence of seeding, and because of possible fuel buildup in the absence of timber harvest. In reaching my decision, I have incorporated ideas presented by both Beschta and Everett and knowledge gained though project monitoring completed on the 1998 Malheur National Forest, Summit Fire Recovery Project. The Monument Fire killed thousands of acres of trees that provided shade to streams; cover and forage for wildlife; timber for future harvest, as well as seed sources for new forests; and changed the scenery and recreation qualities many of you enjoyed prior to the fire. The sum of adverse ecosystem effects of the Monument Fire is almost immeasurable and many of these detrimental conditions will not self-correct in an acceptable period of time. In my judgment, active management is necessary. The Monument Fire burned at high intensity because of high fuel loads, dry fuel conditions, and a dense understory of ladder fuels across the landscape. These fuel loading are largely due to our past fire suppression efforts, timber harvest, and grazing practices. If some of the burned trees are not removed, there is a significant risk that: 1) future fuel loads will be just as high or higher than they were before the Monument Fire; and 2) another fire with similar or greater devastating results will occur. If such a fire occurs, investments in recovery efforts and favorable gains in streamside shade, cover and habitat for wildlife, live root structures to hold soil in place, and scenery characteristics for recreationists would be lost. Historically, hot-dry and warm-dry biophysical environments experienced low to moderate severity wildfires. It is important to reduce fuel loads in these biophysical environments and decrease the risk of future high severity wildfires. In order to pursue active management, I have to make this decision now. Commercial salvage is the most practical option for removing trees 12” dbh and greater and this can only be accomplished while the material has commercial value. Less than two years after the fire, the commercial value of the majority of the smaller trees less than 12”dbh is already gone. If I had decided not to remove some of the material now, I would not likely be able to remove it later in an efficient manner. In weighing this decision, I considered both fuel characteristics (amount, size, arrangement, continuity, and moisture content), likelihood of ignition plus impacts on soils during salvage harvest activities. Projected fuel loadings based on existing, fire-killed trees are 2 to 6 times higher than the historical fuel loadings in the project area. Although the majority of this material is in the form of standing snags today, 10 to 30 years after the fire, most of this material is expected to be on the ground, and in a condition that could support a high severity wildfire (FEIS Vol.1, pp. 7-8). A high severity wildfire would likely kill or set back any riparian or coniferous vegetative recovery, again raising stream temperatures and sediment levels. Absent a source of ignition, high fuel loads would not be a problem. However, the Monument Fire area has incurred multiple wildfires per year: greater than 90 percent ignited by lightning. Based on these conditions, I concluded that active restoration is an appropriate course of action. Implementing this decision will reduce fuel loadings of materials generally 12 inches and larger in diameter. In much of the fire area, heavy fuel loading of material 4 to 10 inches in diameter will still remain. Although this material is standing now, much of it will begin to fall over in the next 10 to 30 years. Additional site-specific fuel treatment needs, such as prescribed fire, may be identified during that time period. These needs could be addressed through separate analysis of specific proposals. I have not 7 included these actions as a part of the action alternatives, or as a part of this decision because I do not yet know which areas will surface as problems first (i.e., where on-the- ground fuel concentrations will occur first), and because I did not want to implement this additional resource-impacting activity until further watershed recovery has taken place. Eventually, I would like to reduce fuel loadings to the point where fire can be returned to its natural role, within these hot- dry and warm-dry biophysical environments. This would require that fuel loads be low enough to allow fire to burn through stands without severely damaging them. However, it is likely to be several decades before those reduced fuel loadings can be achieved. I am confident soil impacts from ground skidding will be minimal and meet plan standards following the removal of dead and dying trees by using the design measures and mitigation identified in Chapter 2. Our past salvage harvest experience on similar soils conditions indicate a low sedimentation risk. This is based on monitoring information from ground skidding on fire damaged soils by our soil scientist on the Summit Fire. The monitoring indicates that effects were very minimal and close to base levels for sediment following harvest activities (FEIS Vol.1, p. 120). The Monument Fire Recovery Project alone will not bring about full recovery to the fire area. Future activities such as thinning timber stands, regulating cattle grazing, additional reforestation, obliterating old skid trails, decommissioning roads and implementing the Monument Roads Analysis recommendations will likely be needed. After I concluded that active restoration was appropriate, I weighed the pros and cons of each alternative based on the significant issues listed above. Following is a discussion of these issues and my conclusions. Snags One of the more difficult issues to balance was the level of snags to be retained. Looking at the burned area today, there appear to be plenty of snags for wildlife needs. However, this is a short to mid-term condition lasting 10 to 30 years (FEIS Vol.1, p. 90). Since the Monument Fire burned so hot and killed so many trees, once these snags fall over, there will be no replacement snags until the forest is re-established and reaches a size and age to provide snags. Even with reforestation, it is anticipated this will take over 120 years to occur (FEIS Vol.1, p.78). Snags are important for a number of primary cavity excavator species (FEIS, p. 188-213). The Malheur Forest Plan, as amended, requires enough snags be provided to support populations of cavity dependent species at 100 percent of their population potential across the landscape and, where available, green trees be retained to replace those snags when they fall over or are otherwise no longer suitable. To evaluate the effects on snag and down wood habitat by each alternative, I considered the analysis information provided by an advisory tool known as DecAID which measures species tolerance levels to snag levels and a more simplistic method by just comparing the amount of suitable forested habitat retained that could be utilized by primary cavity-nester species. The DecAID modeling displays cavity excavator use or tolerance levels as an overall range for cavity excavator species (FEIS Vol.1, p.196). Values provide a relative difference between alternatives. Tolerance levels have less to do with viability of species and populations, and more to do with the distribution of individuals across a project area. The alternatives represent different levels of snag retention and distribution, and thus would affect woodpecker presence and distribution. Alternatives 1 and 5 will support the highest 8 tolerance levels for most primary cavity excavators. Of the alternatives with salvage and/or thinning activities, Alternative 3 (salvage activities only) supports the highest tolerance levels for most primary cavity excavators. Alternatives 2 and 4 (salvage and thinning activities) support essentially the same tolerance levels for primary cavity excavators. A further comparison is the amount of acres of suitable habitat protected, in either “reserve patches” specifically established for woodpecker species or non-salvage areas established for other reasons, e.g., wilderness protection, RHCA protection or low economic viability. These areas are particularly important to species such as the black-backed and three-toed woodpeckers that may use un-logged burn areas as source habitats to maintain populations across the landscape. Alternative 1 (the No Action Alternative) and Alternative 5 (no salvage or thinning activities) would maintain snag habitats across the entire fire area. Currently, about 8,319 acres of suitable habitat exists in the project area. Under Alternative 2, about 13,465 (79%) acres of burned forested habitat will not be treated in the project area. Under Alternative 3, about 14,475 (85%) acres of burned forested habitat will not be treated in the project area. Under Alternative 4, about 14, 341 (85%) acres of burned forested habitat will not be treated in the project area. Untreated acres for each alternative include the 11,475 acres of burned forested habitat in the Monument Rock Wilderness area. Once the majority of snags fall, cavity excavators would not likely occupy the area, or they would exist at greatly reduced levels. There is no overwhelming conclusion I can draw from the analysis to select between the three snag prescriptions, they all provide similar quality snag habitats for the next 30 year period. Alternative 3 is slightly better; it provides better distribution of snag habitat throughout the project and the most acres of protected habitat. Alternative 4 ranks second since it retains 876 more acres of habitat than Alternative 2. Another factor to consider in managing snags is the risk of blow down and hazard tree cutting during logging operations. The loss of protected snags within the snag clumps inside harvest areas is estimated to be 1 to 2% in Alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative 4 retains the snags in un- harvested patches that would be less affected by wind and would not present a direct hazard during logging. My selection of Alternative 4 balances the need to reduce fuel loading and retain snag habitat. Alternative 4 will retain 85% of the burned forest snag habitat which is comparable to Alternative 3. By leaving the snags in large patches, there is also less risk under Alternative 4 versus Alternatives 2 and 3 that the retained snag habitat may be cut since logging crews are separated from these potential hazard trees and the snags will be less susceptible to wind throw. RHCA Salvage Salvage of dead trees in RHCAs was proposed as a method of reducing future fuel loadings in RHCAs adjacent to the Little Malheur River, and Camp Creek. Under Alternative 2, the proposal was to remove dead trees < 20 inches dbh while leaving dead trees larger than this to provide for future large woody debris (LWD) needs. However, salvage of dead trees < 20 inches dbh in RHCAs could potentially result in a reduction in 18 pools in Camp Creek and 2 pools in the Little Malheur River compared to the No Action Alternative in 5 to 10 years (FEIS Vol.1, p.140). Number of pools under Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 would be the same as the No Action Alternative because salvage would not occur in RHCAs under these alternatives. Salvaging of dead trees < 20 inches dbh in RHCAs as proposed under Alternative 2 would also result in a long-term reduction in the amount of woody debris available to trap 9 fine sediment in Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River from future large erosion events such as wildfires or floods. The presence of woody debris in stream channels in forested ecosystems has been shown to be a major factor in determining the recovery rate of stream channels from large-scale disturbance events such as large fires and floods. Levels of woody debris in Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River under Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 would be the same as the No Action Alternative because salvage would not occur in RHCAs under these alternatives. I selected Alternative 4 because it offers the best protection of RHCAs. The salvage harvest in the RHCAs under Alternative 2 would reduce potential fuel loading in the RHCAs but could not meet the desired fuel loading objective in the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed RHCAs even with additional handpiling. I did not select Alternative 2, since it did not meet this fuels objective and the salvage would impact RHCAs that have historically supported bull trout populations. Commercial Thinning The proposal to commercially thin (green tree harvest) within this large burn drew many negative comments both during scoping and during the review of the DEIS. Many of commenters felt we should retain all live trees to maintain wildlife habitat for such species as pileated and white headed woodpecker, pine martens, and goshawks. Alternative 3 was developed without any thinning to meet this concern. Our primary objective of the thinning is to improve the resiliency to insects, disease, wildlife, and other disturbances in the remaining over stocked green or live stands. Thinning maintains tree vigor by reducing the stocking levels in these stands. This is a standard practice identified in the Malheur Forest Plan. The resiliency treatments described in Alternatives 2 and 4 prescribe both thinning and salvage on approximately 223 acres. These areas burned at lower fire intensities with varying degrees of mortality. The mortality was often high enough to change the pre-fire stand structures. The actual thinning will occur primarily within 76 acres. Mortality was high enough in the remaining 147 acres to limit thinning to scattered pockets; most of the harvest in these areas is salvage (Table 2-8, FEIS Vol.1, p. 60). I feel the effect of thinning on suitable forested wildlife habitat is incidental compared to the need to promote tree vigor in these few remaining green trees. Of the 76 acres of thinning, only 7 acres are considered as suitable habitat for species such as the pileated and white headed woodpeckers and pine martin (FEIS Vol.1, pp. 207 and 208). Thinning also will not change the current stand structure and will not affect cover needs for big game (FEIS Vo.1, p. 215). In the long term, commercial thinning will increase growth of the residual trees and develop a more single story old growth condition, the preferred habitat for white-headed woodpeckers. Stand resiliency will also be promoted that will decrease secondary mortality from insects and disease (FEIS Vol.1.pp. 75-76). Water Quality/Sedimentation Sedimentation and stream temperature problems may partially result from native roads located in riparian areas designed for downhill timber removal. An additional concern expressed in response to the proposed Monument Fire Recovery Project is the risk of increasing stream temperature and sedimentation through salvage logging. Sedimentation In my decision, I considered a number of factors related to the risk of sediment from salvage activities. These include: the total level of activity (e.g., how many acres are 10 being salvage harvested or acres of ground skidding); the logging systems to be used and associated mitigation; the location of activities relative to stream channels; and the erosion hazard and other soil characteristics of the lands being salvaged. The No Action alternative does not include salvage logging or ground disturbing activities and does not present any risk of activity-related sediment. However, it does not correct existing road and old skid trail problems that would decrease long-term fine sediment levels in Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River. Alternative 5 does not include salvage logging but it corrects sedimentation problems identified with existing roads and old skid trails as does Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Alternative 2, 3, and 4 include somewhat different levels of helicopter and tractor skidding. All three alternatives require helicopter yarding in the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed. This area includes approximately 85 to 90% of the salvage and commercial thinning harvest acres in all three alternatives. Alternative 2 includes 601 acres of RHCA salvage harvest using helicopter yarding. There is no RHCA salvage prescribed in Alternatives 3 and 4. Soil disturbance resulting from harvest activities using helicopters will not likely result in an increase in erosion rates. Erosion rates from the fire area are likely to be similar under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 as Alternative 1 after 2004 due to the recovery of herbaceous ground cover. Ground skidding during harvest activities has the greatest potential for creating sedimentation problems. Ground skidding is limited to the Swamp Creek subwatershed for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. No harvest is proposed in any of the RHCAs within Swamp Creek subwatershed for any of the harvest alternatives. The areas to be harvested within Swamp Creek are relatively flat (slopes less than 30%) and contain ash soils having a low to moderate potential for erosion. I selected Alternative 4 because it limits the risk of sedimentation during salvage harvest, decreases long-term fine levels because roads are decommissioned and old skid trail obliterated, and best meets fuels and economic objectives. Stream temperature The Little Malheur River within the project area had elevated stream temperatures prior to the fire, and did not meet State Water Quality Standards for temperature (FEIS Vol.1, p. 132). In some instances, stream temperatures may naturally be above thresholds. In other instances, elevated temperatures may have been the result of prior harvest activities, livestock or wildlife grazing, road construction, or a combination of these activities. The fire further reduced stream shade and, regardless of the alternative selected, stream temperature problems are likely to persist for one or more decades. None of the alternatives considered for the Monument Recovery Project would directly affect stream temperatures. Although there are differences among the alternatives in the stream protection buffer widths, and measurable stream shade. Salvaging dead trees < 20 inches dbh in RHCAs adjacent to Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River as proposed under Alternative 2 will result in small decreases in current shading. However, the decreases are unlikely to result in increases in water temperatures in these streams. Since the No Action alternative relies mainly on natural vegetative recovery, high stream temperatures are expected to persist longer under this alternative than under any other alternative considered. Given the importance of stream temperatures to bull trout and other fish native to the fire area, I have determined that taking action to accelerate vegetative recovery is justified. 11 Economics Recovering the value of fire-killed and dying timber is important for several reasons. First, capturing the economic value of this timber can help offset the cost of fire- related restoration projects such as fuels reduction and maintenance of roads to limit the risk of sedimentation. Second, providing a viable timber sale is important to the local community by providing job opportunities and personal income. While I recognize the importance of economic considerations, and in particular the importance of forestry and forest products in the local economy, it is important to balance the need to promote recovery. The No Action alternative does not meet the purpose and need to provide economic benefits to local communities by harvesting a portion of the fire-killed trees or by initiating long-term recovery, and so I did not find it to be an acceptable alternative (FEIS Vol.1, pp. 275 to 280). Alternative 2 would provide the highest level of jobs and personal income and has the highest present net value followed closely by Alternative 4. I did not select Alternative 2 because it would present a potentially greater impact to fish habitat in the RHCAs than either Alternatives 3 or 4. Alternative 3 has the lowest level of job and personal income of the three harvest alternatives. Alternative 5 would not provide timber harvest-related employment or income, and would not meet the purpose and need to capture economic value of the dead timber by harvesting a portion of the fire-killed trees. All action alternatives including Alternative 5 would generate jobs associated with restoration activities such as tree planting, snag falling, and other projects. Ultimately, in selecting an alternative, economic considerations were important in trying to maintain a viable sale, but were otherwise largely overshadowed by resource considerations. In accelerating ecosystem recovery of the Monument Fire area, I view a timber sale principally as a tool to accomplish resource objectives. My decision to implement Alternative 4 reflects this viewpoint: leaving un-harvested RHCAs to reduce the risk of adverse impacts to streams and aquatic resources; reducing future fuel potential loading; using helicopter logging on steep slopes to protect soils and water quality; and retaining over 300 acres of un-harvested blocks for snag habitat. These components of Alternative 4 all tend to reduce the harvest volume and value of the salvage sale (and thus its economic contribution), but they are also components that I believe will add substantially to the success of the recovery effort. Fuels In my decision, I considered a number of factors related to fuel loading, fuel reduction opportunities, projected future fire effects at different fuel loadings by alternative. Alternatives 1 and 5 would not reduce potential future fuel loadings, which would not meet current Forest Plan direction and would increase the risk of a future high- severity wildfire. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would reduce potential future (10 to 30 years) fuel loadings to desired levels leading to lower fire severity of future wildfires in the project area. Alternative 2 would do the most to reduce fuel loadings since harvest would occur in both upland and RHCAs. The uplands would be reduced to an average of 8 tons per acre within the treatment units, 5-15 tons per acre being the desired range of fuel loading. Alternative 2 would reduce fuel loadings to 26 tons per acre in the Little Malheur River RHCA and 50 tons per acre in the Camp Creek RHCA. The additional post-harvest fuel treatments (hand piling) in the Little Malheur RHCAs would still not meet the desired fuel loading of 15 tons per acre. Handpiling was not a viable option as a post-harvest fuel treatment in the Camp Creek RHCA so the fuel loading would be well above the desired fuel loading. 12 Alternative 3 would reduce fuel loadings to 14 tons per acre in treatment units, due to higher numbers of snags retained in treatment units for benefit of other resource values. Alternative 4 would reduce fuel loadings to an average of 8 tons per acre in treatment units, leaving snag concentrations outside of treatment areas for benefit of other resource values. I selected Alternative 4 because it reduces fuel loadings in treatment areas to a level which would lead to low to moderate fire behavior in a future wildfire event, while maintaining snag patches, sufficient snag habitat and eliminating harvest in RHCAs that could effect stream habitat. Soils In deciding whether or not to actively pursue salvage harvest, reducing the potential for soil erosion and maintaining soil productivity were important considerations from the very beginning of our recovery planning effort. In the original design of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) it was recognized that existing sensitive soil conditions in the Upper Little Malheur subwatershed would be a major erosional problem if any ground skidding was proposed to remove the salvage. To avoid these erosional impacts, helicopter yarding was the only logging system proposed in this subwatershed. All three of the harvest alternatives followed this logging design and have the same minimal risk of surface erosion. This approach was also followed in the design of the associated helicopter log landings and temporary roads for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. All the landings were located in stable upland areas and the new access roads to these landings are limited to 0.4 to 0.6 miles of temporary road. The ground skidding proposed in the Swamp Creek subwatershed in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 was thoroughly analyzed to ensure the risk of surface erosion is minimized. The use of helicopter logging systems was considered in this subwatershed as mitigation to reduce soil impacts and subsequent erosion. Helicopter logging would result in insignificant (less than 1%) amounts of displacement compared to the tractor logging that would increase detrimental soil conditions by 5 to 7%. The tractor logging will be below the 20% standard identified in the Forest Plan. This standard is appropriate for the soils found in the project area (FEIS Vol.1, pp.109 and 122). Conversely, if my only objective were to eliminate any potential of harvest-related soil disturbance and complete only the restoration proposals, I would have selected Alternative 5. Alternative 5 would not salvage dead and dying trees, construct any temporary road, but would decommission roads and obliterate old skid trails. Although Alternative 5 affords soils a high degree of protection, I did not select it because it does not respond fully to the purpose and need for action to recover the potential value of fire- killed and dying trees and does not reduce potential fuel loading. Alternative 1 (No Action) would provide the highest level of down woody material for soil productivity and would not generate any harvest-related soil disturbance. However, the watershed condition class would improve more slowly under Alternative 1 that under the action alternatives. I did not select this alternative because trees would not be planted, increasing the length of time to establish ground cover, roads would not be decommissioned and old skid trails would not be obliterated. If the decision was based solely on erosion potential between the harvest alternatives, Alternative 3 has slight edge with fewest acres of ground skidding and Alternative 2 the worst since there is the most acres of ground skidding. But the different is very slight. In selecting Alternative 4, I have provided a balanced approach for managing the recovery area. This alternative provides for the salvage of dead and dying trees, minimizes harvest-related soil disturbance, 13 and protects and improves watershed health by implementing fire-related restoration projects (FEIS – Chapter 2, page 7). Alternative 4 does the best job of responding to all the elements of the purpose of and need for action while providing a high level of protection for all resources, including soils. Other Public Concerns In addition to the significant issues, concern was expressed during the public scoping and in the comments on the DEIS about salvage harvest within unroaded areas, closure of open roads to motorized vehicles, and the salvage harvest of both dead and dying trees. Unroaded Areas A number of unroaded areas of various sizes ranging from 20 to 1,000 acres were identified by the public that are either contiguous to the roadless Monument Rock Wilderness or within the interior of the project area. Except for the wilderness area there are no inventoried roadless areas within the Upper Little Malheur subwatershed. The Swamp Creek subwatershed contains a large portion of the Glacier Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area and a small inclusion of the Flag Creek Inventoried Roadless Area but are not contained or adjacent to the project area. The IDT carefully analyzed these unroaded areas identified by the public (FEIS Vol.1, pp. 293 to 297) for special management consideration based on current Forest Service direction. This analysis indicated that these unroaded areas did not meet the size standards nor did they contain roadless characteristics for future consideration as a roadless area. I do not feel we are limiting any future management options with salvage harvest in these areas. Road Closures In deciding whether to leave all the roads open or close some roads, I considered the concerns of a variety of users and the impacts of the existing roads on water quality and wildlife habitat. The obvious benefits of leaving all roads open include allowing the maximum access for recreationists, providing current access for range permittees, meeting the needs of the Burns Paiute Tribe for access, and maintaining the current administrative access for future resource management. The adverse impacts of leaving all the roads open include water quality problems associated with sediment production from some roads, reduction of big game security, and increased risk of noxious weed spread by motorized vehicles. In balancing these needs and impacts, I selected Alternative 4. I believe the road closures and decommissioning identified in this alternative maintain adequate access yet correct critical resource problems associated with a number of problem roads (FEIS Vol.1, pp.107, 126, 145, 224, 255, and 269). Approximately 11.8 miles of road will be permanently closed by decommissioning and 7.0 miles will be yearlong gated closures but can be opened when the need arises. Alternatives 2 and 4 included these same closures. Alternative 5 included the same decommissioning but increased the number of gated closures to 16.2 miles. I had the option in my decision to include these additional closures within Alternative 4. However, I decided to forgo these additional closures until access needs for recovery projects such as the tree planting is completed. Following completion of the recovery projects, these closures can be reconsidered. Salvage of Dead and Dying Trees A number of public comments were received relating to our proposal to include the harvest of both dead and dying trees. The concerns were raised that many of these dying trees could survive and should be retained. From the beginning of the project, our silviculturists worked closely with Forest Service scientists from the Blue Mountains Pest Management Center in 14 LaGrande, Oregon to assess which of the fire damage tree were likely to survive. These scientists have developed a rating system that provides an aid in making these survival determinations. (FEIS, Vol.1, pp. 12 and 13) This group from the Pest Center also spent time in the field with the silviculturists on the Monument project area to review some of the damaged stands and go over the rating system. I am confident that by using this rating system that those trees likely to survive will be retained. Changes in Environmental Conditions between the Draft and Final EIS I need to explain a change that developed after the DEIS was completed relating to the higher tree mortality in the low to moderate severity burn areas. Our initial mortality estimates in 2002 were based on burn severity mapping utilizing post-fire aerial photographs, walk through exams, and limited number of stratified stand exams. The following 2003 field season additional field observations and plots were taken to determine mortality in light to moderately burn damaged stands. It was very obvious that mortality is much higher in these stands than originally estimated. The Malheur Forest Staff Silviculturist also verified these higher mortality estimates. The higher mortality levels changed many of the resiliency treatments to salvage treatments in the FEIS. In the DEIS, 844 acres were proposed for commercial thinning or shelterwood harvest in the resiliency treatment areas. This decreased to 223 acres of resiliency treatments in the FEIS identified in Alternative 4 as a result of updated mortality information. The increased mortality made the need for thinning unnecessary in many areas; there are no longer stands with closely spaced trees that will benefit from commercial thinning. Even in the remaining acres identified as resiliency treatments in Alternative 4, the majority of the harvest is salvage with only 76 acres of actual commercial thinning of live trees (see previous discussion in ROD under commercial thinning). This new tree mortality information resulted in a change to the forest structure stage mapping in the light to moderate burn severity areas. Many of the stands were reclassified from young forest multi-stories (YFMS) and old forest multi-storied (OFMS) to understory reinitiation (UR) and stem exclusion – open canopy (SEOC) and stand initiation (SI). Based on the new forest structure information, the estimate of the amount big game cover habitat in the project area was changed. The big game cover estimates in the DEIS were based mainly on walk through field observations by the wildlife biologist during the fall following the fire. The mortality in these stands appeared light with little change from the previous forest structure, the fire severity was generally light to moderate. Many of these stands were originally proposed for commercial thinning in the resiliency treatments. Based on 2003 data, the updated forest structure mapping indicates that there is little marginal cover remaining. Currently many of the dead and dying trees that appear to be live will lose their green canopy. Those trees will not contribute to cover for analysis purposes (FEIS Vol.1, p. 213). In the DEIS, all 844 acres of resiliency treatments were located in forested stands identified as marginal cover in DEIS. We disclosed in the DEIS that in order to implement the commercial thinning a non-significant amendment to the Malheur Plan was needed. Our new estimates used in the FEIS show only 3 acres of marginal cover within the 223 acres of resiliency treatments. Only salvage is permitted in these 3 acres of cover which would not change the marginal cover rating, so an amendment was not needed to implement Alternative 4. 15 Cumulative Effects from Ongoing and Proposed Activities In selecting Alternative 4, I directed the IDT to consider the likely effects of past, present, and future activities (FEIS Vol.1, p. 62) in combination with the proposed activities of the Monument Fire Recovery Project within the Upper Little Malheur and Swamp Creek subwatersheds. Two of the activities, salvage harvest in the Wallowa-Whitman portion of the fire and livestock grazing were special concerns in many of the DEIS comment letters. Our analysis of the Wallowa-Whitman salvage harvest does indicate some limited cumulative effects to wildlife habitat particularly snag habitat (FEIS Vol1., pp. 211 and 212). Approximately 20% of the 24,525 acres will be salvage harvested on either National Forest System lands (Malheur and Wallowa- Whitman or on private land). This still leaves a large area of snag habitat that will be available over the next 10 - 30 years within the Monument Fire area. This effectively limits the cumulative effects of salvage harvest on snag habitats. No cumulative effects to water quality, fish habitat, or soil productivity were identified since these activities occur in a different subwatershed. The Wallowa-Whitman FEIS also considered salvage efforts on the Malheur National Forest’s portion of the Monument Fire, including haul of as much as 5-6 million board feet of timber through the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest’s portion of the fire (Monument Fire Recovery Project Record of Decision -Wallowa- Whitman National Forest). The cumulative effects of grazing were also thoroughly analyzed in respect to seedling survival, effects on sedimentation, fish habitat, sensitive plants, noxious weed spread, and water quality. Grazing practices will follow the Post-Fire Grazing Guidelines (FEIS Vol.2, Appendix G) and the mitigation developed for seedling protection (FEIS Vol.1, p. 53). Following these procedures, cumulative effects will be minimal as described in the FEIS. The large number of other ongoing and proposed actions contributed to my decision to select a balanced resource protective alternative, even though the actual analysis of effects (FEIS, Chapter 3) did not indicate significant cumulative effects. Consultation/Conferencing with USFWS Aquatic Species All alternatives are consistent with the Endangered Species Act (FEIS Vol.2, Appendix C, Aquatic Species Biological Evaluation). All alternatives will have No Effect on bull trout and will not result in adverse modification to proposed critical habitat for bull trout. Based on these effect calls, consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was not necessary. Also based on USFWS’ review of the biological evaluation and supporting information provided in Level 1 team meetings, and field trips to the fire and project areas, USFWS did not object to the Forests' no effect determinations for bull trout or proposed critical habitat for bull trout. Terrestrial Wildlife All alternatives are consistent with the Endangered Species Act (FEIS Vol.2, Appendix D, Wildlife Biological Evaluation). All alternatives will have No Effect on lynx, bald eagles, or gray wolves. Based on these effect calls, consultation with the USFWS was not necessary. Also based on USFWS’ review of the biological evaluation and supporting information provided in Level 1 team meetings, and field trips to the fire and project areas, USFWS did not object to the Forests' no effect determinations for bull 16 trout or proposed critical habitat for bull trout. Plants Surveys show there are no known federally listed threatened or endangered plant species within the project area. No consultation with the regulatory agencies such as the USFWS was needed. Legal Requirements and Policy In reviewing the EIS and actions involved in Alternative 4, I have concluded that my decision is consistent with the following laws and requirements: The Preservation of American Antiquities Act, June 1906 All surveyed and inventoried cultural resource sites in the Monument Fire Project area will be protected from entry and excluded from any resource management activities. New sites discovered during operations will be protected by provisions in the timber sale contract (C6.24#). The National Historic Preservation Act: The Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) SHPO has been consulted concerning proposed activities in the Monument Fire Project area. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) will be consulted about measures to protect significant archaeological sites from adverse affects, should any be identified. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1969 NEPA establishes the format and content requirements of environmental analysis and documentation, such as the Monument Fire Recovery Project. The entire process of preparing an environmental impact statement was undertaken to comply with NEPA. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended Biological Evaluations have been prepared to document possible effects of proposed activities on endangered and threatened species in the Monument Fire area. Appropriate coordination, conferencing, and consultation with USFWS have been completed (See previous section of ROD, Consultation/ Conferencing with USFWS). Clean Air Act Amendments, 1977 The Selected Alternative is designed to meet the National Ambient Air Quality standards through avoidance of practices that degrade air quality below health and visibility standards. The Oregon State Implementation Plan and the Oregon State Smoke Management Plan will be followed to maintain air quality (FEIS Vol.1, p.98). The Clean Water Act, 1982 The Selected Alternative will meet and conform to the Clean Water Act as amended in 1982. This act establishes a non- degradation policy for all federally proposed projects (FEIS Vol.1, p.183). The Selected Alternative meets anti-degradation standards agreed to by the State of Oregon and the Forest Service, Region 6, in a Memorandum of Understanding (Forest Service Manual 1561.5). This will be accomplished through planning, application, and monitoring of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Site- specific BMPs have been designed to protect beneficial uses. Satisfaction of State Forest Worker Safety Codes The Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Code for Forest Activities (OAR 437, Division 6) regulations will be met when the Selected Alternative is implemented. Salvage strategies are designed to provide for worker safety by providing for appropriately sized openings to facilitate safe operation of yarding equipment or by clumping dead trees that are retained. 17 Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice requires federal agencies to identify and address any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low income populations. The analysis focuses on potential effects from the project to minority populations, disabled persons, and low- income groups. Under Alternative 1 (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. Implementing Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 provide a variety of opportunities for potential contracts. The 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. Opportunities for all groups of people to collect species from disturbed and non- disturbed sites would be maintained by all alternatives, and no disproportionate effect is anticipated to subsets of the general population. None of the alternatives would have disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian tribes. Other Policy or Guiding Documentation Biological Evaluations were prepared to assess potential effects to sensitive species as identified by the Regional Forester. This evaluation for aquatic species and terrestrial wildlife determined that while there may be impacts to individual sensitive species, those effects are not likely to contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability of the population or species. The evaluation for plants found that a portion of the road decommissioning project 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 for Listera borealis. To mitigate this effect, prior to any ground disturbing activities associated with the decommissioning resources specialists including the botanist will review and revise if necessary the road plans to ensure these sensitive plant populations are not inadvertently impacted (FEIS Vol.1, p.53). The Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended, provided the framework for the development of all the alternatives. I have reviewed the scientific assessment from the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) and have incorporated principles from it. My decision was based on using active management to restore a burned area that is not capable of self correcting in a time period I find acceptable. Public Participation The NEPA scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7) was used to invite public participation, to refine the scope of this project, and to identify preliminary issues to be addressed. The Forest Service sought information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies, the tribes, and other groups and individuals interested 18 in or affected by the Proposed Action. The scoping period lasted 30 days. The public was provided opportunities to participate in the Monument Fire Recovery Project (FEIS Vol.1, pp.20 and 21). A DEIS was distributed for comment to the tribes, the public, and other organizations and agencies in August 2003. In response to the DEIS, 11 comments were received in a timely manner (FEIS Vol.1, pp. 21 and 302). Responses to these comments are found in Appendix F of the FEIS. The Environmentally Preferable Alternative Under the National Environmental Policy Act, the agency is required to identify the environmentally preferred alternative (40 CFR 1505.2(b)). This is interpreted to mean the alternative that would cause the least damage to the biological and physical components of the environment, and, which bests protects, preserves, and enhances , historic, cultural, and natural resources (Council on Environmental Quality, Forty Most Asked Question Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 FR 18026). Factors considered in identifying this alternative include: (1) fulfilling the responsibility of this generation as trustee of the environment for future generations, (2) providing for a productive and aesthetically pleasing environment, (3) attaining the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, (4) preserving important natural components of the environment, including biodiversity, (5) balancing population needs and resource use, and (6) enhancing the quality of renewable resources. In the case of the Monument Fire Recovery Project, I have determined that the environmentally preferable alternatives are Alternatives 3 and 4 based on these six factors. Long-term, Alternative 3 combines the best fire restoration activities with the lowest risk of additional watershed damage to protect this fragile environment for future generations. Road decommissioning and skid trail obliteration corrects a number of known sediment problems; salvage harvest reduces potential down fuels with the fewest acres of ground skidding, and includes a large amount of tree planting between the alternatives. In the short term, the No Action alternative and Alternative 5 offer the least risk of sedimentation that effects water quality but does nothing to reduce severity of future fires since there is no salvage harvest. The No Action also does not include road decommissioning or skid trail obliteration. Alternatives 4 is similar to Alternative 3, but has a slightly greater risk of sedimentation due to a larger number of acres of ground skidding. Alternative 2 provides the highest sedimentation risk and includes harvest in riparian areas that could affect fish habitat (number of pools). All the alternatives maintain the aesthetic visual integrity standards in the Forest Plan, and provide a safe environment in the short- term. Long term as the dead trees fall to the ground near open roads, the risk to public safety will increase the most with Alternatives 1 and 5 since no salvage harvest would occur along roads. During high winds, the trees could blow over on vehicles or dispersed recreation sites, though this is a low probability. Alternative 2, 3, and 4 equally minimize this safety risk. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 plant and reforest a higher percentage of the area restoring at a faster rate the aesthetics and productivity of the burned area. Alternatives 3 and 4 utilize the dead and dying timber for beneficial economic uses, provide long-term benefits of fuels reduction and reforestation activities and include less environmental risks and still provide for wildlife needs compared to Alternatives 2. Alternative 4 increases the likelihood the large snag patches will be retained longer by 19 separating the logging crews from the potential hazard trees and providing protection from wind throw. Alternatives 1 and 5 retain all the dead and dying trees that in the short to mid-term are providing the best beneficial wildlife snag habitat use but does not address long-term fuel reduction. Preservation of the known cultural resource sites are also an important factor. Since no activities are proposed under Alternative 1, it offers the best protection of the 19 identified cultural resource sites within the project area. Alternative 2, 3, 4, and 5 strictly avoid ground disturbance to these sites that also provides adequate protection. The balancing of population and resource use needs is similar for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Alternative 2 and 4 provide the greatest economic value from the dead and dying timber by providing jobs and logs to timber companies while still protection the environment. Alternative 3 captures less economic value while providing protection to critical resource values such as water quality and fish habitat. Alternatives 1 and 5 do not capture the economic value of dead and dying timber. The quality of the forested landscape will be improved in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 by promoting the recovery of burned forest by planting the most acres and reducing future potential fuels. In conclusion, upon full consideration of the elements of Section 101 of NEPA, the Alternatives 3 and 4 represent the environmentally preferable alternatives for the Monument Fire Recovery Project. Design Measures/Mitigation Measures Design measures and mitigation are site- specific management activities designed to reduce the adverse impacts of timber harvest and associated activities. These measures will be implemented through project design and layout, contract specifications, contract administration, and monitoring by Forest Service officers. As part of my decision, I am choosing to implement these design and mitigation measures identified in the FEIS (FEIS Vol.1, pp.46-53). I am confident that these selected measures will adequately prevent adverse effects for the following reasons: the selected mitigation measures are practices we have used successfully in the past; they are State-recognized best management practices for protecting water quality; or they are based on current research (e.g., the snag management approach). I have decided to monitor the implementation of these measures and, in some instances, to monitor their effectiveness, as described in the following section. Monitoring Monitoring of the Monument Fire Recovery Project is designed to accomplish three purposes: 1) to assure that all aspects of the project are implemented as intended; 2) to determine, for certain critical activities, that the effects of the activities are consistent with the intent; and 3) to allow adaptation if it is found that activities are not being implemented correctly or are not having the desired effects. For example, if monitoring watershed conditions indicates unexpected or excessive sediment transport to streams, the result of that monitoring would be used to add more mitigation, such as additional sediment traps; implement seasonal or emergency closures; or modify or delay activities. Additional details of the monitoring items are found in the FEIS Vol.1, pp. 54 and 55. Forest Plan Consistency While I believe Alternative 4 to be consistent with long term management objectives as discussed in the Malheur National Forest Plan, there are two aspects of Alternative 4 that are inconsistent with existing standards and guidelines. In order to permit prompt and necessary fuels 20 reduction activities, I have decided to amend two Forest Plan standards for this specific project: 1. Snag distribution will not be on a 40 acre basis. 2. Identify new Designated Old Growth areas. Non-Significant Forest Plan Amendment #57 The purpose of the non-significant amendment is to allow for short-term management activities that are not consistent with current Forest Plan direction for snag distribution and dedicated old growth designation. Snag Distribution Alternative 4 was designed specifically to leave higher levels of snag habitat and in a distribution pattern designed to increase cavity excavator habitat for species such as the black-backed woodpecker and to increase the likelihood the large snag patches will be retained longer by separating the logging crews from the potential hazard trees and providing additional protection from wind throw. By distributing the snag patches on a unit basis for better utilization by the species, and not a 40-acre block basis, we may not meet Forest Wide Standard and Guideline #39. Alternative 4 would include the following site-specific, non-significant amendment to Forest Wide Standard and Guideline #39. “For the Monument Fire Recovery Project, within the project area, snags will be retained in untreated patches sufficient to provide prescribed levels of snags at a landscape level.” Dedicated Old Growth Alternative 4 was designed, in part, to replace a Dedicated Old Growth (DOG) that is now unsuitable due to the fire. It is my decision to amend Management Area designations to relocate DOG and ROG 04334PP to an area outside the fire perimeter and convert the original acres in DOG/ROG 04334, now Dedicated Old Growth, Management Area 13 to General Forest, MA-1 or Big Game Winter Range, MA-4A. My decision also includes re- delineating DOG and ROG 04345PP to a location that better meets direction in the Forest Plan for suitable habitat for either the pileated woodpecker or pine martin. A portion of ROG 04345PP was also affected by the fire. DOG 04345PP will remain in approximately the same location and retain the same acres of MA 13. The size of ROG 04335PP is reduced but remain in the same location. Much of this area is now identified as a pileated woodpecker feeding area allocated as either MA 1 or MA 4A. The current and new locations of the DOGs and ROGs can be seen in Figure 15, FEIS Vol.1. Table 1.1 identifies the total change in re- delineation of the two DOGs and ROGs. These acres include not only MA 13 acres but also MA 22A (North Fork River Scenic River plan) and MA 3A/RHCA (riparian areas). All three of these management areas comprise the old growth habitat even though it is not totally identified MA 13. The Malheur Plan management areas are based on a hierarchy by priority of management (Malheur Forest Plan, IV-46). Management Areas 22A and MA 3A/RHCA have a higher priority than MA 13. Two additional areas adjacent to these DOGs and ROGs are also being identified as pileated woodpecker feeding areas (PPFA) and maintain their original Forest Plan management allocation. The two PPFA areas include a total of 811 acres providing suitable foraging habitat to meet Forest Plan direction. Tables 1.2 and 1.3 identify the change in management area allocation. The DOGs and ROGs are being re-located into areas that are currently allocated to different management areas. In summary, the following Management Area changes from the current DOG and ROG include: MA 1 increase by 1,145 acres; MA 4A increases 21 by 114 acres, MA 13 decreases by 1,173 acres; MA 14F (Visual Corridor Foreground) increases by 24 acres; and MA 14M (Visual Corridor Middleground) decreases by 49 acres. A map and data tables for the MA changes are contained in the Wildlife Specialist report of the Project File. These designations will increase the total acres of DOG by 71 acres, and decrease the ROGs by 938 acres (see Table 1.1). The increase and decrease is due to the size of the available forest stands in the new areas that have mature or old growth habitat, it is best we could achieve. The structural forest stages needed for this old growth habitat is generally old forest multiple strata (OFMS) and young forest multiple strata (YFMS). Post-fire, there is essentially no mature or old growth habitat remaining that meets pileated woodpecker, pine marten or three- toed woodpecker habitat requirements based on the current Forest Plan guidelines. The DOG and ROG 04334 areas and a portion of ROG 4345PP are no longer functioning as old growth. Stands have been converted to understory re-initiation (UR) and stand initiation (SI) structural stages. Past timber harvest in other portions of ROG 4345PP have converted the stand structures to SI. The relocation of Dedicated Old Growth (DOGs) and relocation/designation of Replacement Old Growth (ROGs) should better maintain the integrity of the Forest’s old growth network. Table 1.1 Total Acres of DOG and ROG (Current and New) Designation Current (Acres) New (Acres) Net Change (Acres) Dedicated Old Growth 04334PP 504 575 +71 Replacement Old Growth 04334PP 334 356 +22 Dedicated Old Growth 04345PP 410 410 0 Replacement Old Growth 04345PP 1,254 294 -960 Table 1.2 - Current Management Area Allocations for the combined DOGs and ROGs; DOG and ROG 04334PP and 04335PP. Forest Plan Allocation (Acres) 1 4A 13 14F 14M 22 & 3A/RHCA DOGs 276 0 1048 13 47 511 ROGs 46 0 1424 36 60 672 TOTAL 322 0 2472 49 107 1183 Table 1.3 - New Management Area Allocations for the combined DOGs and ROGs; DOG and ROG 04334PP and 04335PP. Forest Plan Allocation (Acres) 1 4A 13 14F 14M 22 & 3A/RHCA DOGs 272 114 1001 0 0 511 ROGs 1195 0 298 73 0 672 TOTAL 1467 114 1299 73 0 1183 22 Determination that the Forest Plan Amendment is Not Significant under NFMA I have determined that this amendment is not a significant amendment under the National Forest Management Act implementing regulations [36 CFR 219.10(f)]. In reaching this conclusion, I considered the following factors [from Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12]: Timing - A change is less likely to result in a significant plan amendment if the change takes place after the plan period (first decade). The proposed changes are taking place after the first decade of the current 1990 plan, but will be enacted before the next scheduled revision. The next scheduled revision of the Malheur Forest Plan has begun with an anticipated completion date of 2007. Therefore, the timing of the two changes in this amendment is not significant because of how late this change is occurring under current Forest Plan direction. Location and Size – The smaller the area affected, the less likely the change is to be a significant change to the Forest Plan. The Monument Fire impacted 20,186 acres on the Malheur National Forest (1,467,473 acres). The snag distribution portion of the amendment affects 3,344 acres that are in harvest units in the Monument Fire Project Area or less than 0.02 percent of the National Forest System Lands covered by the Malheur Forest Plan. The snag distribution analysis was done using the DecAID tool. It is unlikely that application of information in DecAID in the Monument Fire area will lead to a blanket snag strategy applied uniformly over the Forest. Snag prescriptions are based on site-specific information such as biophysical environment, productivity and capability of the land to produce trees, and existing snag levels and distribution at the landscape level. Changes in any of these variables would result in a different snag prescription. For example, in a non-fire situation in dry forest types, the snag levels would likely be much lower. This amendment is non-significant because it applies only to this fire area and each situation requires a site-specific application. This amendment will increase the total acres of DOG by 71 acres, and decrease ROG by 938 acres. The result is a total decrease of 1,173 acres in MA-13 (see table 1.2). This does match the increases and decreases in DOG and ROG acres since portions of new management allocation is within MA22A and MA3A/RHCAs (see table 1.2). The North Fork Watershed encompasses approximately 110,370 acres and the Little Malheur Watershed 86,700 acres, of which 65% is National Forest System land; the total acreage change is less than 1% of the total watershed acreage. Since their size change (less than 1%) is a small percentage of the watershed area, the location and size of this amendment is not significant when compared with the Forest as a whole. Replacement of DOG 04334PP and associated ROG would result in the “movement” of that habitat designation into another watershed, approximately 6 linear miles west of its current location. This would change the landscape distribution of old growth habitat within the North Fork Malheur River and Little Malheur River watersheds. This new location was the only location of suitable old growth habitat, due to similar fire events in the last 10 years in the North Fork Malheur River watershed, past timber harvest, and the proximity to private lands to the south. Goals, Objectives, and Outputs – An action is more likely to be a significant Forest Plan amendment if it alters the long- term relationship between the levels of goods and services projected by the Forest Plan and particularly if it would forego the opportunity to achieve an output in later years. The amendments are part of my decision to accelerate recovery of the fire area, and do not change any goals and objectives stated in the Forest Plan. 23 Leaving un-harvested snags patches across the fire area will better meet the needs of burned habitat dependent species. The use of DecAID provides a strategy for this area that uses site-specific data and results in a prescription that is tailored to the capabilities of the plant association groups found in the fire area. The manipulation of DOG and ROG will implement the direction found at IV-105 in the Forest Plan. The increase of General Forest acres (MA 1) by 1,145 acres from the current total of approximately 543,193 is about a 0.2 percent Forest-wide acreage change. The decrease of Dedicated Old Growth acres (MA13) by 1,173 acres from the current total of approximately 81,294 is about a 1.4% Forest-wide acreage change. The incidental acreage increases of Big Game Winter Range (4A), 114 acres and Visual Corridor Foreground (14F), 14 acres and decrease of Visual Corridor Middleground (MA14M), 49 acres have a smaller effect on the Forest-wide change. There is a relationship between MA 1 acres and the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) under the current Forest Plan; however, the increase in acres does not mean that there will be a corresponding increase in ASQ. The Forest Plan does allow scheduled timber harvest in ROGs that “maintain or enhance the capability of timber stands to provide suitable old-growth habitat in the future” (Forest Plan, page IV-106). I have also considered these increases of MA1 and decreases of MA 13 in relation to the cumulative effects of other changes from the other 56 amendments to the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan estimated 553,053 acres of MA 1 with this decision, there will be approximately 544,338 acres. This is approximately 1.6 percent cumulative change in MA 1. The Forest Plan estimated 72,690 acres of MA 13 with this decision, there will be approximately 80,121 acres. This is approximately a 10 percent cumulative change in MA 13. As the Chief determined in his September 10, 1984 appeal decision for the San Juan and Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest plans, there is no assurance that projected Forest Plan outputs will occur due to limitation of modeling, changes in law and regulations, changes in economic conditions, changes in budgets, site-specific conditions, and other situations. Therefore, this increase of MA 1 and decrease of MA 13 is an insignificant change to the potential timber output or other services for the Malheur National Forest. Management Prescriptions – A change is more likely to require a significant amendment if it would apply to future decisions throughout the planning area. The amendment associated with Alternative 4 is just for this project. The changes would not affect future actions. The change in snag densities applies only to this planning effort. The changes would not affect future action and meets the desired future conditions for snag habitat by providing conditions that more closely resemble levels found in these plant association groups. Although the changes to the DOG and ROG will apply to future management in and immediately adjacent to the planning area, it will not alter the desired future condition of the land and resources, standards and guidelines, or the anticipated goods and services to be produced. The decision complies with Forest Plan standards for MA 13. It will also contribute to Forest Plan goals to maintain or enhance ecosystem functions and provide connective and old growth habitat for old growth dependent species. The planned activities will not detract from or jeopardize any of the Forest Plan goals because of the small magnitude of change, about a 0.2 percent increase in MA 1 acreage and a 1.4 percent decrease in MA 13 Forest-wide. This change is insignificant. Other Factors - After review of the environmental impact statement and project 24 record, I have determined that there are no other factors or unique circumstances affecting the Forest Plan from this amendment. Since I have determined that there is not significant change based on the factors, I conclude that this amendment is not a significant change to the overall Forest Plan direction as defined in the 1990 Malheur Land and Resource Management Plan and its Record of Decision, as amended. Therefore, an environmental impact statement for a forest plan revision following the 10 step planning process found at 36 CFR 219.12 does not need to be prepared. Consistency with NFMA Requirements In all other respects, I find this decision to be consistent with the Malheur Forest Plan and with the requirements of the National Forest Management Act implementing regulations; specifically: Silvicultural Practices In Alternative 4, there is no timber salvage on lands classified as unsuitable for timber production. Forest Plan amendment #57 (described above) makes this possible by re- designating areas of MA-13 (classified “unsuitable”), allowing harvest in previously unsuitable areas. Alternative 4, in conjunction with Forest plan amendment #57 is consistent with 36 CFR 219.27(c)(1). Even-aged Management/Clearcutting The Selected Alternative includes reforestation and salvage of timber killed by a catastrophic wildfire. According to the requirements of 36 CFR 219.27(d) and 16 USC 1604(k), the limits on opening size do not apply because the opening is a result of natural catastrophic conditions. The reforestation of the openings will result in even-aged stands where the fire killed all the live trees. Vegetative Manipulation/Management Requirements The selected action is consistent with the seven management requirements from 36 CFR 219.27 and the vegetation requirements from 36 CFR 219.27(b). Maintaining Viable Populations of Fish and Wildlife Species The selected action is consistent with the viable population requirements of 36 CFR 219.19. Implementation I have reviewed the Monument Fire Recovery Project FEIS and their associated appendices. I feel there is adequate information within these documents to provide a reasoned choice of action. I am fully aware of the possible adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided, and the irreversible/irretrievable commitment of resources associated with the Selected Alternative. I have determined that these risks will be outweighed by the likely benefits. Implementing the Selected Alternative will cause no unacceptable cumulative impact to any resource. There will be no significant impact to cultural resources, consumers, civil rights, minority groups, or women. The FEIS adequately documents how compliance with these requirements is achieved (FEIS Vol.1, Chapter 3). The implementation schedule for Alternative 4 is identified in the FEIS Vol.1, p. 46. For some activities, the rate of implementation may vary depending on funding received. An emergency situation status was granted on April 9, 2004, the implementation schedule for the salvage harvest in the FEIS reflects this plan based in this administrative exemption. Harvest activities on the entire selected alternative will be implemented immediately. 25 Correction to the FEIS Since publishing the FEIS I have noted a few minor corrections I would like to make. The first is in the Decision Framework section of Chapter 1 FEIS Vol.1, p.20. Two corrections are necessary: 1.) There is no 45 day comment period to the FEIS. This wording was a hold over from when the Draft EIS was published; and 2.) Alternative 2 and 4 do not require a non- significant Forest Plan amendment for reduction of cover because these alternatives no longer affect big game cover. This was a change from the DEIS to the FEIS because of updated tree mortality estimates (FEIS Vol.1, p. 215, and Changes in Environmental Conditions between the Draft and Final section, ROD p. 15) The last correction is within Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study, (FEIS, Vol.1, p. 34) section. In the second alternative considered but eliminated, the first sentence should read “Winter logging and helicopter yarding was considered as an alternative to tractor skidding within the Swamp Creek subwatershed” not the Upper Little Malheur subwatershed. The entire Upper Little Malheur subwatershed was considered as helicopter yarding only for all the harvest alternatives. Procedure for Change during Implementation Minor changes may be needed during implementation to better meet on-site resource management and protection objectives. In determining whether and what kind of further NEPA action is required, the Responsible Official will consider the criteria for whether to supplement an existing Environmental Impact Statement in 40 CFR 1502.9(c) and FSH 1909.15, sec. 18, and in particular, whether the proposed change is a substantial change to the intent of the Selected Alternative as planned and already approved, and whether the change is relevant to environmental concerns. Connected or interrelated proposed changes regarding particular areas or specific activities will be considered together in making this determination. The cumulative impacts of these changes will also be considered. The intent of field verification prior to my decision was to confirm inventory data and to determine the feasibility and general design and location of a road or unit, not to locate the final boundaries or road locations. For example, salvage unit prescriptions may be modified if site conditions dictate and if other resource objectives can be met. Minor adjustments to unit boundaries may be needed during final layout for resource protection, to improve logging system efficiency, and to better meet the intent of my decision. Many of these minor changes will not present sufficient potential impacts to require any specific documentation or action to comply with applicable laws. Appeal Rights Organizations or members of the general public may appeal my decision according to Title 36 CFR Part 215. The 45-day appeal period begins the day following the date the legal notice of this decision is published in the Blue Mountain Eagle, John Day, Oregon, the official newspaper of record. The Notice of Appeal must be filed with the Reviewing Officer at: Appeal Deciding Officer Pacific Northwest Region USDA Forest Service Attn. 1570 Appeals 333 S.W. First Avenue PO Box 3623 Portland, OR 97208-3623 26 Appeals can also be filed electronically at :appeals-pacificnorthwest- regionaloffice@fs.fed.us. or hand delivered to the above address between 7:45 AM and 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday except legal holidays. The appeal must be postmarked or delivered within 45 days of the date the legal notice for this decision appears in the Blue Mountain Eagle newspaper. The publication date of the legal notice in the Blue Mountain Eagle newspaper is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal and those wishing to appeal should not rely on dates or timeframes provided by any other source. Electronic appeals must be submitted as part of the actual e-mail message, or as an attachment in Microsoft Word (.doc), rich text format (.rtf) or portable document format (.pdf) only. E-mails submitted to e- mail addresses other than the one listed above or in other formats than those listed or containing viruses will be rejected. Only individuals or organizations who submitted substantive comments during the comment period may appeal. It is the responsibility of those who appeal a decision to provide the Regional Forester sufficient written evidence and rationale to show why my decision should be changed or reversed. The appeal must be filed with the Appeal Deciding Officer § 215.8 in writing. At a minimum, an appeal must include the following: 1. Appellant's name and address (§ 215.2), with a telephone number, if available; 2. Signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for electronic mail may be filed with the appeal); 3. When multiple names are listed on an appeal, identification of the lead appellant (§ 215.2) and verification of the identity of the lead appellant upon request; 4. The name of the project or activity for which the decision was made, the name and title of the Responsible Official, and the date of the decision; 5. The regulation under which the appeal is being filed, when there is an option to appeal under either this part or part 251, subpart C (§ 215.11(d)); 6. Any specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks and rationale for those changes; 7. Any portion(s) of the decision with which the appellant disagrees, and explanation for the disagreement; 8. Why the appellant believes the Responsible Official’s decision failed to consider the substantive comments and; 9. How the appellant believes the decision specifically violates law, regulation, or policy. On April 9, 2004, Forest Service Regional Forester, Linda Goodman determined the Monument Fire Recovery Project to be an emergency situation and exempted it from stay pursuant to 36 CFR 215.10. This means that my decision may be implemented immediately following publication in the Blue Mountain Eagle, the newspaper of record. This emergency exemption is based on the economic value the government would lose if the project was delayed during the appeal period. The value loss is estimated at over $1,977,000. The exemption from stay during the appeal period applies to the entire harvest area. 27 Contact Persons For additional information concerning the specific activities authorized with my decision, you may contact: Ryan Falk Brooks Smith District Environmental Coordinator District Ranger Prairie City Ranger District Prairie City Ranger District P.O. Box 337 P.O. Box 337 Prairie City, OR 97869 Prairie City, OR 97869 (541) 820-3800 (541) 820-3800 28 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service R6-MAL-04-003 March 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement Monument Fire Recovery Project and Proposed Non Significant Forest Plan Amendments Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest Grant and Baker Counties, Oregon Volume I Monument Fire Recovery Project EIS - Key Acronyms BAER Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation BMP Best Management Practices CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CWD Coarse Woody Debris DecAID Decayed Wood Advisor DBH Diameter at Breast Height DOG Dedicated Old Growth EA Environmental Assessment EIS (DEIS or FEIS) Environmental Impact Statement (Draft or Final) HEI Habitat Effectiveness Index HRV Historical Range of Variability IDT Interdisciplinary Team INFISH Inland Native Fish Strategy LWD Large Woody Debris MA Management Area MIS Management Indicator Species MMBF Million Board Feet NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NFMA National Forest Management Act of 1976 NFS National Forest System PAG Plant Association Group PETS Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive species PFA Goshawk Post-fledgling Area PVG Potential Vegetation Group RHCA Riparian Habitat Conservation Area ROG Replacement Old Growth ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum SHPO State Historic Preservation Office The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. MONUMENT FIRE RECOVERY Project and Proposed Non Significant Forest Plan Amendments Final Environmental Impact Statement Grant and Baker Counties, Oregon Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Responsible Official: Roger Williams, Forest Supervisor Malheur National Forest P. O. Box 909 John Day, Oregon 97845 For Information Contact: Ryan Falk, Planner Prairie City Ranger District P. O. Box 337 Prairie City, Oregon 97869 541-820-3311 Abstract: This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) describes the effects of implementing five alternatives for recovery of National Forest System land and forest that burned in 2002 on the Malheur National Forest. The project is south of the Monument Rock Wilderness, east of the John Day valley, in northeastern Oregon. The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) would: 1.) reduce upland fuels available to future wildland fires by removing fire-killed trees through harvest on approximately 3,344 acres, 2.) increase resiliency of residual timber stands, 3.) retain trees and coarse woody debris for site protection, wildlife and soil 4.) replace a dedicated old growth and replacement old growth areas damaged by the fire, 5.) improve watershed conditions and reduce road-related impacts, and 6.) salvage economic value of dead and dying trees. Watershed improvements in the form of road maintenance, decommissioning and old skid trail rehabilitation would also take place. Trees would be planted on about 5,322 acres. Two Forest Plan amendments are proposed to re-delineate old growth area and implement the strategy to retain snags. Alternative 2 would capture greater economic value by harvesting dead/dying trees and accomplish more fuel reduction across the landscape (including riparian areas). Alternative 3 would accomplish less salvage of the economic value and fuels reduction, but offers no increase in resiliency of the live trees, and provide another strategy to retain snags for wildlife habitat. Alternative 5 would include only watershed improvement projects and tree planting. Alternative 5 would not salvage any economic value, would not increase green tree resiliency, and would not reduce fuels. Key issues identified during scoping included, reduction of wildlife snags, effects on water quality, harvest of green trees, economic salvage opportunities, fuels reduction, and detrimental soil impacts. Emergency Situation Determination: The Forest Supervisor is in the process of seeking a determination from the Regional Forester that an emergency situation exists in the Monument Fire Recovery Project pursuant to 36 CFR 215.10 (b). This emergency situation exists because substantial loss of economic value to the Federal Government would occur if implementation of the decision were delayed through another summer of checking. The final determination by the Regional Forester will be published in the Record of Decision, 36 CFR 215.10(d). Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Summary Summary Monument Fire Recovery Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Introduction On July 12, 2002, a series of large thunderstorms passed through the Blue Mountains of Eastern Oregon and ignited numerous fires on the Malheur National Forest, including the Monument Fire in the Little Malheur River basin. There were several days of high daytime temperatures with strong northerly winds, increased fire activity and expansion of the fire into the Little Malheur River basin. By July 14th, the fire had grown and spread onto the Unity Ranger District on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. The Monument Fire was declared contained on September 9, 2002, and controlled on December 31, 2002. Approximately 24,525 total acres burned in the Monument Fire, 20,186 acres (82%) on the Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest, 3,711 acres (15%) on the Unity Ranger District, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, and 628 acres (3%) on private land (figures 1 and 2, Map Section). The Monument Fire Recovery Project Area refers to approximately 8,588 acres of the Monument Fire that burned on the Prairie City Ranger District outside the Monument Rock Wilderness, Malheur National Forest A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was released for public review in July 2003. The DEIS was mailed to over 95 individuals, organizations, and agencies for a 45- day public review and comment period. The Malheur National Forest received 11 timely comments on the DEIS. Following review of the comments, the Forest prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The following is a summary of the FEIS. Purpose and Need for Action The six purposes and needs for action in the Monument Fire Recovery Project area are: • Fuels: Reduce levels of dead and dying standing and down fuel, to reduce the potential for future high-severity fires and restore a low-intensity/ frequent-fire regime. • Forest Vegetation Structure: Improve forest vegetation resilience to insects, disease, wildfire, and other disturbances; restore ecologically appropriate structural and compositional characteristics of upland and riparian vegetation. • Forest Vegetation: Restore tree vegetation for wildlife habitat, stream shade, and for future timber products. • Old Growth: Replace dedicated old-growth (DOG) and replacement old- growth (ROG) areas that burned and are no longer in suitable old-growth condition. Re-delineate an additional dedicated old-growth area and replacement old-growth area impacted by the fire, to bring them in compliance and direction with the Malheur Forest Plan. • Water Quality: Improve watershed condition and reduce road-related impacts. Recommendations from the Monument Roads Analysis report include (1) decommissioning specific roads and old skid trails that are contributing Summary- 1 Summary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS sediment and concentrating flows, resulting in adverse impacts to water quality and native fish habitat, and (2) reducing road densities where deer and elk security habitat has been affected by the fire. • Economics: Capture the economic value of those trees that are surplus to other resource needs, and to provide raw materials and jobs to aid in community stability. This action is needed in order to comply with the goals and objectives outlined in the 1990 Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), which guides natural resource management activities and establishes management standards for lands administered by the Malheur National Forest. Needs for the proposed action are derived from the differences between current conditions and desired conditions. Desired conditions are based on Forest Plan direction and management objectives. The proposed action is designed to move resource conditions closer to desired conditions and address management direction provided by the Malheur Forest Plan as amended. The two broad categories of purpose for the project are: the acceleration of ecosystem restoration and timely commodity extraction. Each of the existing and desired conditions relevant to providing improved conditions and accomplishing commodity extraction for jobs and income can be linked to the purpose for the proposed action. Proposed Action (Alternative 2) The proposed action is an alternative developed early in the NEPA planning process to accomplish the six purposes and needs, and goals described above based on the best information available at the time. It is the first alternative offered and is used to identify issues and develop other alternatives for further study. The following treatments were developed to meet the six purposes and needs identified by the interdisciplinary team. Fuel Loads/Economics Salvage Treatment The Salvage Treatment addresses the need to reduce future fuel levels and capture economic value of a portion of trees killed in the Monument Fire. Approximately 3,451 acres are proposed for salvage harvest. These areas generally burned with higher severities (high end of the moderate, to severe burn-severities). The fire in these areas is described as stand-replacement, with a limited number of trees expected to survive the fire. Only dead and dying trees would be removed. Treatment boundaries incorporate non-forest areas such as grassland and shrubland. These non- forest areas have scattered dead and dying trees, and would be excluded from harvest. Wildlife snag habitat would be retained throughout the landscape. Green trees of all sizes and species (expected to survive the fire), would be retained. Residual fuels such as tops and limbs left on site would be lopped and scattered to place them in contact with the ground. This slash retention would reduce erosion potential and initiate the decomposition process. Harvest landing slash would be piled and burned. Trees of appropriate species (primarily ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and western larch) would be planted in areas treated. Summary - 2 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Summary Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) Salvage Treatment The objective of the RHCA Salvage Treatment is to remove excess (outside the desired range) standing fuel in the RHCA that may contribute to future high-severity fires. Approximately 601 acres of salvage is proposed in RHCAs in the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek drainages within the Little Malheur watershed. This includes 400 acres of salvage in the Category 1 streams that are fish bearing, 21 acres in RHCA Category 2, and 180 acres in Category 4. The RHCA zones would become more resilient to future fire events as these areas re-vegetate and recover. Other objectives include reforestation of RHCAs that burned with higher severities to enhance recovery of forested vegetation in these zones. Activities are not proposed for RHCAs in the North Fork Malheur watershed, because these RHCAs did not burn with the same severities as those in the Little Malheur and Camp Creek drainages. Forest Vegetation Structure Resiliency Treatment The Resiliency Treatment meets the need to improve residual timber stand resilience to insects, disease, wildfire, and other disturbances, and restore ecologically appropriate structural and compositional characteristics of the remaining live upland vegetation. Approximately 223 acres of timber harvest and 382 acres of precommercial thinning are proposed for Resiliency Treatment. Due to lack of old-forest structure within the Monument Fire Project Area, Resiliency Treatment activities will focus on accelerating development of large trees and future old-forest structures, and maintaining existing old- forest structures in either old-forest multistory structure or old-forest single-story structure, which will provide for old-growth-dependent species needs. This treatment would be applied in a portion of the area that burned with light to lower- end moderate intensity. This locale was selected because it has a manageable/desirable overstory that will likely survive the effects of the Monument Fire. A dominant mature/old ponderosa pine component exists in the overstory, sometimes mixed with the presence of mature Douglas-fir, western larch, and the occasional mature grand fir. The goal of the Resiliency Treatment is to mimic historic vegetation conditions while meeting wildlife habitat needs, and improving resilience to damage from insects and disease. The Resiliency Treatment would primarily includes salvage of dead and commercial thinning of the residual live trees, by applying a commercial thinning. The treatment would retain live/green trees greater than 21 inches in diameter and would target retaining other desirable live trees in the 12 to 20 inch diameter range. The prescription would thin live trees less than 21 inches in diameter, and salvage most of the dead. A more open structure (similar to old-forest single-story condition) would result in some areas, while in other areas a more open multiple-canopy condition (similar to young- forest multistory or old-forest multistory structure) would result. Snags would be retained to meet wildlife habitat needs across the landscape. Larger diameter snags (greater than 21 inches DBH) are the most desirable to retain, although smaller diameter classes would also be retained. In some of these stands, precommercial thinning would take place to reduce stocking of smaller trees. Trees of appropriate species (primarily Summary- 3 Summary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and western larch) would be planted in treated areas, where needed to meet stocking level and habitat diversity requirements. Forest Vegetation Reforestation Treatment Approximately 5,322 acres of conifer tree planting would be completed throughout the project area to speed reforestation of burned areas. These acres include harvest areas, non-harvest understocked areas, plantations, and young thinning units that were burned in the Monument Fire. Following the planting, protection of seedlings from big-game browsing would be required. Big Game Repellent (BGR) would be applied periodically to seedlings. Water Quality Road Restoration and Skid Trail Obliteration Several miles road closures and road decommissioning are proposed to reduce negative impacts to water quality, fish habitat, and wildlife habitat. • Road closure (gates) – 7.0 miles • Road decommissioning – 11.8 miles The primary emphasis for road closures, and decommissioning is to minimize road- related sediment delivery to water sources. The objective is to minimize road effects on interception and to prevent concentration of runoff or precipitation. Roads proposed for decommissioning have structural damage and are unsafe for travel or are not drivable. Many of the roads are located adjacent to or near the channel, are sloughing into the channel, or have major erosion problems due to steep grades. On these roads some of the culverts have been removed, rocks partially block access, and trees have blocked access. These roads will not be used for salvage or regeneration activities identified in the proposed action. Roads identified in the Roads Analysis (Monument Recovery Roads Analysis, July 2003) would remain open and allow for alternate access. Road closures would be year-long and will be gated to restrict motorized vehicles. Gated roads will restrict access and limit disturbance to wildlife. Approximately 2.2 miles of old skid trail obliteration activities are proposed. Low ground pressure equipment and handwork would be used to return these affected areas to as natural a condition as possible. Returning the skid trail surface to the original contour or out-sloping would return the water to the channel, slow runoff, and increase infiltration. Wood placements would filter additional sediment, and mulching and seeding would be applied as needed. Old Growth Habitat (Forest Plan Management Area 13) Dedicated Old-Growth(DOG) and Replacement Old-Growth Areas(ROG) • The re-delineation or designation of suitable late-and-old-structure (LOS) habitats to replace DOG and ROG 04334PP that no longer meet forest old growth structure condition. • Re-delineation of replacement old-growth areas to incorporate suitable LOS or older structure stands, to provide suitable replacement areas for associated DOGs 04334PP and 04345PP and bring them into compliance with the Forest Plan. Pileated Woodpecker Feeding Areas Summary - 4 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Summary • Identification and delineation of Pileated woodpecker feeding areas, as appropriate, to provide suitable foraging habitat to meet Forest Plan direction. Forest Plan Amendments A non-significant Forest Plan amendment would be required to implement Alternative 2 (see Forest Plan Amendments below and in Chapter 2) to re-delineate and replace the DOG and ROGs. This would change Management Area 13 (Old Growth) to either Management Area 1 (General Forest) or Management Area 4A (Big Game Winter Range). See also Chapter 2, Alternative 2 for a description of this alternative. Key Issues Comments received from the public generated issues are discussed in this document. The interdisciplinary team (IDT) reviewed and evaluated comments received from the scoping process and are incorporated as key issues. In the NEPA process, key issues are defined as resource or other values that drive the development of an alternative, may be adversely affected by the proposed action, or involve unresolved conflicts regarding alternative uses of available resources. Key issues provide focus for the analysis and are used directly in formulation of the alternatives. Listed with each key issue are indicators to show a measurement of how each key issue is affected by proposed activities for each alternative. 1. Snag habitat: The standard for snags in the Malheur Forest Plan is based on species dependent on old structure, green stands. Retaining Forest Plan snag levels may not be provide adequate snag habitat for dead-forest-dependent species and primary cavity excavators. 2. Water quality and Sedimentation: There is concern that salvage harvest should not occur in areas that are severely burned or are located on erosive sites, riparian areas, or steep slopes (see Beschta report recommendations). Harvest on these areas could increase erosion potential in the fire area. The proposed action includes salvage harvest and tractor logging within both RHCAs and severely burned areas. Salvage harvest would occur within the RHCAs of the Little Malheur River. The Little Malheur River is proposed as critical habitat for bull trout. The river has also been identified on the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 303 (d) list for exceeding water temperature standards. There is concern that harvest activities in the project area could further degrade water quality, and prolong recovery of stream habitat in the fire area. 3. Green tree harvest: The proposed action includes harvest thinning to promote stand resiliency. There is concern that thinning the few remaining live stands of trees would negatively impact their value for wildlife cover, landbird species habitat, moisture retention, and nutrient recycling. 4. Economics: Commercial value of fire-killed trees will deteriorate quickly if salvage does not occur within the next year. The recovery value of the timber will have an effect on the local economy. Any delays in harvest would affect the economic viability of timber sales within the fire project area. 5. Fuels: There is a scientific controversy relevant to benefits of using salvage harvest to reduce fuels in order to reduce potential effects of future fire events. Some science advocates a passive approach to fuels management in burned areas, by recommending that natural processes are best for management of fuels. Others suggest that salvage harvest is the best way to reduce the potential for another Summary- 5 Summary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS cycle of heavy fuel accumulations therefore, limiting future management opportunity to use prescribed fire to restore the landscape to historical conditions. 6. Soils: Concerns were expressed that using ground based mechanized equipment to harvest timber and reduce fuels would increase soil erosion and decrease soil productivity, especially on severe and moderate severity burned areas. Alternatives Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 1. Use of ground-based skidding systems for salvage harvesting in the Upper Little Malheur River. 2. Winter logging and helicopter yarding was considered as an alternative to tractor skidding within the Upper Little Malheur subwatershed. 3. The relocation of Little Malheur trail and trailhead was considered due fire damage to the access road and forested vegetation. Alternatives Considered in Detail An alternative comparison chart is provided at the end of this section. Alternative 1 (No Action) The No Action Alternative is defined as no change from management activities as they now exist. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative 2 will meet the project purpose and needs by: 1.) salvage harvesting dead/dying trees, 2.) capturing the economic value of dead and dying trees, 3.) reducing levels of standing dead and down fuel, 4.) commercially and pre-commercially thinning stands of live trees improving resiliency of surviving forest vegetation, 5.) implementing reforestation activities to restore forest vegetation, 6.) replacing and updating habitat for dedicated old growth/associated wildlife species, and 7.) eliminating road and old skid trails responsible sedimentation and reduced water quality. The description of the activities within Alternative were described in the previous section of this summary under the proposed action. Alternative 3 Alternative 3 was developed from public concerns relating to timber harvest effects on water quality, sedimentation, and wildlife cover. Key features in Alternative 3 reduce the risk of sedimentation by eliminating harvest in the RHCAs and not harvesting within 50 feet of the RHCAs for Category 2 and 100 feet for Category 4 streams (perennial and intermittent streams). This would further reduce the risk to water quality and sedimentation inputs from harvest activities. Greater retention of snags would also contribute to greater levels of future down log habitats. To address snag habitat and retention of live tree concerns, more dead and dying trees than proposed in Alternative 2 are retained for snag habitat, and green/live trees would not be harvested to provide vegetative diversity. Concerns were raised that the strategy for managing snag habitat in the Proposed Action may not meet dead habitat dependent primary cavity excavator (PCE) needs. Recent studies (Knotts, 1998; Saab and Dudley, 1998; Dixon and Saab, 2000; Saab et al., 2002), indicate that the Forest Plan standard of 2.4 snags per acre would not meet minimum wildlife needs for management indicator species/PCE species in these severe burn habitats. Alternative 3 was designed to leave higher levels of snag habitat distributed in a way that accommodates a broader range of Summary - 6 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Summary cavity excavator species. A total of 13 snags per acre (see Design Measure section under wildlife for size distribution) would be retained in each harvest unit. In the salvage harvest units, these snags would be distributed in 2-6 acre clumps in size throughout the treatment units. In addition, areas not harvested including patches of high density snag habitat would remain intact throughout the RHCAs and other patches of lower density habitat would also remain. These snag retention levels were established primarily to meet prescribed use levels for Lewis’ woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, and northern flicker. Generally, the non-timber harvest activities proposed for Alternative 3 are the same as Alternative 2. These activities include road closures, road decommissioning, skid trail obliteration, tree planting, and change in DOG and ROG described in Alternative 2. No pre-commercial thinning is proposed in Alternative 3. Alternative 4 The focus of Alternative 4 is to provide a different snag management strategy for retention of wildlife snag habitat to retain all the dead and dying trees in the RHCAs from what was proposed in Alternative 2. Concerns were raised that the strategy for managing snag habitat in the Proposed Action may not meet snag retention needs for dead habitat dependent primary cavity excavator (PCE) needs. Recent studies (Knotts, 1998; Saab and Dudley, 1998; Dixon and Saab, 2000; Saab et al., 2002,) indicate that the Forest Plan standard of 2.4 snags per acre would not meet minimum wildlife needs for management indicator species/PCE species in these severe burn habitats. Alternative 4 was designed to leave snags in patches ranging in size from 4 to 90 acres in order to better meet the needs of PCE species because cavity nesters as a group prefer patches as opposed to single snags retained in uniform, even spaced distribution (Rose et al, 2001, Saab et al, 2002, Kotliar 2002). Within most of the salvage harvest units, no snags would be retained other than the smaller sub-merchantable trees, trees needed to meet down wood standards, and incidental standing cull trees. This snag strategy would require a non- significant Forest Plan amendment for both the salvage and resiliency harvest treatments. Generally, the non-timber harvest activities proposed for Alternative 3 are the same as Alternative 2. These activities include road closures, road decommissioning, skid trail obliteration, tree planting, precommercial thinning, and change in DOG and ROG described in Alternative 2. Alternative 5 Detailed consideration is given to an alternative considered but not analyzed in the DEIS (#3 Restoration Only, No Timber Harvest) and developed into Alternative 5. There were numerous public comments on the DEIS requesting that this alternative be fully analyzed in the FEIS and follow recommendations contained in the Beschta Report. This alternative includes many of the restoration activities included in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. It does not include salvage of dead and dying trees and it does not include commercial/precommercial thinning to improve stand resiliency. The alternative is based on recommendations contained in a publication known as the Beschta Report. The Beschta Report is a compilation of scientist recommendations for fire recovery projects and post-fire timber salvage. Recommendations in this report favor natural recovery, with little or no salvage, as the best method to maintain a variety of resource values. Alternative 5 considered these recommendations and included some of them as features within the alternative to reduce sedimentation risk and retain live trees. Summary- 7 Summary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS The Alternative 5 projects include road restoration, old skid trail obliteration, and selective conifer planting. The road restoration includes activities identified in Alternative 2, plus additional road closures to further increase wildlife security, retention of snags from firewood cutting, and reduce threat of noxious weed spread, etc. The skid trail obliteration would be the same as described in Alternative 2. Conifer planting would occur in those stands with severe fire damage where natural regeneration may be a future problem. The areas not prescribed for planting are expected to seed in naturally and will be monitored after five years for planting needs. Forest Plan Amendments Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 would require amendments to the Forest Plan if selected. All action alternatives were designed, in part, to replace Dedicated Old Growth that is now unsuitable due to the fire. In addition, Alternative 4 would also require a Forest Plan amendment to deviate from snag retention standards. All the action alternatives were designed, in part, to replace Dedicated Old Growth that is now unsuitable due to the fire. A non-significant Forest Plan amendment would be required (see Forest Plan Amendments below and in Chapter 2) to re-delineate and replace the DOG and ROGs. Alternative 4 was designed specifically to leave higher levels of snag habitat in a distribution pattern designed to increase cavity excavator habitat for species such as the black-backed woodpecker. By distributing snag patches on a unit basis for better utilization by the species, and not a 40-acre block basis, we may not meet Forest Wide Standard and Guideline #39. Alternative 4 would include a site-specific, non-significant amendment to Forest Wide Standard and Guideline #39. Selection of the action alternatives would be consistent with the Forest Plan, as amended (36 CFR 219.10 (c)). Summary - 8 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Summary Comparison of Alternatives Description of Activities by Alternative (Summary) Activity Units Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Treatment Type - Timber Harvest Prescription/Logging Systems Salvage - HSV Acres 0 3451 2825 3121 0 Resiliency - HTH/HSV Acres 0 223 0 223 0 RHCA Salvage - HSV Acres 0 601 0 0 0 Helicopter Acres 0 3785 2520 2885 0 Tractor Acres 0 490 305 459 0 Total Harvest Acres 0 4275 2825 3344 0 Reforestation/Pre-Commercial Thinning Activities Planting Acres 0 4723 4723 4723 2845 Natural Regen/Interplanting Acres 0 229 229 229 0 Pre-commercial Thin/Planting Acres 0 370 370 370 0 Pre-commercial Thin Acres 0 22 22 22 0 Road Activities/Landing Construction Temporary Road Construction Miles 0 0.6 0.6 0.4 0 Helicopter Landing or Service Landings Number 0 23 23 22 0 Maintenance Miles 0 69.5 69.5 69.5 69.5 Reconstruction Miles 0 .2 .2 .2 .2 Road Restoration Gated Closure Miles 0 7.0 7.0 7.0 16.2 Road Decommissioning/Old Skid Trail Obliteration Decommission Miles 0 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.8 Un-drivable Miles 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Skid Trail Obliteration Miles 0 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 Summary- 9 Summary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Comparison of Alternatives by Issue and Measurement Resource Issue (Number corresponds to Key Issue ) Unit of Measure Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt 5 #1 Snags Retained within Harvest Units Numbers Retained No Harvest All Harvest Areas - 2.4/Ac; clumpy All Harvest Areas - 13/ac; clumpy Salvage Harvest Areas – none except units 3 & 12;* Resiliency - 1.5 – 2.5 /ac; clumpy No Harvest #1 Acres and % severely fire affected forested habitat remaining after salvage (Monument Fire Area- Malheur portion) Acres 16,942 (100%) 13,465 (79%) 14,475 (85%) 14,341 (85%) 16,942 (100%) #2 Acres of tractor skidding Acres 0 490 305 459 0 #2 Acres of harvest in RHCAs Acres 0 601 0 0 0 #2 Stream shading change due to salvage harvest Average 0 -1 % 0 0 0 #2 Non-harvest ground disturbing activities within RHCAs - mod/severe burned areas. Acres 0 20.2 20.2 20.2 20.2 #3 Acres of resiliency treatment (green tree harvest) Acres 0 223 0 223 0 #3 Acres of marginal and satisfactory cover in the project area Acres 281 281 281 281 281 #4 Commercial Harvest Volume (MMBF) 0 30.0 14.4 26.5 0 #4 Present Net Value $ millions 0 $1,734,048 -$1,383,448 $1,287,270 -$2,171,750 #4 Timber Jobs Provided Number 0 271 131 240 0 #5 Fire severity and fire intensity in 20 years as measured by fuel loading within RHCAs of Little Malheur and Camp Cr. ** See Below ** ** ** ** #6 Tractor Harvest on Severely and Moderately Burned Soils Acres No Harvest 466 264 415 No Harvest *Alternative 4 retains un-harvested patches of snags dispersed throughout the project area. ** The fuel loadings vary by fire regime and plant association group; see table 2-6. Summary - 10 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Summary Average Fuel Loading by Alternative Project Area Historical Tons/Acre Alternative 1 Tons/Acre Alternative 2 Tons/Acre Alternative 3 Tons/Acre Alternative 4 Tons/Acre Alternative 5 Tons/Acre Camp Creek RHCA 7-15 87 50 87 87 87 Little Malheur River RHCA 7-15 60 26 60 60 60 Little Malheur River Uplands 5-7 31 7 14 7 31 North Fork Malheur River Uplands 5-7 33 9 14 9 33 Preferred Alternative Alternative 4 is the preferred alternative. The Malheur Forest Supervisor will select an alternative in the Record of Decision. Any of the alternatives considered in detail will be available for selection at that time. Affected Environment The Monument Recovery Project area lies within the Upper North Fork Malheur River and Little Malheur River watersheds, which is part of the Upper Malheur sub-basin, of the Middle Snake/ Boise Basin. The impacted forested vegetative area is a characterized primarily as hot-dry/warm-dry biophysical environment. These forests are characterized by open grown ponderosa pine to multistoried mixed conifer stands dominated by ponderosa pine. The two major soil types include volcanic ash soils and residual loam/clay soils. The clay/loam soils located in the Camp Creek area are shallow and highly erodable. Both watersheds are important to rebuilding and sustaining populations of bull trout. Bull trout are not present in streams in the Upper North Fork Malheur watershed within the project area. Bull trout were historically present in the Little Malheur watershed but currently they are not present. The Little Malheur River is currently on the Oregon DEQ 303(d) list of stream for exceeding the 64 degree water temperature standard. The project area is adjacent the Monument Rock Wilderness. Environmental Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Reforestation of upland and riparian conifer sites would take several decades, and would likely provide a natural structure once it is established. The risk of secondary mortality from insects and disease would remain very high in many of the overstocked green forested stands. Fuel loading will remain constant through long-term snag attrition. This is important when examining large fire occurrence in the area adjacent to and including the Monument Fire. The continual buildup of woody debris will add future available fuel that will lead to high severity fire and long burning duration in the event of a landscape Summary- 11 Summary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS scale wildfire. Sediment production from existing road and old skid trail problems would continue. The best achievable conditions for cavity-nesting species would be provided. The alternative would not provide any economic benefits to the local community. Alternative 2 Reforestation would be accelerated throughout the project area. The risk of secondary mortality from insects and disease would be reduced by thinning of the pockets of overstocked green-forested stands. Long-term, potential fire severity would be reduced with salvage harvesting. Road closures, road decommission, and old skid trail obliterations would reduce long term risks of sedimentation. There would be short-term adverse impacts to cavity nesting species habitat but long-term, habitat suitability of the standing dead trees would rapidly diminish as they rot and fall. The alternative would provide a high level of economic benefits from harvesting timber. Alternative 3 Reforestation would be accelerated throughout the project area. The risk of secondary mortality from insects and disease would remain very high in many of the overstocked green-forested stands. Long-term, potential fire severity would be reduced due to salvage harvesting. There would also be a reduction in future fuel loading in the RHCAs that improve the future desired condition. Road closures, road decommissioning, road maintenance, and old skid trail obliterations would reduce long-term risks of sedimentation. There would be short-term adverse impacts to cavity nesting species habitat but long-term, habitat suitability of the standing dead trees would rapidly diminish as they rot and fall. The alternative would provide a low level of economic benefits related to harvestable timber. Alternative 4 Reforestation would be accelerated throughout the project area. The risk of secondary mortality from insects and disease would be reduced in many of the overstocked green- forested stands. Long-term, potential fire severity would be reduced due to salvage harvesting. Road closures, road decommissioning, road maintenance, and old skid trail obliterations would reduce long-term risks of sedimentation. There would be short-term adverse impacts to cavity nesting species habitat but long-term, habitat suitability of the standing dead trees would rapidly diminish as they rot and fall. The alternative would provide a moderate level of economic benefits related to harvestable timber. Alternative 5 Reforestation would be accelerated in those areas severely burned. The risk of secondary mortality from insects and disease would remain very high in many of the overstocked green-forested stands. Fuel loading will remain constant through long-term snag attrition. This is important when examining large fire occurrence in the area adjacent to and including the Monument Fire. The continual buildup of woody debris will add future available fuel leading to high severity fire and long burning duration in the event of a landscape scale wildfire. Road closures, road decommissioning, road maintenance, and old skid trail obliterations would reduce long term risks of sedimentation. The best achievable conditions for cavity-nesting species would be provided. The alternative would provide minimal economic benefits to the local community by providing reforestation and road projects for employment. There would be no harvestable timber from this alternative. Summary - 12 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Summary Changes from Draft to Final Environmental Impact Statement The following changes were made between the DEIS and FEIS. Minor corrections to grammar, spelling, explanations, and paragraph formatting have also been made. Chapter 1 The following changes were made between the Draft and Final EIS. This listing does not include corrections, explanations, or edits to grammar and spelling. Some of changes resulted from comments made to the DEIS. 1. The purpose and need rationale for fuel treatment was clarified. The update includes desired fuel loading information and emphasizes the need to meet this desired fuel loading by removing the standing dead trees. 2. The proposed action was modified to reflect field information gathered during the summer. Field information revealed that fire damaged stands in the low to moderate burn damage category contained higher tree mortality than originally estimated. The number of acres of proposed commercial thinning and precommercial thinning in resiliency treatments were reduced (75%). Field observations revealed higher tree mortality in these stands making salvage treatment the reasonable treatment. The location and size of salvage and resiliency harvest treatments were modified to reflect field conditions. The total harvest acres were reduced approximately 11%. The majority of these changes occurred in areas with low standing dead tree density that would not economically support removal with a helicopter. 3. Salvage harvest in the portion of the RHCA below the confluence of Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River was changed to no harvest. Field data revealed there is a lack of large woody debris in this stream reach of the Little Malheur. Chapter 2 1. Detailed consideration is now given to an Alternative Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study in the DEIS (#3 Restoration Only). There were numerous public comments on the DEIS requesting that this alternative be developed. This alternative does not include timber harvest activities. Alternative 5 is developed from the restoration only theme in the DEIS and is now fully analyzed in the FEIS. 2. Additional field surveys to better locate and identify the type of damage to the forested vegetation were completed during the summer of 2003. The new survey information leads to modifications of treatment unit boundaries and the type of harvest treatment due increased tree mortality. Also some the treatment map unit numbers were changed to simplify project implementation. The tables in Appendix A indicate a comparison of old and new numbers. 3. The total number of harvest acres decreased in all the action alternatives. Alternative 2 decreased 11%, Alternative 3 decreased 4%, and Alternative 4 decreased 17%. The decreases were made to remove areas with very low densities of salvageable trees. Helicopter yarding these low density areas were not economically viable. 4. Approximately 75% of the resiliency treatments acres (green tree harvest) in Alternatives 2 and 4 are now considered salvage harvest. The burn damage to the residual trees in these treatment areas was greater than originally estimated. The Summary- 13 Summary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS increase in tree mortality in these stands reduced stocking that made the need for thinning unnecessary. This increase in tree mortality also changed the original big game cover estimates in the project area. There are no longer any stands that provide cover affected by either commercial thinning or precommercial thinning. A non significant Forest Plan is no longer needed to implement either Alternative 2 or 4. 5. Harvest Units 3 and 12 retained 1.5 to 2.5 snags per acre as was prescribed for these units before they were changed from resiliency treatments to salvage treatments. The southern half of Unit 2 was removed from treatment and became a snag retention area. Also the northern half of Unit 6 and the very southern portion of Unit 12 became snag retention areas. 6. Planting and thinning acres also decreased from DEIS estimates. Planting was reduced approximately 23% across Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Precommercial thinning decreased approximately 4%. The reductions reflect better mapping of non forested areas that decreased both the acres of potential planting and thinning. 7. All the tables and maps at the end of chapter 3 were updated to reflect alternative revisions. 8. Salvage harvest activities proposed in the portion of the RHCA below the confluence of Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River were changed to no harvest. Field data revealed that there is a lack of large woody debris in this stream reach of the Little Malheur. Chapter 3 1. Noxious weed field surveys were completed during the summer of 2003. A summary of the information is now included in the Affected Environment section for noxious weeds and analysis impact possible impacts of the activities assessed in Chapter 3 of the EIS. A map and data table for each weed site is in the project file. The effects of Alternative 5 were included in all the resource sections in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. The economic analysis in Chapter 3 of the FEIS was modified to reflect changes in lumber values, reduction of deterioration of dead timber, and correct an error in the analysis. 2. A low densely roaded areas analysis (Roads/Access section) was completed for the project area. A map of the findings is included in the project files and summary in the FEIS, Chapter 3, Roads. The maps can be found in the project file. 3. The soils section of the FEIS in Chapter 3 provides additional analysis of soils impacts of harvest on biotic/nutrients; impacts from harvest; food web, and soil impacts of helicopter yarding. 4. The wildlife affected environment and environmental effects sections include additional analysis and information in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. Included updates are the management indicator species (MIS) primary cavity excavator snag analysis added additional information and effects. Other changes included additional effects discussion on landbirds and neotropicals birds; the effects to goshawks, more lynx information; MIS survey information, effects on pine Summary - 14 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Summary martin , bald eagle effects calls were reviewed, and big game winter range road densities were calculated. 5. The sensitive plant section of Chapter 3 of the FEIS was updated to reflect new field survey information gathered in the spring of 2003. 6. The effects to Columbia spotted frogs, Malheur mottled sculpins, and redband trout were reanalyzed and changes were made to the effects determinations. 7. Additional analysis was included relating to the fire threat if harvest does not occur. 8. An analysis of unroaded areas was added in response to a comment on the DEIS from the Oregon Natural Resource Council. 9. The stream temperature information was reviewed and additional information was included in the aquatics section of Chapter 3. Chapter 4 The distribution list was updated to include new individuals, organizations, and agencies that received the FEIS. Appendices Three new appendices were added, Appendix B - Road Listing, Appendix F - Response to Comments and Appendix G - Post Fire Grazing Guidelines. References A number of references were reviewed but not used in the analysis. These are listed under “References Reviewed.” Summary- 15 Summary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Blank Page Summary - 16 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Table of Contents Table of Contents Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action................................................................1 Document Structure .....................................................................................................................1 Changes between the Draft and Final EIS ...................................................................................2 Background ..................................................................................................................................2 Fire Suppression Activities, Completed Fire Rehabilitation and Ongoing Fire Recovery Projects ....................................................................................................... 3 Malheur Forest Plan Direction.................................................................................... 5 Purpose and Need for Action .......................................................................................................6 The Need to Reduce Potential High Fuel Levels........................................................ 7 The Need to Improve the Appropriate Forest Vegetation Structural Characteristics. 8 The Need to Implement Reforestation Activities in the Project Area ...................... 10 The Need to Replace and Update Dedicated Old Growth and Associated Designated Habitats Impacted by the Monument Fire ................................................................ 10 The Need to Reduce Road and Old Skid Trail-Related Impacts to Watershed and Wildlife Values ......................................................................................................... 10 The Need to Capture the Economic Value of Wood Products ................................. 10 Proposed Action.........................................................................................................................11 Background............................................................................................................... 12 Dead and Dying Tree Determination........................................................................ 13 Proposed Activities/Treatments ................................................................................ 13 Actions Outside of this Final EIS to Address Recovery Needs .................................................20 Decision Framework ..................................................................................................................20 Public Involvement ....................................................................................................................20 Initial Scoping........................................................................................................... 20 DEIS Comments/Responses ..................................................................................... 21 Coordination with Other Governments and Agencies ...............................................................21 Issues..........................................................................................................................................22 Other Analysis Issues.................................................................................................................23 Laws and Regulations ................................................................................................................26 Project Record............................................................................................................................30 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the proposed action ........................................31 Introduction................................................................................................................................31 Changes made between the Draft and Final EIS........................................................................31 Alternative Development Process ..............................................................................................32 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study...................................................33 Alternatives Considered in Detail ..............................................................................................34 Common to All Alternatives..................................................................................... 34 Alternative 1 (No Action) ......................................................................................... 35 Alternative 2.............................................................................................................. 36 Alternative 3.............................................................................................................. 39 Alternative 4.............................................................................................................. 41 Alternative 5.............................................................................................................. 44 Implementation Schedule for the Alternatives ......................................................... 46 Design Measures/Mitigation for Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5...................................... 46 Monitoring Plans....................................................................................................... 54 Table of Contents - 1 Table of Contents Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences .................. 61 Changes made between the Draft and Final EIS....................................................................... 61 Past, Present, and Foreseeable Actions ..................................................................................... 62 Forest Vegetation ...................................................................................................................... 63 Introduction............................................................................................................... 63 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................. 63 Analysis Method ....................................................................................................... 64 Affected Environment............................................................................................... 65 Environmental Effects .............................................................................................. 74 Consistency with Direction and Regulations............................................................ 82 Irreversible/Irretrievable Effects............................................................................... 83 Fuels/Fire .................................................................................................................................. 83 Introduction............................................................................................................... 83 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................. 84 Analysis Method ....................................................................................................... 85 Affected Environment............................................................................................... 86 Environmental Effects .............................................................................................. 90 Consistency with Direction and Regulations............................................................ 97 Sensitive Plants ......................................................................................................................... 98 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................. 98 Analysis Method ....................................................................................................... 98 Affected Environment............................................................................................... 99 Environmental Effects ............................................................................................ 100 Consistency with Direction and Regulations.......................................................... 105 Irreversible/ Irretrievable Effects............................................................................ 105 Noxious Weeds ....................................................................................................................... 105 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................... 105 Analysis Method ..................................................................................................... 105 Affected Environment............................................................................................. 105 Environmental Effects ............................................................................................ 106 Consistency with Direction and Regulations.......................................................... 108 Irreversible/ Irretrievable Effects............................................................................ 108 Soil .......................................................................................................................................... 108 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................... 108 Analysis Method ..................................................................................................... 109 Affected Environment............................................................................................. 110 Environmental Effects ............................................................................................ 117 Consistency With Direction and Regulations ......................................................... 127 Irreversible/ Irretrievable Effects............................................................................ 128 Aquatics - Fish/ Water Quality ............................................................................................... 128 Introduction............................................................................................................. 128 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................... 128 Analysis Method ..................................................................................................... 133 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects - Physical Habitat Elements ... 134 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects - Channel Stability Elements.. 146 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects - Water Quality Elements....... 150 Cumulative Effects to Physical Elements, Channel Stability Elements, and Water Quality Elements..................................................................................................... 155 Table of Contents - 2 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Table of Contents Affected Environment and Environmental Effects - Aquatic Species.................... 158 Consistency With Direction and Regulations ......................................................... 181 Wildlife ....................................................................................................................................184 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................... 184 Analysis Method ..................................................................................................... 185 Affected Environment & Environmental Effects - Management Indicator Species188 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects - Other Species of Concern .... 234 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects – Old-Growth ......................... 240 Consistency with Direction and Guidelines............................................................ 245 Irreversible/ Irretrievable Effects............................................................................ 253 Recreation ................................................................................................................................253 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................... 253 Analysis Method ..................................................................................................... 253 Affected Environment............................................................................................. 254 Environmental Effects ............................................................................................ 254 Consistency with Direction and Regulations.......................................................... 257 Visuals......................................................................................................................................258 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................... 258 Analysis Method ..................................................................................................... 258 Affected Environment............................................................................................. 258 Environmental Effects ............................................................................................ 258 Consistency with Direction and Regulations.......................................................... 259 Irreversible/ Irretrievable Effects............................................................................ 259 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................259 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................... 259 Analysis Method ..................................................................................................... 260 Affected Environment............................................................................................. 261 Environmental Effects ............................................................................................ 262 Consistency with Direction and Regulations.......................................................... 264 Range .......................................................................................................................................265 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................... 265 Analysis Method ..................................................................................................... 266 Affected Environment............................................................................................. 266 Environmental Effects ............................................................................................ 267 Consistency With Direction and Regulations ......................................................... 270 Irreversible/ Irretrievable Effects............................................................................ 270 Economics/Social.....................................................................................................................270 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................... 271 Analysis Method ..................................................................................................... 271 Affected Environment............................................................................................. 271 Environmental Effects ............................................................................................ 275 Consistency with Direction and Regulations.......................................................... 282 Roads/Access ...........................................................................................................................282 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................... 282 Affected Environment............................................................................................. 282 Environmental Effects ............................................................................................ 283 Consistency with Direction and Regulations.......................................................... 283 Irreversible/ Irretrievable Effects............................................................................ 285 Table of Contents - 3 Table of Contents Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Other Disclosures .................................................................................................................... 285 Issues Relating to the Beschta Report (1995) ......................................................... 286 Unroaded................................................................................................................. 293 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination........................................................ 299 Preparers and Contributors...................................................................................................... 299 Contributors ............................................................................................................................ 300 Public Involvement Summary................................................................................................. 301 Distribution of the Final Environmental Impact Statement .................................................... 302 Glossary ............................................................................................................ 307 References......................................................................................................... 315 References Cited ..................................................................................................................... 315 References Analyzed............................................................................................................... 326 Index................................................................................................................. 329 List of Tables Table 1-1. Monument Fire Suppression Lines - Malheur NF portion ............................... 3 Table 1-2. Existing and Desired Fuel Loading within the Project Area............................ 8 Table 1-3. Existing Monument Project Area Biophysical Types: ..................................... 9 Table 1-4. Summary of Upland Salvage Treatment Activities – Proposed Action (Alternative 2)........................................................................................................... 14 Table 1-5. Summary of RHCA Salvage Activities – Proposed Action. .......................... 15 Table 1-6. Summary of Resiliency Treatment and Precommercial Thinning Activities - Proposed Action........................................................................................................ 17 Table 1-7. Summary of Road and Skid Trail Activities - Proposed Action. ................... 18 Table 1-8. Changes for DOG/ROG and Pileated Woodpecker Habitat- Proposed Action ................................................................................................................................... 19 Table 2-1. Alternative 3; Snags per Acre by Diameter Class. ......................................... 50 Table 2-2. Down Log – Alternatives 2, 3 and 4............................................................... 51 Table 2-3. Description of Activities by Alternative......................................................... 56 Table 2-4. Description of Activities by Alternative......................................................... 57 Table 2-5. Comparison of Alternatives by Issue and Measurement................................ 58 Table 2-6. Average Fuel Loading by Alternative ............................................................ 59 Table 2-7. Road Maintenance/Reconstruction Activities for Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 59 Table 2-8. Harvest Summary by Alternative; Forested Wildlife Habitat. ....................... 60 Table V-1. Monument Project Area Forest Types........................................................... 69 Table V-2. Forest stand structures found in the Monument project area......................... 70 Table V-3. Historic Range of Variability. ....................................................................... 71 Table V-4. Post-Fire Stand Structures - Swamp Creek Subwatershed............................ 71 Table V-5. Post Fire Stand Structures - Upper Little Malheur Subwatershed................. 71 Table V-6. Projected Yearly Reforestation for Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5...................... 78 Table V-7. Reforestation and Precommercial Thinning Prescriptions for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4...................................................................................................................... 79 Table V-8. Reforestation Prescriptions for Alternative 5. ............................................... 80 Table F-1. Historic Large Fires........................................................................................ 86 Table of Contents - 4 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Table of Contents Table F-2. Fire Regimes .................................................................................................. 87 Table F-3. Fire Regimes/ Biophysical Environments/Severity Acres ............................. 89 Table F-4. Average Fuel Loading/No Action .................................................................. 92 Table F-5. Fuel Loading/Alternative 2 ............................................................................ 93 Table F-6 Fuel Loading/Alternative 3 ............................................................................. 95 Table F-7. Fuel Loading/Alternative 4 ............................................................................ 96 Table S-1.-Minimum Percent Effective Ground Cover Following Land Management Activities:................................................................................................................ 109 Table S-2: Vegetative Burn Severity by Subwatershed.................................................. 113 Table S-3. Existing Detrimental Soil Conditions by Proposed Treatment Unit ............ 114 Table S-4. Past Logging Entries in the Monument Project Area.................................... 115 Table S-5. Erosion Potential Tractor Harvest Units Alternative 2 ................................. 120 Table S-6. Predicted Total Disturbed Soil Conditions Following Tractor Harvest Under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Note: Units 10 and 12 will not be logged under Alternative 3. Assumes use of feller-bunchers, and dry or moist ground conditions............... 122 Table S-7. Predicted Total Disturbed Soil Conditions Following Helicopter Harvest Under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. ............................................................................... 123 Table A-1. RHCA Buffer Widths .................................................................................. 131 Table A-2. Effect Determinations/ Changes Between DEIS and FEIS ......................... 134 Table A-3. Size Classes of Large Woody Debris. ......................................................... 135 Table A-4. Forest Plan Standards (Amendment 29) for Large Woody Debris (LWD). 135 Table A-5. Number of Pieces of LWD Per Reach......................................................... 135 Table A-6. Number of Standing Dead Trees Per Mile Needed to Provide Replacement LWD In Ponderosa Pine Ecosystems to Meet Minimum Forest Plan Standards. .. 136 Table A-7. Spacing of Pools by Reach. ......................................................................... 139 Table A-8. Estimated Number of Pools Likely to be Formed in the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek as Replacement LWD is Recruited into Stream Channels.......... 139 Table A-9. Estimated Number of Pools That Will Be Formed From Small Woody Debris (< 20” diam) for the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek. ................................. 140 Table A-10. Potential Effects to Aquatic Organisms from Fine Sediment.................... 141 Table A-11. Percentage of Fine Sediment by Reach. .................................................... 141 Table A-12. Levels of Fine Sediment (particles < 6mm) in the Little Malheur River. . 142 Table A-13. Miles of Roads in RHCAs by Surface Type in the Analysis Area............ 142 Table A-14. Roads Identified as Contributing to Elevated Levels of Fine Sediment in the Project Area. ........................................................................................................... 143 Table A-15. Sensitivity of Channel Type to Disturbance.............................................. 146 Table A-16. Bank Stability for Streams in the Project Area.......................................... 147 Table A-17. Pre and Post-Fire Estimated 25-Year Peak Flows for Subwatersheds Most Influenced by the Monument Fire. Flows are Expressed in Cubic Feet Per Second. ................................................................................................................................. 147 Table A-18. 303(d) Listed Streams in the Project Area................................................. 151 Table A-19. Comparison of Pre- and Post Fire 7-Day-Mean-Maximum Water Temperatures in Streams in the Project Area. ........................................................ 151 Table A-20. Acres Burned by RHCA Category in the Monument Fire Area................ 152 Table A-21. Changes in Acres of Hydrologic Openings Following the 2002 Monument Fire. ......................................................................................................................... 154 Table A-22. Pre and Post-Fire Estimated 25-Year Peak Flows for Subwatersheds Most Influenced by the Monument Fire........................................................................... 155 Table of Contents - 5 Table of Contents Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Table A-23. Aquatic Species with Special Management Status Present or Suspected in the Project Area....................................................................................................... 155 Table W-1. Post-fire snag densities by density group (Snags/Acre) for Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir and Blue Mountain Mixed Conifer wildlife habitat types........... 190 Table W-2. Existing tolerance level for cavity nesting species within the fire area...... 192 Table W-3. Wildlife habitat type = Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir; Structural condition = larger trees............................................................................................................... 194 Table W-4. Wildlife habitat type = Blue Mountain mixed conifer; structural condition = larger trees............................................................................................................... 195 Table W-5. Black-Backed Woodpecker. – Wildlife tolerance levels ............................ 196 Table W-6. Hairy Woodpecker – Wildlife tolerance levels .......................................... 196 Table W-7. Lewis’ Woodpecker – Wildlife tolerance levels ........................................ 196 Table W-8. Northern Flicker – Wildlife tolerance levels .............................................. 196 Table W-9. White-Headed Woodpecker – Wildlife tolerance levels ............................ 197 Table W-10. Comparison of big game cover, winter and summer range. Winter range is not present in the Swamp Creek subwatershed....................................................... 214 Table W-11. Road densities by subwatershed and Project Area based on range type, existing condition. Winter range is not present in the Swamp Creek subwatershed. ................................................................................................................................. 219 Table W-12. Miles of road per square mile by subwatershed in summer and winter range, Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Winter range is not present in the Swamp Creek subwatershed........................................................................................................... 220 Table W-13. Miles of road per square mile by subwatershed in summer and winter range, Alternative 5. Winter range is not present in the Swamp Creek subwatershed. ................................................................................................................................. 221 Table W-14. HEI Final and Variables. Winter range is not present in the Swamp Creek subwatershed........................................................................................................... 223 Table W-15. Forest and structure/habitat types and associated focal landbird species . 238 Table W-16. List of species of BCR 10, Northern Rockies Region, Their status as present or absent from the Project Area, and reasons for absence.......................... 244 Table W- 17. Changes for DOG/ROG and Pileated Woodpecker Habitat- Proposed Action...................................................................................................................... 246 Table C-1. Activities Planned in Areas Classified as High-Probability for the Occurrence of Cultural Resources.............................................................................................. 263 Table ES-1. Malheur National Forest Timber Offer by Fiscal Year 1991 to 2002 ....... 276 Table ES-2. Present Net Benefit, Present Net Costs, and Present Net Value................ 279 Table 4-1: Individuals Who Commented on the Monument DEIS ............................... 302 Table of Contents - 6 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Table of Contents Map Section The following maps are located at the end of FEIS, Vol. 1 in the Map Section: Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Project Area, Land Status, and Subwatershed Boundaries Figure 3. Fire Severity: Malheur NF Portion of the Monument Fire Figure 4. Malheur Forest Plan Management Areas within Project Area and Monument Rock Wilderness Boundary Figure 5. Alternative 2 Figure 6. Alternative 3 Figure 7. Alternative 4 Figure 8. Planting for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4/ Precommercial Thinning for Alternative 2 and 4 Figure 9. Planting Planned for Alternative 5 Figure 10. Road Maintenance (Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5) and Other Road Activities Associated with Timber Harvest Activities (Alternatives 2, 3 and 4) Figure 11. Locations of Planned Temporary Roads and Helicopter Log Service Landings Figure 12. Planned Road Management for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 Figure 13. Planned Road Management for Alternative 5 Figure 14. Old Skid Trail Obliterations Planned for Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 Figure 15. Dedicated Old Growth and Replacement Old Growth Changes Planned for Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 Figure 16. Forest Structure Figure 17. Fire Regimes Figure 18. Surface Erosion Hazard Figure 19. Location of INFISH Priority Watersheds in the Vicinity of the Monument Project Figure 20. Location of Surveyed Stream Reaches in the Analysis Area Figure 21. Comparison of Existing Levels of LWD in Surveyed Stream Reaches in the Analysis Area to the Forest Plan Standard Figure 22. Comparison of Existing Numbers of Pools in Surveyed Stream Reaches in the Analysis Area Figure 23. Comparison of Existing Levels of Fine Sediment in Surveyed Stream Reaches in the Analysis Area to the Forest Plan Standard Figure 24. Comparison of Bank Stability in Surveyed Stream Reaches in the Analysis Area to Forest Plan Standard Figure 25. Fire Severity in RHCAs in the Monument Fire Area Table of Contents - 7 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION Document Structure ______________________________ The Forest Service has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Final Environmental Impact Statement discloses the direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into four chapters. ƒ Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action: This chapter includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. ƒ Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action, as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. ƒ Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area. ƒ Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. ƒ Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. These include tabular listing by alternative for the type of harvest activity (Appendix A), a road listing and road closures by alternative (Appendix B), the Aquatic Species Biological Evaluation (Appendix C), the Wildlife Biological Evaluation (Appendix D), the Plant Biological Evaluation (Appendix E), the public comments on the DEIS and the responses (Appendix F), and the Malheur Post Fire Grazing Guidelines (Appendix G). ƒ Glossary: This chapter is a glossary of terms used in this Final Environmental Impact Statement. ƒ References Cited and Reviewed: This chapter lists literature cited during the development of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. This chapter also lists literature reviewed but not used in the analysis. ƒ Index: The index provides page numbers by document topic. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Prairie City Ranger District office. 1 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action Monument Fire Recovery FEIS All the numbers included in the description of site conditions and the proposed action are approximate, as they have been generated from several sources. Some were generated from electronic sources, i.e., queries of GIS spatial data while others were generated from field surveys. Importantly, they do provide accurate display of effects or trends. Changes between the Draft and Final EIS ____________ The following changes were made between the Draft and Final EIS. This listing does not include corrections, explanations, or edits to grammar and spelling. Some of the changes resulted from comments made to the DEIS. 1. The purpose and need rationale for fuel treatment was clarified. The update includes desired fuel loading information and emphasizes the need to meet this desired fuel loading by removing the standing dead trees. 2. The proposed action was modified to reflect field information gathered during the summer. Field information revealed that fire damaged stands in the low to moderate burn damage category contained higher tree mortality than originally estimated. The number of acres of proposed commercial thinning and precommercial thinning in resiliency treatments were reduced (75%). Field observations revealed higher tree mortality in these stands making salvage treatment the reasonable treatment. The location and size of salvage and resiliency harvest treatments were modified to reflect field conditions. The total harvest acres were reduced approximately 11%. The majority of these changes occurred in areas with low standing dead tree density that would not economically support removal with a helicopter. 3. Salvage harvest in the portion of the RHCA below the confluence of Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River was changed to no harvest. Field data revealed there is a lack of large woody debris in this stream reach of the Little Malheur. Background _____________________________________ On July 12, 2002, a series of large thunderstorms passed through the Blue Mountains of Eastern Oregon and ignited numerous fires on the Malheur National Forest, including the Monument Fire in the Little Malheur River basin. Several days of high daytime temperatures with strong northerly winds increased fire activity and expansion of the fire into the Little Malheur River basin. By July 14th, the fire had grown and spread onto the Unity Ranger District on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. The Monument Fire was declared contained on September 9, 2002, and controlled on December 31, 2002. Approximately 24,525 total acres burned in the Monument Fire, 20,186 acres (82%) on the Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest, 3,711 acres (15%) on the Unity Ranger District, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, and 628 acres (3%) on private land. The Monument Fire Recovery Project Area refers to approximately 8,588 acres of the Monument Fire that burned on the Prairie City Ranger District outside the Monument Rock Wilderness, Malheur National Forest (see figures 1 and 2, Map Section).. 2 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action The project area is located within the Little Malheur River (94%) and Upper North Fork Malheur (6%) watersheds. The six major drainages in the project area are Little Malheur River, Camp Creek, Hunter Creek, Fopian Creek, Spring Creek, and Elk Flat Creek. The project area is approximately 23 miles southeast of Prairie City, Oregon in portions of T.14S. R.36E., T.14S. R.35½E., and T.15S. R.36E, Willamette Meridian, Grant and Baker Counties, Oregon. Vicinity maps can be found in the map section at the end of this document (see figures 1 and 2, Map Section). Fire Suppression Activities, Completed Fire Rehabilitation and Ongoing Fire Recovery Projects Table 1-1. Monument Fire Suppression Lines - Malheur NF portion Number of stream crossings (Handlines and Dozer) Subwatershed Total miles interior and exterior fire line Total miles of cross- country dozer fire line Fish bearing Perennial Intermittent Upper Little Malheur 10.3 5.8 2 0 3 Swamp Creek 11.5 9.5 0 0 4 Total 21.8 15.3 2 0 7 About 21.8 miles of fire line was utilized on the Prairie City RD portion of the fire for containment and control.1 Approximately 15.3 miles of fire line were built with dozers. Fire fighting and support vehicles traveled cross-country creating unclassified extensions of roads. As identified in Table 1-1, there were six fireline stream crossings. One dozer line crossed Category 4 tributary of Spring Creek (perennial stream) and a dozer crossed2 Hunter Creek (fish bearing). The figures displayed in table 1-1 include fire line built outside the project area3 as contingency line (in case fire lines did not hold). The information was derived from the July 31, 2002, Monument Fire shift plan map at a scale of 1:24000 (see project record). Rehabilitation of fire lines occurred on roads opened to create fire lines and dozer control lines built cross-country. On previously-closed roads that were opened to develop fire lines, rehabilitation included keeping the roadbed intact and reinstalling gate closure devices and installing water bars as needed. Rehabilitation on cross-country dozer lines consisted of knocking down berms, water barring, and scattering slash, logs, large rocks and other debris on fire lines to both reduce potential for sediment movement and blend the fire lines with the landscape. Rehabilitation work was completed on all fire lines before fall precipitation. Recent observation of the rehabilitation measures indicates they are providing expected resource protection. Areas of concern in or near draws and seeps and perennial crossings are being monitored. 1 Miles of fire line include fire lines both inside and outside the boundary of the project area. Fire lines consisted of open and closed roads, geographic barriers, blasted line, dozer line, and hand line. 2 No fire line was constructed through the stream channel. 3 Line built outside the fire area includes line built of private land. 3 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Other fire suppression related actions included aerial water and retardant drops. The amount of fire retardant applied to the Monument Fire was limited and applied in upland areas. During filed review, there was no evidence that streams were impacted by the retardant application. There were no safety zones constructed during fire suppression activities. The fire camp was located at the high school in Unity and later at Summit Prairie. The Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) team evaluated the fire for resource condition and the need to take action to prevent or reduce additional resource damage caused by the fire and not by suppression (USDA Forest Service 2002, BAER Report). The BAER team made the determination that emergency rehabilitation of stream channels, and roads/trails was needed. The rehabilitation needs include instream channel felling and placement in Category 1 stream channels, Camp Creek and Little Malheur River. Much of the road maintenance items identified by the BAER team have been completed. The drainage structures were cleaned, these included drain dips, ditches, culverts and catch basins. The road surface on some of the roads has also been graded. This work was started in the fall 2002 and completed in summer of 2003. Ground cover seeding was not recommended since it was felt that natural revegetation would be adequate. Monitoring of noxious or invasive weeds was completed during the summer of 2003 to see if they are expanding their distribution or invading from outside sources. The BAER team did determine that there were specific emergencies related to public safety. As a result of the analysis, hazard warning signs were posted in fire areas, and falling and removing hazard trees around roads and trails was completed. Hazard tree removal around the roads occurred in fall of 2002 and additional cutting of hazard trees in the spring of 2003. Monument Fire Recovery Project - Whitman Unit A fire recovery projects is also proposed on the Wallowa - Whitman National Forest, Unity Ranger District portion of the Monument Fire. The project name is the Monument Fire Recovery Project / Whitman Unit. The two project areas are separated by the political, National Forest/County boundary and hydrologic watershed boundary (see figure 2, Map Section). The type and design of recovery projects for the two projects are very similar; both projects include salvage harvest, conifer planting and road restoration. The main actions proposed in the Whitman Unit project include commercial salvage (approx. 779 acres, 9.0 MMBF), access management projects (road maintenance and road closures), and conifer/riparian planting (1205 acres conifer and 292 acres riparian). The relationship of the cumulative effects between the projects was analyzed throughout Chapter 3 within each resource section. Ongoing Fire Recovery Projects Additional fire recovery projects are planned or have been implemented (see Actions Outside of this Final EIS to Address Recovery Needs), or are being implemented in the Monument Fire project area. The following projects are being implemented or are completed in the project area. 4 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action Hardwood Planting and Protection In the spring of 2003, hardwood trees or shrubs were planted along the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek. There is additional planting scheduled in 2005. Roadside Hazard Tree Cutting Approximately 50 trees along Forest Service roads were determined to be a safety hazard to motorized vehicle traffic. During the spring of 2003, the trees were cut and left in place. Noxious Weed Monitoring During the summer of 2003, a noxious weed field survey was completed around the fire perimeter. Noxious weed locations were mapped by species and densities.4 Conifer Planting Approximately 21 acres were planted in old timber harvest areas. These areas were previously planted following timber harvest and the fire killed the majority of seedlings. Malheur Forest Plan Direction Relationship to the Forest Plan This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) tiers to and relies upon the analyses for the Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), as amended. Amendments include, but are not limited to the Regional Forester Eastside Forest Plans Amendment 2 (1995) and the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH)5. The Forest Plan, as amended, contains both Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines as well as Standards and Guidelines for specific management areas (such as MA-1 General Forest). These Standards and Guidelines are identified in Chapter 3 in each resource section. Management Areas Malheur Forest Plan Allocations within the Monument Project Area Lands within the project area fall within five Forest Plan management allocations (see figure 3, Map Section). The Standards and Guidelines for each management allocation (MA) are identified in each resource section of Chapter 3. No activities are proposed in the Monument Rock Wilderness (MA 6B) and are not included in the description below. Management goals in MAs are: MA 1 General Forest – Emphasize timber production on a sustained-yield basis while providing for other resource values. Develop equal distribution of age classes to optimize sustained-yield timber production. Manage levels and intensities consistent with the schedule described in the Malheur Forest Plan, to provide for multiple uses and resources. MA 2 Rangeland – Emphasize forage production on non-forested areas on a sustained- yield basis, while providing for other resources and values. 4 A summary of this information can be found in Chapter 3 of the FEIS in the noxious weed section and the Monument file Noxious Weed Range specialist report. 5 These analyses are documented in the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Forest Plan, and the environmental assessments for the Inland Native Fish Strategy and the Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales (Eastside Forest Plan Amendment #2), and other related documents. 5 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action Monument Fire Recovery FEIS MA 4A Big Game Winter Range – Maintain or enhance the quality of the winter-range habitat for deer and elk through timber harvesting, prescribed burning, and other management practices. Manage for elk habitat by balancing cover quality, cover spacing, forage, and open road densities. MA 13 Dedicated Old Growth – Provide suitable habitat for old-growth-dependent wildlife species, ecosystem diversity, and preservation of aesthetic qualities. MA 14 Visual Corridors – Manage corridor viewsheds with primary consideration given to their scenic quality and the growth of large diameter trees. Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendments The Regional Forester’s Eastside Forest Plan Amendment #2 (1995) consists of Forest- Wide Standards and Guidelines that contain direction for the development of timber sales. Amendment #2 changed standards for harvest of live trees, snag and down logs, goshawk habitat, connectivity of old forest, and riparian habitat. The salvage of dead trees is exempt from the ecosystem standards, but riparian and wildlife standards still apply. The ecosystem standards do apply for the harvest of live trees prescribed in resiliency treatments. RHCA – INFISH (1995) has amended the Malheur Forest Plan standards and guidelines for this management area by creating Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs). Riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis in all RHCAs. These RHCAs include traditional riparian corridors, wetlands, intermittent streams, and other areas that help maintain the integrity of aquatic ecosystems. These areas will be managed to maintain or restore water quality, stream channel integrity, channel processes, sediment regimes, instream flows, diversity and productivity of plant communities in riparian zones, and riparian and aquatic habitats, to foster unique genetic fish stocks that evolved within the specific region. There are no anadromous fish streams within the project area. Purpose and Need for Action_______________________ The primary need for action is compliance with the Malheur Forest Plan (Malheur Land and Resource Management Plan as amended, FEIS, May 1990). The Forest Plan guides all natural resource management activities and establishes management standards for lands administered by the Malheur National Forest. The purpose of and need for the project is to initiate recovery actions that will move the Monument Fire Recovery Project Area towards vegetation, water quality, and wildlife habitat recovery, while reducing the threat of future wildfires and capturing the economic value of the dead material. The purposes for activities are to: • Reduce levels of dead and dying standing and down fuel to reduce the potential for future high-severity fires and restore a low-intensity/ frequent-fire regime. • Improve forest vegetation resilience to insects, disease, wildfire, and other disturbances; restore ecologically appropriate structural and compositional characteristics of upland and riparian vegetation. • Restore tree vegetation for wildlife habitat, stream shade, and a source of future timber products. 6 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action • Replace dedicated old-growth (DOG) and replacement old-growth (ROG) areas that burned and are no longer in suitable old-growth condition. Re- delineate an additional dedicated old-growth area and replacement old-growth area affected by the fire, to bring them in compliance and direction with the Malheur Forest Plan. • Improve watershed condition and reduce road-related impacts. Recommendations from the Monument Roads Analysis report include (1) decommissioning specific roads and old skid trails that are contributing sediment and concentrating flows, resulting in adverse impacts to water quality and native fish habitat, and (2) reducing road densities where deer and elk security habitat has been affected by the fire. • Capture the economic value of those trees that are surplus to other resource needs, and to provide raw materials and jobs to aid in community stability. The needs for the proposed action are derived from the differences between current conditions and desired conditions. Desired conditions are based on Forest Plan direction and management objectives. The proposed action is designed to move resource conditions closer to the desired conditions, and address the management direction provided by the Malheur Land and Resource Management Plan as amended. The two broad categories of purpose for the project are the acceleration of ecosystem restoration, and timely commodity extraction. Each of the existing and desired conditions relevant to providing improved conditions and accomplishing commodity extraction for jobs and income can be linked to the purpose for the proposed action. The purpose and need for an action is the difference between the existing and desired condition. The proposed action is developed early in the planning process to address the differences between the existing and desired conditions. The Need to Reduce Potential High Fuel Levels The Monument Fire Recovery Project Area, historically, was a short-interval, fire- adapted ecosystem. Frequent, low-intensity fires that swept the forest floor maintained this condition. High-severity fires did occur, but on a much smaller scale than the Monument Fire. Prior to the Monument Fire, the composition of stands in the hot dry and warm dry forests, once dominated by ponderosa pine, started to change. Fire suppression, grazing, and timber harvest of fire-tolerant species, which began in the early 1900s, were major factors in expanding multistrata understories of fire-intolerant tree species. Changes in the structure of ponderosa pine-dominated stands in the hot dry and warm dry forests increased the risk of high-intensity fires. Due to these changes, the historic high-frequency/low-severity fire regime changed to a moderate- to high-severity fire regime (Brown, Coarse Woody Debris: Managing Benefits and Fire Hazard in the Recovering Forest, pg. 6). Generally, the Monument Fire consumed the thick litter layers and most, of the understory vegetation throughout the moderate and severely burned areas. A dead and dying standing fuel component remains within this low-intensity fire regime area. Up to 10 years following the Monument Fire, a high-intensity fire is unlikely, because fuel will still be accumulating as dead trees rot and fall down, and will not have decomposed enough to support prolonged smoldering combustion. However, concentrations of light, woody fuels (0-3 inches diameter) could support moderate to high fire intensity. 7 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Approximately 10 to 30 years following the Monument Fire, accumulated fuel will have decomposed enough to support prolonged burning. Minimal duff will have accumulated, thus high burn severity would primarily occur where fuel is lying on or close to the ground. Roughly 30 years and beyond, large wood will have considerable rot, and a litter and duff layer will be established, resulting in high burn severity due to prolonged burning of this layer. Additionally, existence of a conifer overstory could support a crown fire, which would eliminate vegetation recovery. The development of vegetative communities could be altered, perpetuating the departure from a high-frequency to a low- intensity fire regime. Reintroduction of fire for resource benefit, by application of prescribed burns or wildland fires, is a foreseeable action, 20 to 30 years in the future (Brown, Coarse Woody Debris: Managing Benefits and Fire Hazard in the Recovering Forest, Pg 9). The following table (1-2) displays the potential fuel loading of the standing, dead trees currently within the area of the proposed action. Table 1-2. Existing and Desired Fuel Loading within the Project Area Areas *Tons/Acre Existing *Tons/Acre Desired Camp Creek RHCA 87 5 - 15 Little Malheur River RHCA 60 5 - 15 Little Malheur River Uplands 31 5 - 15 North Fork Malheur River Uplands 33 5 - 15 *Sampling was limited to trees greater than 8 inches in diameter at breast height (>8” DBH); data was produced by calculating weight of standing, dead trees existing on site. Desired tons/acre was taken from Brown, Coarse Woody Debris: Managing Benefits and Fire Hazard in the Recovering Forest, Pg. 7.) There is a need to remove large standing dead trees that will eventually fall and add to ground fuel loading. The salvage of the standing dead and dying would reduce future burn duration, reducing fire severity of future prescribed or wildfire events. Reduction of potential high fuel levels will meet forest plan standards for residue management (Malheur N.F., Land Use Mgt. Plan, Ch. IV, Pg. 45, Forest Wide Standard #181). The Need to Improve the Appropriate Forest Vegetation Structural Characteristics The warm dry and hot dry forests are the most common forest types or biophysical environments occurring across the Monument Fire Recovery Project Area. These fores types comprise 6,385 acres or 74% of the project area (table 1-3). Prior to the Monument Fire, the structural character of the warm dry and hot dry forests was affected by a variety 8 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action of factors including fire suppression, grazing, past harvest activities which removed trees in larger diameter classes only, natural climate, and insect and disease cycles. In warm dry and hot dry forests, with high stocking levels, multiple canopy layers, and with shade-tolerant species (such as grand fir) increases the response to these factors. These biophysical changes greatly reduced the resilience of these forests to withstand the Monument Fire, and contributed to a stand-replacement fire occurrence over a larger area. These warm dry/hot dry forest biophysical environments were not historically shaped by large stand-replacement fires, but were more adapted to high-frequency/low- intensity fire regimes in the past. These historic, open park-like stands were ecologically stable and sustainable forest structures. These conditions are most prevalent in the hot dry biophysical environment but some stands of warm dry biophysical environments are also suited to open park-like structures. It is desirable to recreate these forest structures and return the stands to a more sustainable condition where feasible. Table 1-3. Existing Monument Project Area Biophysical Types: Biophysical Environment Acres Percentage of Area Warm Dry 6,015 70% Hot Dry 370 4% Cool Moist 640 8% Cold Dry 715 8% Warm Moist 75 1% Grassland/Shrubland/Woodland 720 8% Non-Forest (rock, streams, etc.) 53 <1% Total Acres 8,588 Acres 100% Areas that burned severely and at the higher end of the moderate-burn severity generally resulted in a stand-replacement fire, with very few trees expected to survive the fire. The Monument Fire resulted in a major change in structural characteristics over a large landscape, with most of the higher-severity burned areas being set back to stand-initiation or understory-reinitiation structures. Within the fire area, there are few areas remaining in an old-forest structural condition. Many decades will pass before areas that burned with high severities can regenerate and develop into older forests with large trees. Some areas within the fire perimeter burned with light to lower-end moderate burn severities. The probability rating for tree survival in these areas ranges from moderate to high (Scott 2002). Live canopy structures are mixed with fire-killed trees, creating varied stand structures. Areas remaining in dense forest conditions as either a young forest multistory structure (YFMS) or old forest multistory structure (OFMS), will remain susceptible to secondary insect disturbances over the next couple of years due to increased stress on individual trees. Areas with dense multiple canopy structures, especially in the warm dry biophysical environments, will remain susceptible to insect, disease, and fire disturbances into the future. This resiliency treatments would meet Forest Plan standards by maintaining stand vigor with stocking level control to minimize losses due to insects and disease. (Malheur Forest Plan, standard 98, IV-37). 9 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Thinning would also restore ecologically appropriate and resilient stocking, structures, and compositions in warm dry/hot dry forests, stand densities and shade-tolerant species that still remain alive after the fire. By reducing stand densities through thinning live trees, growth of residual trees will be enhanced and large diameter trees will be developed sooner. Due to the lack of old-forest structures within the Monument Fire Area, we need to emphasize restoration activities that will accelerate development of large trees and future old-forest structures, and maintain existing old-forest structures in either an old-forest multistory (mostly warm dry biophysical environments) or an old- forest single-story condition (mostly hot dry or warmer end of warm dry biophysical environments). The Need to Implement Reforestation Activities in the Project Area Approximately 2,963 (34%) acres burned severely in the Monument Fire Recovery Project Area. Very few trees are expected to survive the fire in these intensely burned areas. Areas with a remaining seed source are expected to take decades` to regenerate under natural conditions. Areas, such as Camp Creek, which burned severely over a large landscape area, lack live trees for a seed source to naturally regenerate may take several decades to regenerate. Also, approximately 3,442 acres (40%) burned with moderate severity in the same area. Several of these moderately burned stands also lack sufficient live trees to provide adequate seed source. Areas isolated from a seed source may take decades to naturally regenerate. There is a need to plant conifers to restore these stands sooner than would occur naturally. This will help re-establish big-game winter-range habitat cover as desired in the Forest Plan (Forest Plan, IV-69, standard #4) where habitat was lost, primarily in old-growth habitat, such as Camp Creek and the Little Malheur drainage. We need to re-establish big-game summer-range habitat cover, where hiding and escapement cover was lost throughout both drainages. Many streams, especially those in the Little Malheur and Camp Creek drainages, burned with moderate and severe burn severities, which killed many of the trees in the riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs). We need to plant conifers in riparian areas especially where there is severe fire damage. The likelihood of natural regeneration is limited due to a lack of seed source. The planting will promote soil and streambank stability, shade along streams, and hiding cover for wildlife. The Need to Replace and Update Dedicated Old Growth and Associated Designated Habitats Impacted by the Monument Fire The old-growth network on the Malheur National Forest was first established in the early 1980s. Since then, various levels of field validation and modification of those dedicated areas has occurred, as associated activities and other factors have allowed better information about those habitats to become available. The Monument Fire impacted dedicated old-growth (DOG) and/or replacement old-growth (ROG) habitats within the fire perimeter. One DOG and two ROG habitat areas were impacted. These dedicated habitats are identified as pine marten and pileated woodpecker old-growth habitats. In addition, boundary adjustments to ROGs that were impacted by the fire are needed, to make this designation consistent with Malheur Forest Plan direction. Initial 10 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action reconnaissance and review by team members identified a need to replace DOG 04334PP and its associated ROG, which were completely consumed in the Monument Fire. These habitats will no longer function for pine marten or pileated woodpecker in the short to mid-term. Further reconnaissance and review also identified the need to assess the impacts of the partial consumption of ROG 04345PP (associated with DOG 04345PP), and to re-assess the current boundary designation of the ROG relative to habitat suitability and Forest Plan standards. Currently, ROG 04345PP consists of more acres than directed by the Forest Plan, and includes early successional habitats not desired for ROG habitats. The identification of pileated woodpecker feeding areas is also desired, and directed by the Forest Plan. The Need to Reduce Road and Old Skid Trail-Related Impacts to Watershed and Wildlife Values Within the Monument Fire Project Area, stream systems have been impacted by road location, construction, and maintenance. Several native-surface roads are less than 300 feet from tributaries and springs. Some of these roads directly influence channel morphology, limit woody debris recruitment, and contribute sediment to the stream channel. Road-related impacts on streams would decrease by decommissioning and closing roads within RHCAs. Adverse impacts to water quality, fish habitat, and wildlife habitat would decrease by minimizing road-related sediment delivery to water sources. A road condition inventory identified specific segments as improperly functioning drainage features. There is a need to storm-proof these roads (close, decommission, or improve) to reduce sediment delivery to streams. Closing, stabilizing, or obliterating, roads not needed for future management activities would assist in meeting INFISH standard RF- 3(c). Past logging activities in the 1960s used ground-based skidding methods on slopes exceeding 35%. Under current policy, these methods are used on slopes 35% or less, to prevent excessive soil displacement. In several areas, skids trails ran down steep slopes, cut across slopes, or followed Category 4 stream channels (adjacent to or in the bottom of). Skid trails often crossed existing stream channels, capturing the flows and diverting water down the skid trail. There is a need to obliterate old skid trails to reduce the existing drainage network and improve natural sediment capture and transport. Infiltration will increase, sedimentation will decrease, and runoff will lessen, providing for vegetative recovery along the channel. Loss of live vegetation, particularly in the moderate to severely burned areas, has resulted in the loss of security/hiding cover in the short to mid-term. There is the need to reduce open roads to improve big game animal security and vulnerability to disturbance from motorized vehicle use by hunters, road traffic, and recreationists. The reduction in open roads will also reduce the risk of noxious weed spread. Motorized vehicles are often a major source for spread of noxious weed seeds. The Need to Capture the Economic Value of Wood Products Timber harvesting plays an important role in the economic stability of the local area. There is a need to make wood products available for local, regional, and national needs to 11 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action Monument Fire Recovery FEIS provide jobs in the most cost-effective manner, while being sensitive to resource conditions such as loss of ground vegetation during the fire, soil sensitivity to erosion, and steepness of slopes. We also need to remove the timber in a timely manner to ensure that the highest economic value is obtained. The Malheur Forest Plan to directs us to provide public economic return and maximize outputs (Forest Plan goal 25 and 26, IV-2). Proposed Action _________________________________ Background On December 13, 2002, the Malheur Forest Supervisor issued a project initiation letter to the Monument Team Leader. The Monument Team followed the identified direction during development of the purpose of and need for the proposed action. Following is a summary of direction included in the project initiation letter. Develop a proposed action that considers: • Harvesting dead and dying trees to reduce fuel loadings and reduce the risk of high-severity fires within the natural return cycle for low-intensity/ frequent-fire regime areas, while capturing the economic value of those trees surplus to other resource needs. • Harvesting and thinning some green trees in areas that burned with lower severities, to restore ecologically appropriate tree vegetation structural and compositional characteristics; and improve resilience to insects, disease, wildfire, and other disturbances, in those areas. • Developing appropriate stands in the fire area as replacement old growth, and changing the status of designated and replacement old-growth areas in the fire area as appropriate. Evaluate stands outside of the fire area, but within the affected subwatersheds, for replacement of designated and replacement old- growth areas. • Restoring/improving riparian conditions in riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs). Actions could include timber harvest and directional felling of trees to reduce abnormally high levels of dead standing fuel that may eventually contribute to high-severity fires. • Minimizing negative impacts to water quality, fish habitat, and wildlife habitat by decommissioning old roads and skid trails, repairing road surfaces, and limiting construction of temporary roads. No new permanent road construction will be proposed. • Applying helicopter logging on steeper slopes, high-intensity burn areas, and sensitive soil types. To ensure protection of soil and water quality, helicopter logging will be applied in the Little Malheur River Drainage and its tributaries. • Planting appropriate and desirable vegetation in upland and riparian locations. • Removing hazard trees along system roads. • Repairing road surfaces used to access this project area. Dead and Dying Tree Determination Determining potential tree survivorship or mortality after a wildfire is often difficult because of the varied and complex factors governing the survival of fire injured trees. 12 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action Numerous factors often interact to determine the fate of trees following wildfire, including, age, size, crown ratio, bark thickness, and other fire-resistance characteristics of the affected tree species; stand density, fuel loads, season of fire, and growing site quality characteristics. These factors influence the intensity and duration of the fire, and degree of damage to trees; and insect populations and disease status with affected stands. The most current scientific literature available, which builds on past fire research efforts (Scott 1996) was published in November, 2002 and was written by Scott et al. It is titled “Factors Affecting Survival of Fire Injured Trees: A Rating System for Determining Relative Probability of Survival of Conifers in the Blue and Wallowa Mountains”. This document was written to provide a field rating system to determine potential survivorship or mortality of fire injured trees. Field verification of the rating system was conducted by Don Scott, Craig Schmitt, Lia Spiegel and Prairie City Ranger District personnel in June 2003 (Letter to District Ranger, 12/3/2003). This rating system was used to determine those trees designated for salvage and are considered as dead. The rating system has a high degree of confidence in predicting survivorship or mortality when a tree is classified as either high probability of survival or low probability of survival. Further discussion of vegetative response to fire can be found in the following documents: Scott et al, (2003), Scott et al, (2002), Schmitt and Spiegel (2002), Miller (2000), Johnson (1998), and Scott (1996). Proposed Activities/Treatments The following activities are proposed in the Monument Fire Recovery Project Area to meet the six project objectives identified in the purpose and need statements, Malheur Forest Plan direction, and direction issued by the Malheur Forest Supervisor in the Project Initiation Letter. Under the proposed action, activities would most likely begin in the fall of 2003. Activities could extend over a period of 3 to 4 years ending in 2007. A detailed schedule of project activities by alternative is contained in Chapter 2. The six project objectives include: (1) Fuels – reduction of future high fuel levels, (2) Forest Vegetation – improvement of forest structure, (3) Forest Vegetation – restoration of forest vegetation killed by fire, (4) Old Growth – replacement of Dedicated Old Growth and Replacement Old Growth, (5) Water Quality – improvement of water quality conditions being degraded by roads and old skid trails, and (6) Economics – capture of economic value of the dead/dying trees. The following treatments were developed to meet the six project objectives. Fuels/Economics Salvage Treatment The Salvage Treatment addresses the need to reduce future fuel levels and capture economic value of a portion of trees killed in the Monument Fire. Approximately 3,451 acres are proposed for salvage harvest. These areas generally burned with higher severities (high end of the moderate, to severe burn-severities). The fire in these areas is described as stand-replacement, with a limited number of trees expected to survive the fire. Only dead and dying trees would be removed. Treatment 13 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action Monument Fire Recovery FEIS boundaries incorporate non-forest areas such as grassland and shrubland. These non- forest areas have scattered dead and dying trees, and would be excluded from harvest. Wildlife snag habitat would be retained throughout the landscape. Green trees of all sizes and species (expected to survive the fire), would be retained. Residual fuels such as tops and limbs left on site would be lopped and scattered to place them in contact with the ground. This slash retention would reduce erosion potential and initiate the decomposition process. Harvest landing slash would be piled and burned. Trees of appropriate species (primarily ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and western larch) would be planted in areas treated. Table 1-4. Summary of Upland Salvage Treatment Activities – Proposed Action (Alternative 2). Logging System (Acres) Watershed Harvest Acres Tractor Helicopter Upper North Fork Malheur Watershed (Swamp Creek Subwatershed) 490 490 0 Little Malheur Watershed (Upper Little Malheur Subwatershed) 2,961 0 2,961 Totals 3,451 Acres 490 Acres 2,961 Acres Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) Salvage Treatment The objective of the RHCA Salvage Treatment is to remove excess (outside the desired range) standing fuel in the RHCA that may contribute to future high-severity fires. Approximately 601 acres of salvage is proposed in RHCAs in the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek drainages within the Little Malheur watershed (Table 1-5). This includes 400 acres of salvage in the Category 1 streams that are fish bearing, 21 acres in RHCA Category 2, and 180 acres in Category 4. The RHCA zones would become more resilient to future fire events as these areas re-vegetate and recover. Other objectives include reforestation of RHCAs that burned with higher severities to enhance recovery of forested vegetation in these zones. Activities are not proposed for RHCAs in the North Fork Malheur watershed, because these RHCAs did not burn with the same severities as those in the Little Malheur and Camp Creek drainages. Also, salvage harvest was not proposed in the Little Malheur River stream reach below the confluence with Camp Creek. Category 1 – Fish Bearing Streams (Little Malheur River and Camp Creek) Standing dead trees <20” DBH will be removed from RHCAs adjacent to the lower reaches of the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek, in order to lower future fuel to more natural levels. Standing dead trees >20” DBH, in both the Little Malheur River and 14 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action Camp Creek RHCAs would be retained to provide future replacement of large woody debris (LWD) over the next 100 years. To restore riparian vegetation, tree planting with appropriate conifer species would occur on a site-specific basis in Category 1 RHCAs. Conifer species will be planted at low stocking levels. The majority of conifers will be planted at least 50 feet away from stream channels, with a limited number planted adjacent to or near stream channels to allow for recovery of hardwood shrubs adjacent to the stream channel. Where upland areas are present in the RHCA, planting will mimic planting prescriptions for adjacent upland stands. Fuel treatments would consist of a combination of lopping and scattering tops and limbs, and hand piling within the Little Malheur River portion of the treatment area. All Salvage Harvest in RHCAs would be completed with helicopter yarding, to minimize ground disturbance. Helicopter landings would be located outside of RHCAs. Category 2 – Perennial Streams (Little Malheur and Camp Creek Tributaries) Treatments in Category 2 RHCAs would be the same as those in Category 1 RHCAs. Category 4 – Intermittent Streams (Little Malheur and Camp Creek Tributaries) Treatments in Category 4 RHCAs would mimic treatments in adjoining upland stands, because vegetation in Category 4 RHCAs is predominately upland species in the Camp Creek and Little Malheur River drainages. Table 1-5. Summary of RHCA Salvage Activities – Proposed Action. Harvest (Acres) Watershed Category 1 RHCA Category 2 RHCA Category 4 RHCA Upper North Fork Malheur Watershed (Swamp Cr subwatershed) 0 0 0 Little Malheur Watershed (Upper Little Malheur Subwatershed) 400 Acres 21 Acres 180 Acres Forest Vegetation Structure Resiliency Treatment The Resiliency Treatment meets the need to improve residual timber stand resilience to insects, disease, wildfire, and other disturbances, and restore ecologically appropriate structural and compositional characteristics of the remaining live upland vegetation. 15 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Approximately 223 acres of timber harvest and 382 acres of precommercial thinning are proposed for Resiliency Treatment. Due to lack of old-forest structure within the Monument Fire Project Area, Resiliency Treatment activities will focus on accelerating development of large trees and future old-forest structures, and maintaining existing old- forest structures in either old-forest multistory structure or old-forest single-story structure, which will provide for old-growth-dependent species needs. This treatment would be applied in a portion of the area that burned with light to lower- end moderate intensity. This locale was selected because it has a manageable/desirable overstory that will likely survive the effects of the Monument Fire. A dominant mature/old ponderosa pine component exists in the overstory, sometimes mixed with the presence of mature Douglas-fir, western larch, and the occasional mature grand fir. The goal of the Resiliency Treatment is to mimic historic vegetation conditions while meeting wildlife habitat needs, and improving resilience to damage from insects and disease. The Resiliency Treatment would primarily includes salvage of dead and commercial thinning of the residual live trees, by applying a commercial thinning. The treatment would retain live/green trees greater than 21 inches in diameter and would target retaining other desirable live trees in the 12 to 20 inch diameter range. The prescription would thin live trees less than 21 inches in diameter, and salvage most of the dead. A more open structure (similar to old-forest single-story condition) would result in some areas, while in other areas a more open multiple-canopy condition (similar to young- forest multistory or old-forest multistory structure) would result. Snags would be retained to meet wildlife habitat needs across the landscape. Larger diameter snags (greater than 21 inches DBH) are the most desirable to retain, although smaller diameter classes would also be retained. In some of these stands, precommercial thinning would take place to reduce stocking of smaller trees. Trees of appropriate species (primarily ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and western larch) would be planted in treated areas, where needed to meet stocking level and habitat diversity requirements. Fuel treatment activities would include either lop and scatter or whole-tree yarding. In helicopter-logged areas, fuel treatment would also consist of primarily lop and scatter of tops and limbs, and limited hand piling in areas with higher than desirable fuel loadings. 16 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action Table 1-6. Summary of Resiliency Treatment and Precommercial Thinning Activities - Proposed Action Logging System (Acres) Watershed Precommercial Thinning (Acres Harvest (Acres) Tractor Helicopter Upper North Fork Malheur Watershed; Swamp Cr Subwatershed 135 0 0 0 Little Malheur Watershed; Upper Little Malheur Subwatershed 235 233 0 233 Totals 370 acres 223 Acres 0 Acres 223 Acres Forest Vegetation Reforestation Treatment Approximately 5,322 acres are planned for reforestation. All areas that do not have substantial live trees sufficient to meet management objectives that are capable of growing trees will be planted in each alternative, regardless if an area is to be harvested. Twenty-one acres of plantations destroyed by the Monument Fire were planted in 2003. In 2004, an additional 223 acres of trees already being grown in the nursery are anticipated to be available for planting in plantations and precommercial thinning units that were destroyed by the fire. The species that are planned to be planted are predominately ponderosa pine, western larch, and some Douglas-fir. Western white pine or lodgepole pine may be planted in areas of poor cold air drainage and this will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Seed will be sown in the springs of 2003 and 2004 for out year planting. Only previously forested areas would be planted. Areas that had become forested due to in growth during the recent period of fire exclusion, such as dry meadows and rocky ridge tops would not be replanted. Water Quality Road Restoration and Old Skid Trail Obliteration Treatments Road Restoration Several miles of road maintenance, road closures, and road decommissioning are proposed, to reduce adverse impacts to water quality, fish habitat, wildlife habitat, and decrease the spread of noxious weeds by motor vehicles (figures 13 and 14, Map Section). Road closure (gate) – 7.0 miles 17 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Road decommissioning – 11.8 miles The primary emphasis for road maintenance, closure, and decommissioning is to minimize road-related sediment delivery to water sources. The objective is to minimize road effects on interception and concentration of runoff and precipitation. The following table (1-7) summarizes road management activities proposed in riparian habitat conservation areas and upland areas. Table 1-7. Summary of Road and Skid Trail Activities - Proposed Action. Area Gated Road Closure (Miles) Road Decommissioning (Miles) Upland Areas 6.5 6.0 RHCA Cat 1 0.0 3.9 RHCA Cat 2 0.2 0.3 RHCA Cat 4 0.3 1.6 Total 7.0 11.8 Roads proposed for decommissioning have structural damage and are unsafe for travel or are not drivable. Many of the roads are located adjacent to or near the channel, are sloughing into the channel, or have major erosion problems due to steep grades. On these roads some of the culverts have been removed, rocks partially block access, and trees have blocked access. These roads will not be used for salvage or regeneration activities identified in the proposed action. Roads identified in the Roads Analysis (Monument Recovery Roads Analysis, July 2003) would remain open and allow for alternate access. The road closures would be gated year-long closures to motorized vehicles. Gated closures provide continued access (by permit only), and limit disturbance to wildlife. Old Skid Trail Obliteration Approximately 2.2 miles of old skid trail obliteration activities are proposed. Low ground pressure equipment and handwork would be used to return these affected areas to as natural a condition as possible. Returning the skid trail surface to the original contour or out-sloping would return the water to the channel, slow runoff, and increase infiltration. Wood placements would filter additional sediment, and mulching and seeding would be applied as needed. 18 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action Old Growth Habitat Dedicated Old-Growth (DOG) and Replacement Old-Growth (ROG) Areas • The re-delineation or designation of suitable late-and-old-structure (LOS) habitats to replace DOG and ROG 04334PP that no longer meet forest old growth structure condition. • Re-delineation of replacement old-growth areas to incorporate suitable LOS or older structure stands, to provide suitable replacement areas for associated DOGs 04334PP and 04345PP and bring them into compliance with the Forest Plan. Pileated Woodpecker Feeding Areas • Identification and delineation of pileated woodpecker feeding areas, as appropriate, to provide suitable foraging habitat to meet Forest Plan direction. The following table (1-8) shows the proposed changes (in approximate acres) of the proposed designations and figure 15 (Map Section) identified the locations of the proposed changes. These changes also effect Forest Plan Management Area designations and require a non- significant plan amendment . Table 1-8. Changes for DOG/ROG and Pileated Woodpecker Habitat- Proposed Action Designation Current Size (Acres) Proposed (Acres) Change (Acres) Dedicated Old Growth 04334PP 504 575 +71 Replacement Old Growth 04334PP 334 356 +22 Pileated Woodpecker Feeding Area 04334PP 0 380 +380 Dedicated Old Growth 04345PP 410 410 +0 Replacement Old Growth 04345PP 1,254 294 -960 Pileated Woodpecker Feeding Area 04345PP 0 431 +431 Total 2502 2446 -56 Conformance with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, as Amended A non-significant Forest Plan amendment would be required to implement the proposed action. Alternative 2 was designed, in part, to replace DOG and ROG 04334PP that is now unsuitable due to the fire. Selecting Alternative 2 would include a site-specific, non- significant amendment to convert the original MA 13 to MA-1 or MA 4A. The other part of the DOG and ROG re - delineation would change the boundary of DOG 04345 converting changing the MA 13 and MA 1 acres. Selection of this alternative would meet Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (36 CFR 219.10 (c)). 19 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Actions Outside of this Final EIS to Address Recovery Needs __________________________________________ The following are implemented through administrative decisions outside of this Final EIS. ƒ Commercial and personal use firewood cutting would be delayed until 2008 for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. ƒ To allow vegetation and riparian areas to recover, livestock grazing would be delayed for two or more years depending on fire severity and whether monitoring shows that the range resource is ready after two growing seasons or not. This will comply with the Forest's post burn grazing guidelines. Grazing may be delayed for a longer period if necessary to meet other resource objectives. ƒ The fire area would be open to all other usual Forest-wide accepted activities, including mushroom gathering, hunting, and recreation, which are outside the scope of this project. Designated roads would be opened to the public after hazard trees are felled. ƒ FSR 1672457 (road from the junction of Camp Creek road to trailhead) will remain closed until a decision on the future of this road and recreation facility is made. Decision Framework ______________________________ The Responsible Official for this proposal is the Forest Supervisor of the Malheur National Forest. After completion of the Final EIS, there will be a 45-day public comment period. Based on response to this Final EIS and the analysis disclosed in the Final EIS, the Responsible Official will make a decision and document it in a Record of Decision (ROD) which will accompany the Final EIS. The Responsible Official can decide to: ƒ Select the proposed action, or ƒ Select an action alternative that has been considered in detail, or ƒ Modify an action alternative, or ƒ Select the no-action alternative. Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 will require a non-significant Forest Plan amendment related to MA 13 (old growth) designation (see Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered in Detail). Alternative 2 and 4 will require a non-significant amendment for reduction of big game cover and Alternative 4 requires a non-significant amendment related to snag retention. The Responsible Official will also determine if the selected alternative is consistent with the Forest Plan, as amended, or whether to amend the Forest Plan. Public Involvement _______________________________ Initial Scoping The Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on March 24, 2003. The NOI asked for public comment on the proposal from March 24, 2003, to April 30, 20 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action 2003. The project has been listed in the quarterly Schedule of Proposed Activities (SOPA). In addition, as part of the public involvement process, an Open House was held at the Federal Building in John Day on February 13, 2003. On February 14, 2003, the agency mailed a scoping letter seeking public comment to approximately 130 groups, other agencies, and individuals who had previously shown interest in Malheur National Forest projects. In response to these scoping efforts, written comments were received from 13 interested parties: ƒ Dan Bishop/Prairie Wood Products ƒ John Edmundson ƒ Greg Jackson/Jackson Oil, Inc. et. al. ƒ Michael Letourneau/US EPA, Region 10 ƒ Karen Coulter/Blue Mountain Biodiversity Project ƒ Leeanne Siart/Oregon Natural Resources Council ƒ Bill Wilcox ƒ Linda Driskill/Grant County Conservationists ƒ Jeffrey Ritter ƒ Kelly O’Brien/Northwest Environmental Defense Center ƒ Rachel Thomas ƒ Steven Courtney/Malheur Lumber Company ƒ Thomas Partin/American Forest Resource Council In addition to comments supporting the project, the District received comments reflecting concerns related to potential adverse impacts on soils, wildlife and aquatic habitat, and economics. Public comments were used in the development of the reasonable range of alternatives and the identification of the key issues. DEIS Comments/Responses The Monument Recovery Project DEIS was completed in July 2003, and was made available to the public the week of August 3, 2003. The 45 day review period began on August 8, 2003, the day the Notice of Availablity was printed in the Federal Register. The review period ran through September 23, 2003. The DEIS was mailed to over 100 interested publics. Additonal copies were given to other individuals, agencies, and groups following the initial mailing. Written comments were received from 11 individuals, agencies, and groups. These comments, with agency responses, are located in Appendix F. Coordination with Other Governments and Agencies __ The Prairie City Ranger District staff contacted three tribes that have rights or interests in the Monument Fire Recovery Project area: the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and the Burns Paiute Tribe. Based on a government-to-government relationship, the purpose of the contact was to exchange information, answer questions, and to work closely and continuously with each other to integrate tribal rights and interests in the planning process. The Burns Paiute Tribe provided comments during the scoping period. 21 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Coordination has also occurred with federal, state, and local government officials (see also Chapter 4). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Fisheries (NOAA), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been kept informed of proposed activities. Using the comments from the public, other agencies, and tribes, the interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues to address. Issues __________________________________________ Comments received from the public generated issues are discussed in this document. The interdisciplinary team (ID team) reviewed and evaluated comments received from the scoping process and are incorporated as key issues. In the NEPA process, key issues are defined as resource or other values that drive the development of an alternative, may be adversely affected by the proposed action, or involve unresolved conflicts regarding alternative uses of available resources. Key issues provide focus for the analysis and are used directly in formulation of the alternatives. Listed with each key issue are indicators to show a measurement of how each key issue is affected by proposed activities for each alternative. In addition to key issues identified by the IDT, there are “other analysis” issues addressed in the effects analysis and often used to compare alternatives. For example, heritage resources will always be addressed in actions that have site-specific ground-disturbing actions. Although alternatives may not be designed specifically to address heritage resources, the consequences of all the alternatives must be measured against compliance with direction to provide adequate protection for these resources (see Other Analysis Issues and Concerns, this chapter). Issues selected as key issues for this Final EIS are listed below. They are not listed in any particular order. They will be discussed in detail in the analysis and throughout the remaining chapters of this document. The Forest Service identified the following key issues during scoping. 1. Snag Habitat: The standard for snags in the Malheur Forest Plan is based on species dependent on old structure, green stands. Retaining Forest Plan snag levels may not be provide adequate snag habitat for dead-forest-dependent species and primary cavity excavators. Indicators/measurements selected to compare the results of each alternative in response to this issue include: number of snags retained per acre within harvest areas and acres and percent severely fire effected forested habitat remaining after salvage. 2. Water Quality/Sedimentation: There is concern that salvage harvest should not occur in areas that are severely burned or are located on erosive sites, riparian areas, or steep slopes (see Beschta report recommendations). Harvest on these areas could increase erosion potential in the fire area. The proposed action includes salvage harvest and tractor logging within both RHCAs and severely burned areas. Salvage harvest would occur within the RHCAs of the Little Malheur River. The Little Malheur River is proposed as critical habitat for bull trout. The river has also been identified on the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 303 (d) list for exceeding water temperature standards. There is concern that harvest activities in the 22 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action project area could further degrade water quality, and prolong recovery of stream habitat in the fire area. Indicators/measurements selected to compare the results of each alternative in response to this issue include: acres of tractor skidding, acres of harvest in RHCAs, change in stream shading due to harvest, and other non-harvest ground disturbing activities within RHCAs classed by moderate or severe vegetative burn severity. 3. Green Tree Harvest: The proposed action includes harvest thinning to promote stand resiliency. There is concern that thinning the few remaining live stands of trees would negatively impact their value for wildlife cover, landbird species habitat, moisture retention, and nutrient recycling. Indicators/measurements selected to compare the results of each alternative in response to this issue include: acres of green tree harvest (resiliency treatment) and acres of wildlife cover. 4. Economics: Commercial value of the fire-killed trees will deteriorate quickly if salvage does not occur within the next year. The recovery value of the timber will have an effect on the local economy. Any delays in harvest would affect the economic viability of the timber sales within the fire project area. Indicators/measurements selected to compare the results of each alternative in response to this issue include: Timber jobs provided, commercial harvest volume, and present net value. 5. Fuels: There is a scientific controversy relevant to benefits of using salvage harvest to reduce fuels in order to reduce potential effects of future fire events. Some science advocates a passive approach to fuels management in burned areas, by recommending that natural processes are best for management of fuels. Others suggest that salvage harvest is the best way to reduce the potential for another cycle of heavy fuel accumulations therefore, limiting future management opportunity to use prescribed fire to restore the landscape to historical conditions. Indicators/measurements selected to compare the results of each alternative in response to this issue include; fire severity and fire intensity in 20 years as predicted by fuel loading (tons/acre). 6. Soils: Concerns were expressed that using ground based mechanized equipment to harvest timber and reduce fuels would increase soil erosion and decrease soil productivity, especially on severe and moderate severity burned areas. Indicators/measurements selected to compare the results of each alternative in response to this issue include: acres of ground-based (tractor) salvage harvest on severely and moderately-burned areas. Other Analysis Issues ____________________________ Other analysis issues are issues addressed in the effects analysis and used to compare alternatives. The following issues were raised by the public and Forest Service resource specialists and were considered as this project was developed and analyzed. These issues did not drive alternatives, but they were addressed or used in this analysis. Other analysis issues are listed here, and analyzed in Chapter 3. Some issues are already addressed through other processes or in the Forest Plan, some led to mitigation measures (see Management Requirements and Mitigation Measures in Chapter 2), and some are analyzed in Chapter 3. 23 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Some issues fit into the following categories: (1) outside the scope of the proposed action; (2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; (3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or (4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7: “identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3).” The following is a list of other issues, and reasons regarding their categorization as non- significant, or a reference to a location in this EIS where that issue is addressed. A brief response follows the issue in italics. Forest Vegetation/Structure There is an issue that removing burned trees may reduce crucial shade for the reestablishment of seedlings. This is discussed in Chapter 3 in the Forest Vegetation, Shade and Microclimate section. There is an issue that natural reforestation may not be successful, and conversely, that planting may not be necessary to establish reforestation. This is discussed in Chapter 3 in the Forest Vegetation, Reforestation section. There is an issue that the future forest vegetation needs to be more resilient and sustainable and able to withstand periodic natural disturbances. This is discussed in Chapter 3 in the Forest Vegetation, Future Stand Resiliency section. Roads/Access There is an issue that closing and decommissioning roads could affect forest users. This is discussed in Environmental Effects for the alternatives in the Recreation and Botany sections in Chapter 3. Wildlife Habitat There is an issue that salvage logging and fuels reduction activities could adversely affect management indicator species (MIS) and featured species identified in the Forest Plan. This is discussed in Chapter 3, Environmental Consequences in the Wildlife section. There is an issue that salvage logging and fuels reduction activities could adversely affect threatened, endangered, and sensitive wildlife species. This is discussed in Chapter 3, Environmental Consequences in the Wildlife section, and in the Biological Evaluation in Appendix A. Many populations of neotropical migratory bird species are considered in decline (Saab and Rich 1998, Altman 2000, Sharp 1996). Habitat loss is considered the primary factor for population declines. There is an issue that salvage logging and fuels reduction activities could contribute to further population decline. This is discussed in Chapter 3, Environmental Consequences in the Wildlife section. There is an issue that the salvage harvest could affect the lynx populations. This is discussed in Environmental Consequences for the alternatives in the Wildlife section under Old Growth in Chapter 3. None of the alternatives include harvest in those areas identified as lynx habitat. 24 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action Soils There are issues about logging impacts on mycorrhizae fungi and other soil biota. Effects of post-fire logging of dead and dying trees, on soil biota, and effects of changes in soil biota on soil quality, are discussed in the soils section of Chapter3. Water Quality/Fish There is an issue that proposed activities may degrade watershed conditions downstream of the project area. This is discussed in the Cumulative Effects section of Environmental Effects in the Aquatics section of Chapter 3. Fish species distribution and populations are controlled by water quality and habitat quantity/quality. There is an issue that salvage harvest, fuels reduction, and road activities could further impact populations of redband trout and Malheur mottled sculpin by degrading water quality and fish habitat quantity/quality by directly or indirectly modifying stream channel morphology. This is discussed in the Cumulative Effects section of Environmental Effects in the Aquatics section of Chapter 3. Cattle Grazing There is an issue that there needs to be a recovery period after burning before grazing is resumed. A recovery period will occur in all alternatives. This is discussed under Actions Outside of this Final EIS to Address Recovery Needs (Chapter 1), and in Range in Chapter 3. Culturally Important Plants and Sensitive Plant Species American Indians are concerned that proposed activities such as road closures may impact access to culturally important plants and tribal uses of these plants in the project area. This is discussed in Environmental Consequences in the Botany section of Chapter 3. Invasive Species There is an issue that proposed activities could spread invasive plant species, both noxious weeds and non-native, introduced species. This is discussed in Environmental Consequences in the Botany section of Chapter 3. Roadless/Unroaded There is an issue that the Monument Fire Recovery Project may affect roadless and contiguous roadless areas. The proposed treatments are consistent with management direction in the Malheur Forest Plan (1990) and current Forest Service roadless direction. There are no 1000 acre contiguous unroaded areas or inventoried roadless areas in the project area(project record, GIS analysis). The inventoried roadless areas are identified in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation FEIS, Vol. 2 (USDA Forest Service 2000). Discussion of the direction and effects are futher discussed in Chpater 3, Other Disclosures, Unroaded. Timber Harvest/Project Design There is an issue that alternatives should be considered with a full range of logging systems based on-site-specific resource conditions, timing of events, and economic 25 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action Monument Fire Recovery FEIS factors. There maybe alternative means to meet resource constraints to protect sensitive site conditions using other logging systems that are more cost effective. Other logging systems methods were considered. In Chapter 2, in the section “Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed,” different logging systems and fuel treatments were identified. There is an issue to include the implementation flexibility by allowing the use of stewardship or service contracts for salvage or hazardous fuels reduction projects in addition to the more standard timber sale contract. The proposed harvest included in the salvage and resiliency treatments could be implemented using stewardship or service contracts as long as they meet design or mitigation measures and provide the best economic return. Laws and Regulations ____________________________ This Final EIS adheres to the following legal requirements, coordination, and regulations. The Preservation of American Antiquities Act of 1906 This Act makes it illegal to “appropriate, excavate, injure, or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity, situated on lands owned by the Government of the United States, without the permission of the Secretary of the Department of the Government having jurisdiction over the lands on which said antiquities are situated.” The National Historic Preservation Act This Act requires Federal agencies to consult with State and local groups before nonrenewable cultural resources, such as archaeological sites and historic structures, are damaged or destroyed. Section 106 of this Act requires Federal agencies to review the effects project proposals may have on the cultural resources in the Analysis Area. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended The purposes of this Act are to “provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section.” The Act also states “It is further declared to be the policy of Congress that all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act.” The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 The purposes of this Act are to establish an international framework for the protection and conservation of migratory birds. The Act makes it illegal, unless permitted by regulations, to “pursue, hunt, take, capture, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, included in this Convention... for the protection of migratory birds...or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird” (16 USC 703). The original 1918 statute implemented the 1916 Convention between the United 26 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action States and Great Britain (for Canada). Later amendments implemented treaties between the United States and Mexico, Japan, and the Soviet Union (now Russia). The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as Amended The purposes of this Act are “To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment, to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere, and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality” (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321). The law further states “it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local governments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans” [42 U.S.C. Sec. 4331(a)]. NEPA establishes the format and content requirements of environmental analysis and documentation, such as the Monument Fire Recovery Project. The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 This Act guides development and revision of National Forest Land Management Plans, and has several sections, ranging from required reporting the Secretary must submit annually to Congress, to preparation requirements for timber sale contracts. There are several important sections within the act, including Section 1 (purpose and principles, Section 19 (fish and wildlife resource), Section 23 (water and soil resource), and Section 27 (management requirements). The Clean Water Act, as Amended in 1977 and 1982 The primary objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the integrity of the nation’s waters. This objective translates into two fundamental national goals: (1) Eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the nation’s waters; and (2) Achieve water quality levels that are fishable and swimmable. This Act establishes a non-degradation policy for all Federally proposed projects. The Clean Air Act, as Amended in 1990 The purposes of this Act are “to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population; to initiate and accelerate a national research and development program to achieve the prevention and control of air pollution; to provide technical and financial assistance to State and local governments in connection with the development and execution of their air pollution prevention and control programs; and to encourage and assist the development and operation of regional air pollution prevention and control programs.” 27 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 requires the Forest Service to manage National Forest System lands for multiple uses (including timber, recreation, fish and wildlife, range, and watershed). All renewable resources are to be managed in such a way that they are available for future generations. The harvesting and use of standing timber can be considered a short-term use of a renewable resource. As a renewable resource, trees can be reestablished and grown in again if the productivity of the land is not impaired. Treaty with the Walla Walla, Cayuse, and Umatilla Tribes, June 9, 1855, and Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, June 25,1855 These treaties established “That the exclusive right of taking fish in the streams running through and bordering said reservation is hereby secured to said Indians, and at all other usual and accustomed stations, in common with citizens of the United States, and of erecting suitable house for curing the same; also the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their stock on unclaimed lands, in common with citizens, is secured to them.” All actions to be taken must fully consider and comply with American Indian treaty rights. The project area falls within lands ceded by the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation and within lands that have an overlap of use with the Umatilla Tribes. These tribes have reserved rights to anadromous fish, and Federal court decisions have specifically established that the tribes have treaty rights to an equitable share of the Columbia Basin fishery resource (CRITFC 1995, Vol. I, p. 4-1 – 4-3). Public law 92-488 This law recognizes the Burns Paiute Tribe and their reservation. As a Federally recognized tribe, the Burns Paiute Tribe retains rights of inherent sovereignty. The project area is within the traditional and current use area of the Burns Paiute Tribe. Migratory Bird Executive Order (E.O.) 13186, January 2001 President Clinton signed an Executive Order" (E.O. 13186) titled "Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds.” This E.O. requires that “environmental analysis of Federal actions, required by NEPA or other established environmental review processes, evaluate the effects of actions and agency plans on migratory birds, with emphasis on species of concern.” Natural or Depletable Resource Requirements and Conservation Potential The Monument Fire Recovery Project has been designed to conform to applicable laws and regulations pertaining to natural or depletable resources, including minerals and energy resources. Regulations of mineral and energy activities on the National Forest, under the U.S. Mining Laws Act of 1872 and the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, are shared with the Bureau of Land Management. The demand for access to National Forest System lands for the purpose of mineral and energy exploration and development is expected to increase over time. 28 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action Environmental Justice On February 11, 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898. This order directs each Federal agency to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. On the same day, the President also signed a memorandum emphasizing the need to consider these types of effects during NEPA analysis. On March 24, 1995, the Department of Agriculture completed an implementation strategy for the executive order. Where Forest Service proposals have the potential to disproportionately and adversely affect minority or low-income populations, these effects must be considered and disclosed (and mitigated to the degree possible) through the NEPA analysis and documentation (see Environmental Justice, Chapter 3). Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forestland All alternatives are in accordance with the Secretary of Agriculture Memorandum 1827 for prime farmland, rangeland, and forestland. "Prime" forestland is a term used only for non-Federal land, which would not be affected by proposed alternatives. Regardless of the alternative selected, National Forest System lands would be managed with sensitivity to adjacent private and public lands. Floodplains and Wetlands (E. O. 11988 and 11990) The purpose of these 1977 orders are to “…avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development…” and similarly “…avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands…” Wetlands that meet the Jurisdictional Definition (Corps of Engineers) are found in the Monument Project Area. These areas will be mapped as described in the Mitigation, and avoided during harvest and fuel treatments. Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 (as Amended) This act directed the Secretary of Agriculture to prepare a Renewable Resources Assessment and updates. These assessments include “an analysis of present and anticipated uses, demand for, and supply of the renewable resources, with consideration of the international resource situation, and an emphasis of pertinent supply, demand and price relationships trends.” The USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis unit provides updates for this assessment. Executive Order 12962 (aquatic systems and recreational fisheries) This 1995 order’s purpose is to conserve, restore, and enhance aquatic systems to provide for increased recreational fishing opportunities nationwide. It requires Federal agencies to evaluate the effects of federally funded actions on aquatic systems, and document those effects relative to the purpose of this order. 29 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need For Action Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Executive Order 13112 (invasive species) This 1999 order requires Federal agencies whose actions may affect the status of invasive species, to identify those actions and, within budgetary limits, “(i) prevent the introduction of invasive species; (ii) detect and respond rapidly to and control populations of such species…; (iii) monitor invasive species populations…; (iv) provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded…; (vi) promote public education on invasive species…; and (3) not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species… unless, pursuant to guidelines that it has pre-scribed, the agency has determined and made public… that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species; and that all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk of harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions.” Executive Order 13287 (preserve America) This 2003 order’s intent is to preserve America’s heritage through “actively advancing the protection, enhancement, and contemporary use of the historic properties owned by the Federal Government… The Federal Government shall recognize and manage the historic properties in its ownership as assets that can support department and agency missions while contributing to the vitality and economic well-being of the Nation's communities and fostering a broader appreciation for the development of the United States and its underlying values…” Consumers, Civil Rights, Minorities, and Women All Forest Service actions have potential to produce some form of impacts, positive or negative, on the civil rights of individuals or groups, including minorities and women. An analysis of this potential impact is required by Forest Service Manual and Forest Service Handbook direction (see Socio-Economics, Chapter 3). Project Record___________________________________ This EIS hereby incorporates by reference the Project Record (40 CFR 1502.21). The Project Record contains Specialist Reports and other technical documentation used to support the analysis and conclusions in this EIS. These Specialist Reports are for Soil, Water, Fisheries, Wildlife, Vegetation, Fire and Fuels, Botany, Heritage, Recreation, Roads/Access, and Socio-Economics. Incorporating these Specialist Reports and the Project Record helps implement the CEQ Regulations’ provision that agencies should reduce NEPA paperwork (40 CFR 1500.4), that EISs shall be “analytic rather than encyclopedic,” and that EISs “shall be kept concise and no longer than absolutely necessary” (40 CFR 1502.2). The objective is to furnish enough site-specific information to demonstrate a reasoned consideration of the environmental impacts of the alternatives and how these impacts can be mitigated, without repeating detailed analysis and background information available elsewhere. The Project Record is available for review at the Prairie City Ranger District Office, 327 SW Front St., Prairie City, Oregon, Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. 30 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 2: Alternatives CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION Introduction _____________________________________ Chapter 2 describes the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action, including a no action alternative. This chapter also describes the measures necessary to mitigate environmental effects, identifies management requirements, develops monitoring plans, and shows a summary comparison of the alternatives as they relate to key issues and the purpose and need for action. In the Appendix A, detailed summary tables for each action alternative are available for comparison. The Monument Fire Recovery Project FEIS incorporates information and relies on direction provided by the Malheur Forest Plan, as amended. All alternatives are designed to adhere to State and Federal laws and regulations. This chapter is divided into seven sections: • Changes made between the Draft and Final EIS • Alternative Development Process • Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study • Alternatives Considered in Detail • Implementation Schedule for the Alternatives • Management Requirements, Constraints, and Mitigation Measures • Monitoring Plans • Comparison of Alternatives Affected environment and environmental consequences of implementing alternatives for the Monument Fire Recovery Project analysis area can be found in Chapter 3. The analysis file is referenced throughout this document and contains additional documentation and analysis. All the numbers included in the description of the alternatives are approximate, as they have been generated from several sources. Some were generated from electronic sources, ie, queries of GIS spatial data while others were generated from field surveys. Importantly, they do provide accurate display of effects or trends. Changes made between the Draft and Final EIS _______ The following changes were made between the Draft and Final EIS. This listing does not include corrections, explanations, or edits to grammar and spelling. Some of changes resulted from comments made to the DEIS. 1. Detailed consideration is now given to an Alternative Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study in the DEIS (#3 Restoration Only). There were numerous public comments on the DEIS requesting that this alternative be developed. This alternative does not include timber harvest activities. Alternative 5 is developed from the restoration only theme in the DEIS and is now fully analyzed in the FEIS. 31 Chapter 2: Alternatives Monument Fire Recovery FEIS 2. Additional field surveys to better locate and identify the type of damage to the forested vegetation were completed during the summer of 2003. The new survey information leads to modifications of treatment unit boundaries and the type of harvest treatment due increased tree mortality. Also some the treatment map unit numbers were changed to simplify project implementation. The tables in Appendix A indicate a comparison of old and new numbers. 3. The total number of harvest acres decreased in all the action alternatives. Alternative 2 decreased 11%, Alternative 3 decreased 4%, and Alternative 4 decreased 17%. The decreases were made to remove areas with very low densities of salvageable trees. Helicopter yarding these low density areas were not economically viable. 4. Approximately 75% of the resiliency treatments acres (green tree harvest) in Alternatives 2 and 4 are now considered salvage harvest. The burn damage to the residual trees in these treatment areas was greater than originally estimated. The increase in tree mortality in these stands reduced stocking that made the need for thinning unnecessary. This increase in tree mortality also changed the original big game cover estimates in the project area. There are no longer any stands that provide cover affected by either commercial thinning or precommercial thinning. A non significant Forest Plan for cover is no longer needed to implement either Alternative 2 or 4. 5. Harvest Units 3 and 12 retained 1.5 to 2.5 snags per acre as was prescribed for these units before they were changed from resiliency treatments to salvage treatments. The southern half of Unit 2 was removed from treatment and became a snag retention area. Also the northern half of Unit 6 and the very southern portion of Unit 12 became snag retention areas. 6. Planting and thinning acres also decreased from DEIS estimates. Planting was reduced approximately 23% across Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Precommercial thinning decreased approximately 4%. The reductions reflect better mapping of non forested areas that decreased both the acres of potential planting and thinning. 7. All the tables and maps at the end of chapter 3 were updated to reflect alternative revisions. 8. Salvage harvest in the portion of the RHCA below the confluence of Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River was changed to no harvest. Field data revealed there is a lack of large woody debris in this stream reach of the Little Malheur. Alternative Development Process ___________________ This chapter of the FEIS describes in detail five alternative ways to manage land and resources in the Monument Fire project area. The Proposed Action was developed using the Forest Supervisor’s specific direction detailed in the Project Initiation Letter, dated December 13, 2002. Public participation to review and comment on proposed activities in the Monument Fire area began in February 2003 and continues with this FEIS. Forest Service resource specialists were part of an interdisciplinary team (IDT) that worked on development of action alternatives. The range of options/differences between alternatives is limited and based on comments received from the public and other agencies, direction given by Forest leadership, and through incorporating Forest Plan amendments, existing State and Federal laws, and Forest Service interim direction. 32 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 2: Alternatives Responding to DEIS public comments, an alternative that was “considered but not analyzed” in the DEIS was elevated to an alternative considered, Alternative 5. Action alternatives 2, 3, and 4 described in the FEIS were developed with some common themes. These alternatives would: • Remove fire-killed trees or trees expected to die as a result of fire injury. In Alternatives 2 and 4 some thinning of green trees would also occur; • Use planting to reforest the burn area; • Construct less than one mile of temporary roads; • Timber harvest within the Little Malheur River subwatershed requires the use of helicopter yarding due to sensitive soil conditions; • Reduce road impacts on wildlife habitat and water quality; • Relocate Dedicated Old Growth (DOG) and Replacement Old Growth (ROG) areas burned by the fire because they are no longer suitable habitat; • Apply water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the design and implementation of the alternatives to protect water quality. • Avoid effects on sensitive areas such as heritage sites and sensitive plant sites by not proposing harvest in those areas; • Provide some level of employment to the local community. Alternative 5 includes many of the non-harvest activities in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. These activities include planting, reduction in the miles of open roads, and relocation of DOG and ROG areas. The number of miles of road closures was increased in Alternative 5 and planting is reduced to those areas that severely burned. Each action alternative analyzed in detail discloses environmental effects associated with its implementation, thereby facilitating a comparison of alternatives. This comparison of effects along with projected environmental consequences detailed in Chapter 3 provides the Responsible Official with information needed to make an informed choice between alternatives. The interdisciplinary team (IDT) developed and analyzed in detail a reasonable range of alternatives. (40 CFR 1502.14 (a)). The alternatives address the needs to reduce fuel loadings, capture economic value of the dead and dying trees, improve vegetative structure, reduce the effects of roads on wildlife habitat and water quality, re-establish upland vegetation, and designate suitable Dedicated and Replacement Old Growth (DOG and ROG) areas to replace those degraded by the fire. The No Action Alternative is defined as no change from management activities as they now exist. 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 comments received in response to the Proposed Action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of the purpose and need, duplicate alternatives already considered in detail, or determined to be components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. 33 Chapter 2: Alternatives Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Therefore, a number of alternatives were considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration, for reasons summarized below. 1. Use of ground-based skidding systems for salvage harvesting in the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed was considered but not analyzed. Early in the development phase of the project, the interdisciplinary team recognized that ground based skidding could cause serious erosional processes to develop since a large portion of this area suffered high severity burn damage (loss of ground cover) and the soil type is highly erosive. To minimize these conditions, ground disturbance needed to be kept to a minimum. Helicopter yarding was the only solution to meet water and soil standards. 2. Winter logging and helicopter yarding was considered as an alternative to tractor skidding within the Upper Little Malheur subwatershed. The site conditions present a low risk of soil displacement from ground based skidding since the slopes are generally under 25%, the transport of sediment from the upland salvage areas is a long distance from fish bearing or perennial streams, and soil types risk to erosion is in the moderate range. No reduction of impacts to soil and water could be anticipated by requiring either helicopter or winter logging methods. 3. Relocation of Little Malheur Trailhead was included originally in the proposed action, but not analyzed in further detail in the proposed action or other alternatives. The relocation was eliminated because the planned log landing that could serve as a new trailhead was not needed for the sale. In the future, a detailed plan will need be analyzed to determine the best location of the trailhead and trail along the Little Malheur River beyond the junction of FS Road 1672 (Camp Creek Road). Alternatives Considered in Detail ___________________ The Forest Service developed five alternatives, including the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives, in response to issues raised by the public. Common to All Alternatives Cattle grazing will be permitted when vegetative recovery standards identified in the Interim Malheur Forest Post Fire Grazing Guidelines are met (see Appendix G). In accordance with the guidelines grazing will not be permitted in areas with moderate to severe burn vegetative damage in the Monument Fire area for two or more growing years. Motorized vehicle access within the fire area was restricted until danger trees that were identified as an immediate hazard to public safety, were removed during the summer of 2003. Roads on which hazard trees were felled were then opened for public use. Firewood cutting will not be allowed in the project area until this current recovery analysis is completed, because many of the dead trees have a high value either for sawtimber or wildlife habitat. Mushroom gathering is permitted under conditions identified under the policy identified for the Malheur, Wallowa - Whitman , and Umatilla National Forests (see 2003 Mushroom Guide). 34 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 2: Alternatives Alternative 1 (No Action) Purpose and Design The purpose of this alternative is to allow current processes to continue, along with associated risks and benefits, in the Monument project area. The “No Action” alternative is required by NEPA. In this document the “no action" alternative means the proposed project (which includes all activities identified in the proposed action) would not take place in the Monument project area at this time. Alternative 1 is designed to represent the existing condition. It serves as a baseline to compare and describe the differences and effects between taking no action and implementing action alternatives. Many of the current management activities taking place in the area would continue if Alternative 1 was selected, but no new activities would take place. Only those management activities considered part of normal maintenance requirements, or those allowed under previous decision documents would continue. Activities such as motorized access travel management, road maintenance, dispersed recreation, noxious weed management, and fire protection would be allowed to continue as they currently take place in the project area. Resumption of livestock grazing would be subject to the Forest's post burn grazing guidelines. This policy would allow grazing to resume at current levels after two growing seasons depending on fire severity and whether monitoring shows that the range resource is ready after the two growing seasons or not. Grazing may be delayed for a longer period if necessary to meet other resource objectives (USDA Forest Service 2003). Fuels/Economics Under this alternative, no salvage harvest would be implemented to accomplish project goals to reduce future fuel loading or capture economic value of the dead and dying trees. Forest Vegetation There would be no thinning in those stands with a large component of live trees remaining. There would be no planting under this alternative. For the purpose of comparison of alternatives, this alternative would analyze the effect of natural regeneration as a base line condition. However, because of Regional Forester direction (Regional Forester Letter 2002), to reforest burned areas that are not salvaged as soon as possible, artificial reforestation would need to be addressed in a subsequent analysis. Water Quality No road construction, reconstruction, decommissioning, or closures would occur in Alternative 1 however, normal road maintenance such as re-closing roads opened during fire suppression activities and felling hazard trees on open roads would continue. Roads would be maintained in accordance with annual maintenance plans. Open road densities would remain at pre fire levels. There would be no immediate obliteration of the old skid trails in the Camp Creek drainage. 35 Chapter 2: Alternatives Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Old Growth and Pileated Woodpecker Habitat Alternative 1 would not identify new Dedicated Old Growth (DOG) or Replacement Old Growth (ROG) areas. DOGs burned by the Monument Fire would remain as Management Area-13. All dead trees would be left standing, other than trees that may be cut or utilized through future activities identified in Chapter 1, Actions Outside of this EIS to Address Recovery Needs. However, if the No Action Alternative is chosen, the Forest Service still maintains the discretion to adjust DOG, ROG, and management areas by conducting a separate environmental analysis. Conformance with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, as Amended Alternative 1 was developed to provide a baseline for comparison with the action alternatives. Because of the high tree mortality and loss of canopy cover caused by the Monument Fire, existing Dedicated Old Growth within the project area is unsuitable for many old-growth associated species and therefore this alternative does not meet Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (36 CFR 219.10 (c)). Alternative 2 Purpose and Design As described in Chapter 1 in the Proposed Action section, Alternative 2 will meet the project purpose and needs by: 1.) salvage harvesting dead/dying trees, 2.) capturing the economic value of dead and dying trees, 3.) reducing levels of standing dead and down fuel, 4.) commercially and pre-commercially thinning stands of live trees improving resiliency of surviving forest vegetation, 5.) implementing reforestation activities to restore forest vegetation, 6.) replacing and updating habitat for dedicated old growth/associated wildlife species, and 7.) eliminating road and old skid trails responsible sedimentation and reduced water quality Fuels/Economics Commercial harvest of dead and dying trees on approximately 4,052 acres would provide economic opportunities for local and regional populations, by salvaging the economic value of dead and dying trees. The timber harvest would also reduce future fuel loading and reduce the risk of future high-severity fires. The harvest would include some RHCAs, where leaving standing dead trees increases the risk of future wildfires and other disturbance agents. These areas are identified as Salvage and RHCA Salvage Treatments. Forest Vegetation Commercial thinning is prescribed on approximately 223 acres; pre-commercial thinning is prescribed on 392 acres. The objective is to restore ecologically appropriate tree vegetation. Thinning would improve resilience to damage from insects, disease, and wildfire, by reducing stocking levels of the stands. These areas are identified as Resiliency Treatments. 36 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 2: Alternatives To ensure the moderate and severely burned stands are reforested, conifer planting is prescribed. Stands identified as suitable forest below adequate stocking levels, would be planted with conifers. Water Quality Road decommissioning, road maintenance, and old skid trail obliteration projects are designed to reduce road density and improve the hydrologic function of existing roads and skid trails. Old Growth/ Pileated Woodpecker Habitat Other recovery projects include reforestation, and re-locating designated old-growth areas. The Malheur Forest Plan allocated old-growth forest areas that were severely burned would be re-allocated to undamaged stands. Alternative Features Mitigation measures, design features, and monitoring are identified at the end of this chapter. Timber Harvest – Salvage, Resiliency, and RHCA Salvage Treatments (See Figure 5, 10, and 11, Map Section) • Silvicultural prescriptions – Salvage and RHCA Salvage Treatments – Removal of Dead/Dying Trees (HSV), Resiliency Treatment - Salvage and commercial thin (HSV/HTH). • Activity fuels treatment – Lop and scatter in the Salvage helicopter-yarding areas; hand pile in the RHCA Salvage in the Little Malheur River, and lop and scatter in the other RHCA Salvage areas; lop and scatter in the Salvage Treatment tractor-yarding areas, and whole-tree yard in the tractor-skidded Resiliency Treatments. The slash on the log landings would be piled and burned. • Post-sale prescriptions – Salvage and RHCA Salvage Treatments – hand plant conifer seedlings; Resiliency Treatment – Pre-commercial Thinning and hand plant conifer seedlings. • Removal size – Salvage Treatments - Dead/Dying trees – 12” DBH minimum for helicopter yarding and 9” DBH minimum for tractor yarding, no maximum size; RHCA Salvage Treatments – Same as salvage except maximize removal size is less than 20” DBH; Resiliency Treatments - live (green) trees – 9” DBH minimum for ponderosa pine and 8”DBH for other species in the helicopter yarding, maximum size (green) 20.9” DBH; same removal size as the Salvage Treatment. • Harvest methods – 3,875 acres of helicopter yarding; 490 acres of tractor yarding; helicopter yarding is prescribe for all harvest in the Upper Little Malheur subwatershed and tractor yarding in the Swamp Creek subwatershed (see Appendix A for breakdown by each harvest unit); no landings are within RHCAs. • Harvest Volume – 30,000 (MBF) • Snags and down wood – Meets Forest Plan standard for snags and down wood, retaining 2.4 dead or dying trees per acre in a clumpy distribution of trees greater than 21” dbh in size where available (See Chapter 2, Design Measures/Mitigation 37 Chapter 2: Alternatives Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Measures for Action Alternates, Wildlife, Wildlife Snags for size and spatial distribution). • Road maintenance and reconstruction – 69.5 miles of maintenance and 0.2 miles reconstruction; maintenance includes spot rocking, brushing, hazard tree reduction, and blading; reconstruction includes replacement of a cattleguard, rocking, and reconstruction includes changing a road junction and installing a cattleguard. The maintenance also covers pavement repair on FSR 16 and FSR 13 out to County Road 62. • Road construction/helicopter log or service landing – 4 temporary roads (0.6 miles) would be needed to access some landings; 20 log landings and 3 service landings; temporary roads will be decommissioned after use. Reforestation/Precommercial Thinning Post-harvest plant in Salvage, Resiliency, and RHCA Salvage Treatments areas and those areas not identified for harvest that historically were forested environments (see figure 8, Map Section). • Reforestation –5,322 acres of conifer planting or inter-planting, includes uplands and RHCAs. Protection from big game browsing is prescribed; protection methods include applying Big Game Repellent (BGR). • Precommercial thinning – Precommercial thinning would take place on approximately 392 acres. Road Management/Restoration (See Figure 12, Map Section) • Gated road closures – 7.0 miles of gated closures (year-long motorized vehicle closure) to increase big game security. • Road decommissioning – 11.8 miles of decommissioning (currently 7.0 miles of the total is un-drivable) to reduce road-related sediment delivery to water sources. Old Skid Trail Obliteration (See Figure 14, Map Section) Re-contouring/subsoiling – 2.2 miles of skid trail obliteration; low ground pressure excavating equipment or handwork for out-sloping or re-contouring skid road surfaces; objective is to increase infiltration, slow runoff, and return water into stream channels. Replace Dedicated Old Growth (DOG) and Replacement Old-Growth (ROG) Areas (See figure 15, Map Section) Re-delineate and designate new DOG/ROG – Replace the fire-killed DOG/ROG acres as per Forest Plan standard; increase the size of an existing DOG/ROG). New pileated woodpecker feeding area (PWFA) – Identify and delineate a new PWFA to meet Forest Plan direction. 38 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 2: Alternatives Forest Plan Amendments A non-significant Forest Plan amendment would be required to implement the proposed action. Alternative 2 was designed, in part, to replace DOG and ROG 04334PP that is now unsuitable due to the fire. Selecting Alternative 2 would include a site-specific, non- significant amendment to convert the original MA 13 to MA-1. The other part of the DOG and ROG re - delineation would change the boundary of DOG 04345 converting changing the MA 13 and MA 1 acres. Selection of this alternative would meet Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (36 CFR 219.10 (c)). Alternative 3 Purpose and Design Alternative 3 was developed from public concerns relating to timber harvest effects on water quality, sedimentation, and wildlife cover. Key features in Alternative 3 reduce the risk of sedimentation by eliminating harvest in the RHCAs and not harvesting within 50 feet of the RHCAs for Category 2 and 100 feet for Category 4 streams (perennial and intermittent streams). This would further reduce the risk to water quality and sedimentation inputs from harvest activities. Greater retention of snags would also contribute to greater levels of future down log habitats. To address snag habitat and retention of live tree concerns, more dead and dying trees than proposed in Alternative 2 are retained for snag habitat, and green/live trees would not be harvested to provide vegetative diversity. Concerns were raised that the strategy for managing snag habitat in the Proposed Action may not meet dead habitat dependent primary cavity excavator (PCE) needs. Recent studies (Knotts, 1998; Saab and Dudley, 1998; Dixon and Saab, 2000; Saab et al., 2002), indicate that the Forest Plan standard of 2.4 snags per acre would not meet minimum wildlife needs for management indicator species/PCE species in these severe burn habitats. Alternative 3 was designed to leave higher levels of snag habitat distributed in a way that accommodates a broader range of cavity excavator species. A total of 13 snags per acre (see Design Measure section under wildlife for size distribution) would be retained in each harvest unit. In the salvage harvest units, these snags would be distributed in 2-6 acres clumps in size throughout the treatment units. In addition, areas not harvested including patches of high density snag habitat would remain intact throughout the RHCAs and other patches of lower density habitat would also remain. These snag retention levels were established primarily to meet prescribed use levels for Lewis’ woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, and northern flicker. Fuels/Economics The number of acres of harvest was reduced by approximately 1/3 from Alternative 2. This was primarily an economics factor of the high cost of helicopter logging. The volume of dead trees was reduced since many more dead/dying trees were retained for snag habitat, making the remaining of the lower density salvage uneconomical for removal by helicopter. 39 Chapter 2: Alternatives Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Commercial harvest of timber on approximately 2,825 acres would provide economic opportunities for local and regional populations, by salvaging the economic value of dead and dying trees. The timber harvest would also reduce fuel loading and reduce the risk of future high-severity fires. No harvest is proposed in the RHCAs where fuel loading will be a future problem. Forest Vegetation/ Water Quality/ Old Growth/Pileated Woodpecker Habitat The reforestation projects for conifer planting, road and old skid trail obliteration, and the areas designed for DOG/ROG/Pileated Woodpecker are the same type as described in Alternative 2. Alternative Features Mitigation measures, design features, and monitoring are identified at the end of this chapter. Timber Harvest – Salvage Treatment (See figures 6, 10, and 11, Map Section) • Silvicultural prescriptions –Salvage harvest throughout upland areas; Resiliency Treatments from Alternative 2 would not occur, leaving all the live trees to retain wildlife cover. However, the dead/dying in these Alternative 2 resiliency units would be salvaged. • Removal size – Dead/Dying trees – 12” DBH minimum for helicopter yarding and 9” DBH minimum for tractor yarding, no maximum size. • Harvest methods – 2,520 acres of helicopter yarding in the Upper Little Malheur subwatershed; 305 acres of tractor yarding in the Swamp Creek subwatershed; (see Appendix A for breakdown by each harvest unit). • Harvest volume – 14,400 MBF • Road construction/Helicopter landings – Same as Alternative 2. • Fuels treatment – Lop and scatter in helicopter yarding areas; lop and scatter in tractor-yarding areas; pile and burn landings. • RHCA harvest – No harvest. • Snags and down wood – Retain approximately 13.0 dead or dying trees per acre in clumps of 2 to 6 acres in size; (See Chapter 2, Design Measures/Mitigation Measures for Action Alternates, Wildlife, Wildlife Snags for size and spatial distribution) • Road maintenance – Same as Alternative 2. Reforestation/Precommercial Thinning Post-harvest planting is proposed in Salvage areas and those areas not identified for harvest, which historically were forested environments (see figure 8, Map Section). Same as Alternative 2. Road Management/Restoration (See figure 12, Map Section) • Gated road closures and road decommissioning – Same as Alternative 2. 40 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 2: Alternatives Old Skid Trail Obliteration (See figure 14, Map Section) Re-contouring/subsoiling – Same as Alternative 2. Replace Dedicated Old Growth (DOG) and Replacement Old-Growth (ROG) Areas; new Pileated Woodpecker feeding area (See figure 15, Map Section) Same as Alternative 2. Forest Plan Amendments A non-significant Forest Plan amendment would be required to implement the proposed action. Alternative 3 was designed, in part, to replace DOG and ROG 04334PP that is now unsuitable due to the fire. Selecting Alternative 4 would include a site-specific, non- significant amendment to convert the original MA 13 to MA-1 or MA-4A. The other part of the DOG and ROG re - delineation would change the boundary of DOG 04345 converting changing the MA 13 and MA 1 acres. Alternative 3 would not require a Forest Plan amendment for snag retention because it meets the Forest Plan standard of 2.4 snags per acre greater than or equal to 21” dbh. The additional snags making up the 13 per acre are not the large diameter dead/dying but are greater than or equal to 10” dbh. Selection of this alternative would be consistent with the Forest Plan, as amended (36 CFR 219.10 (c)). Alternative 4 Purpose and Design The focus of Alternative 4 is to provide a different snag management strategy for retention of wildlife snag habitat to retain all the dead and dying trees in the RHCAs from what was proposed in Alternative 2. Concerns were raised that the strategy for managing snag habitat in the Proposed Action may not meet snag renteion needs for dead habitat dependent primary cavity excavator (PCE) needs. Recent studies (Knotts, 1998; Saab and Dudley, 1998; Dixon and Saab, 2000; Saab et al., 2002,) indicate that the Forest Plan standard of 2.4 snags per acre would not meet minimum wildlife needs for management indicator species/PCE species in these severe burn habitats. Alternative 4 was designed to leave snags in patches ranging in size from 4 to 90 acres in order to better meet the needs of PCE species because cavity nesters as a group prefer patches as opposed to single snags retained in uniform, even spaced distribution (Rose et al, 2001, Saab et al, 2002, Kotliar 2002). Within most of the salvage harvest units, no snags would be retained other than the smaller sub-merchantable trees, trees needed to meet down wood standards, and incidental standing cull trees. This snag strategy would require a non- significant Forest Plan amendment for both the salvage and resiliency harvest treatments. This snag strategy would leave intact patches of high density (approximately 338 acres) snag habitat that would provide quality habitat for fire dependent primary cavity excavators. The lower density patches are also retained in Alternatives 2 and 3. In addition, areas not harvested including the RHCAs with a high density of snags would also remain. 41 Chapter 2: Alternatives Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Another benefit to the snag patch concept is that the management and retention of snag habitat is simplified. The cutting of hazard trees near logging operations or roads often reduces the numbers of snags. By retaining uncut patches of dead trees for snag habitat, the need to cut hazard trees within the patches is eliminated except along open roads. Within the resiliency treatments and in salvage treatments units 3 and 12 (low to moderate severity damage), a snag density of 1.5 to 2.5 snags per acre would be retained to meet snag requirements for green forest PCE species. As in Alternative 3, there is no harvest included in the RHCAs. By excluding RHCAs from harvest, public concerns for harvest in these areas would be addressed. Fuels/Economics The number of acres of harvest was reduced by approximately 20% from Alternative 2 due to a different snag habitat retention strategy. Since a greater number of dead/dying trees were retained for snag habitat, the harvest volume per acre was too low in some of the treatment areas to make a viable entry. Commercial harvest of timber on approximately 3,344 acres would provide economic opportunities for local and regional populations, by salvaging the economic value of dead and dying trees. The timber harvest would also reduce fuel loading and reduce the risk of future high-severity fires. No harvest is proposed in the RHCAs where fuel loading will be a future problem. Forest Vegetation/Water Quality/Old Growth/Pileated Woodpecker Habitat The reforestation projects for conifer planting, road and old skid trail obliteration, and the areas designed for DOG/ROG/Pileated Woodpecker are the same type as described in Alternative 2. Alternative Features Mitigation measures, design features, and monitoring are identified at the end of this chapter. Timber Harvest – Salvage and Resiliency Treatments (See figures 7, 10, and 11, Map Section) • Silvicultural prescriptions – Salvage Treatment – Removal of Dead/Dying Trees (HSV), Resiliency Treatment - Salvage and commercial thin (HSV/HTH). • Removal size – Same as Alternative 2. • Harvest volume – 26,500 MBF. • Harvest methods – 2,885 acres of helicopter yarding in the Upper Little Malheur subwatershed; 459 acres of tractor yarding in the Swamp Creek subwatershed; (see appendix A for breakdown by each harvest unit). • Road construction/Helicopter Log or Service Landings - 3 temporary roads (0.4 miles) would be needed to access some of the landings; 22 landings (19 log and 3 service landings. • Fuels treatment – Lop and scatter in helicopter yarding area; lop and scatter in Salvage Treatment tractor-yarding areas. • RHCA harvest – No harvest. 42 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 2: Alternatives • Snags and down wood – Retain 11 dispersed snag patches, ranging from 4 to 90 acres (338 acres total), See Chapter 2, Design Measures/Mitigation Measures for Action Alternates, Wildlife, Wildlife Snags for size and spatial distribution) . • Road maintenance – Same as Alternative 2. Reforestation/Precommercial Thinning Post-harvest plant in Salvage and Resiliency Salvage Treatments areas and those areas not identified for harvest, which historically were forested environments (see figure 8, Map Section). Same as Alternative 2. Road Management/Restoration (See figure 12, Map Section) • Gated road closures and road decommissioning – Same as Alternative 2. Old Skid Trail Obliteration (See figure 14, Map Section) Re-contouring/subsoiling – Same as Alternative 2. Replace Dedicated Old Growth (DOG) and Replacement Old-Growth (ROG) Areas (See figure 15, Map Section) Same as Alternative 2. Forest Plan Amendments Two non-significant Forest Plan amendments would be required to implement Alternative 4. Alternative 4 was designed specifically to leave higher levels of snag habitat and in a distribution pattern designed to increase cavity excavator habitat for species such as the black-backed woodpecker. By distributing the snag patches on a unit basis for better utilization by the species, and not a 40-acre block basis, we may not meet Forest Wide Standard and Guideline #39. Alternative 4 would include a site-specific, non-significant amendment to Forest Wide Standard and Guideline #39. A non-significant Forest Plan amendment would be required to implement the proposed action. Alternative 4 was designed, in part, to replace DOG and ROG 04334PP that is now unsuitable due to the fire. Selecting Alternative 4 would include a site-specific, non- significant amendment to convert the original MA 13 to MA-1 or MA-4A. The other part of the DOG and ROG re - delineation would change the boundary of DOG 04345 converting changing the MA 13 and MA 1 acres. Selection of this alternative would meet Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (36 CFR 219.10 (c)). 43 Chapter 2: Alternatives Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Alternative 5 Purpose and Design Detailed consideration is given to an alternative considered but not analyzed in the DEIS (#3 Restoration Only, No Timber Harvest) and developed into Alternative 5. There were numerous public comments on the DEIS requesting that this alternative be fully analyzed in the FEIS and follow recommendations contained in the Beschta Report. This alternative includes many of the restoration activities included in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. It does not include salvage of dead and dying trees and it does not include commercial/precommercial thinning to improve stand resiliency. The alternative is based on recommendations contained in a publication known as the Beschta Report. The Beschta Report is a compilation of scientist recommendations for fire recovery projects and post-fire timber salvage. Recommendations in this report favor natural recovery, with little or no salvage, as the best method to maintain a variety of resource values. Alternative 5 considered these recommendations and included some of them as features within the alternative to reduce sedimentation risk and retain live trees. The standing dead and green/live stand component would be retained to provide the optimum primary cavity excavator species habitat and the green/live trees retained for vegetative diversity primarily for wildlife habitat. The Alternative 5 projects include increased road closures, old skid trail rehabilitation, and limited conifer planting. The road restoration includes the activities identified in Alternative 2 plus additional road closures to further increase wildlife security, retention of snags from firewood cutting, and reduce threat of noxious weed spread, etc (figure 13, Map Section). The skid trail obliteration would be the same as described in Alternative 2. This reduces the effect of the old skid trails that are causing water quality problems. The road maintenance items identified in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 except the deferred maintenance of FSR 16 would be implemented. This would ensure that the roads that are left open are left in a condition that will not increase sedimentation or water quality problems within the project area. Conifer planting would occur in those stands with severe fire damage where seed sources would not be present to assure natural regeneration (figure 9, Map Section). Moderately and lightly burned areas not prescribed for planting would be allowed to seed in naturally and would be periodically reviewed over the next five years for future planting needs in case natural regeneration is unsuccessful. Fuels/Economics The capture of economic value of the dead/dying timber would be forgone. There would be some employment provided to complete the other restoration projects such as conifer planting and road decommissioning. Forest Vegetation To ensure the severely burned stands are reforested, conifer planting will occur. Stands identified as suitable forest existing below adequate stocking levels would be planted with conifers. The low to moderately damaged stands will be allowed to regenerate naturally. (Figure 3, Map Section). 44 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 2: Alternatives Water Quality Same as Alternative 2. Old Growth/Pileated Woodpecker Habitat The areas designed for DOG/ROG/Pileated Woodpecker are the same type as described in Alternative 2. Alternative Features Mitigation measures, design features, and monitoring are identified at the end of this chapter. Vegetation treatments • Road maintenance – Same as Alternative 2. • Reforestation –Only severely burned areas. • Precommercial thinning – None Road Management/Restoration (See figure 13, Map Section) • Gated road closures - 16.2 miles of gated closures (year-long motorized vehicle closure). • Road decommissioning - Same as Alternative 2. Old Skid Trail Obliteration (See figure 14, Map Section) Re-contouring/subsoiling – Same as Alternative 2. Replace Dedicated Old Growth (DOG) and Replacement Old-Growth (ROG) Areas (See figure 15, Map Section) Same as Alternative 2. Forest Plan Amendments A non-significant Forest Plan amendment would be required to implement the proposed action. Alternative 5 was designed, in part, to replace DOG and ROG 04334PP that is now unsuitable due to the fire. Selecting Alternative 5 would include a site-specific, non- significant amendment to convert the original MA 13 to MA-1 or MA 4A. The other part of the DOG and ROG re - delineation would change the boundary of DOG 04345 converting changing the MA 13 and MA 1 acres. Selection of this alternative would meet Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (36 CFR 219.10 (c)). 45 Chapter 2: Alternatives Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Implementation Schedule for the Alternatives Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Mid June 2004 through November 2005 • Salvage Harvest and Commercial Thinning (includes temporary road construction, landing construction, and road maintenance). November 2005 • Gated closures of FSR 1672471 and FSR 1672474 Spring 2003 through spring 2007 • Conifer planting Summer 2006 • Resurface (BST) FSR 1600 and 1300 Summer 2007 through fall 2007 • Road decommissioning and skid trail obliteration Spring 2006 through fall 2006 • Precommercial thinning Alternative 5 Spring 2005 through fall 2007 • Installation and closure of gates and earthen berm closures; maintenance of roads (same as alternatives 2, 3, and 4). Spring 2003 through spring 2007 • Conifer planting Summer 2007 through fall 2007 • Road decommissioning and skid trail obliteration (same as alternatives 2, 3, and 4). Design Measures/Mitigation for Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 The Forest Service developed the following design measures and mitigation measures to be used as part of, all, or a portion of Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5, as noted. Watershed/Soils The goals of these design elements are (1) to minimize detrimental watershed and soil impacts, especially irreversible impacts; and (2) to ensure that detrimental soil impacts 46 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 2: Alternatives from this harvest, past harvests, and future harvests, would total less than 20% of the area of each harvest unit. Timber Harvest Alternatives 2 Trees will be directional felled away from the stream courses in RHCAs. Timber Harvest Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 • Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) for Category 1, 2, and 4 streams and for Category 3 and 4 wetlands shall be consistent with INFISH. • Skidding and landings will not occur within RHCAs or ephemeral draw bottoms or other areas that may channel or concentrate water. Designated crossings of ephemeral draws shall be identified and approved by the timber sale administrator, prior to starting harvest of a given unit. • Skid trails and landings will not be located within vegetative openings (non- forest, grassland, and shrublands) to avoid impacts to the shallow soils, unless approved by the Forest Service. • Skidding is restricted to slopes less than 35%, using directional felling and tractor winching. This would minimize displacement, erosion, and irreversible damage to soils. • The use of skidding equipment and feller-bunchers is restricted to soil moisture conditions between 10% and 30% or frozen or snow covered (See BMP for conditions that meet frozen and snow covered). Between this range of dry and wet conditions, detrimental soil impacts are minimized. • Potential erosion from skid trails shall be controlled by the use of cross drains or comparable measures. The cross drains shall be spaced so that rills will not form between them, and located on soil where water will infiltrate, not on shallow or impermeable soil. Drainage off of skid trails shall be unobstructed. • Skid trails and disturbed soil shall be seeded as specified in Malheur Forest-Wide Standards 128 & 129. • To minimize soil displacement and compaction, skid trail locations shall be designated and approved prior to logging. To ensure skidding operations do not create detrimental soil conditions above the 20% Forest Plan standard, old skid trails in suitable locations should be reused. • To ensure the soil protection standard would be met, the purchaser shall subsoil skid trails in tractor units where the soil is suitable. • Erosion from subsoiling skid trails shall be controlled by subsoiling in a "J" pattern, by constructing water bars, or by comparable measures, such as intermittently lifting subsoiling tines out of the soil. If runoff cannot be diverted out of the furrows, do not subsoil. Skid trails on slopes steeper than 28% shall not be subsoiled, but will be cross drained. • Subsoiling and seeding would be concurrent with harvest activities. Seeding called for above will be necessary, to supplement other erosion control measures. 47 Chapter 2: Alternatives Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Road Management Activities and Old Skid Trail Obliteration Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 Throughout the project, Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be used to minimize adverse impacts to aquatic habitat (see General Water Quality Best Management Practices, Pacific Northwest Region 1988). Listed below are the principle BMPs. • To protect creeks during roadwork, including decommissioning roads and skid trail obliteration within the RHCAs, sediment filter fences or sediment traps will be installed. These will be located at culvert removal sites and at the downstream end of all culverts prior to beginning culvert installations, catch basin cleaning, and inlet/outlet ditch cleaning or construction. Sediment devices will remain in place until soils become stabilized. Soils may be stabilized by natural seeding processes, or promoted by artificial methods. • All culverts removed from road decommissioning will be removed from the site and disposed of in an approved manner. Mulching and seeding will be performed to reduce potential sediment, as needed. • A Forest Service employee qualified/certified in road construction will monitor the construction activities to ensure work is conducted in a workman-like manner, and to ensure resource objectives are met. • A delivery/storage/application plan, to prevent petroleum products or other deleterious materials from entering water systems, is required by the Forest Service prior to fuel deliveries in the project area. • Excess and unsuitable soil and rock material will be taken to an upland disposal area. • The two approved water sources for road maintenance, dust abatement or reconstruction are identified on figure 11 in the Map section. • Areas of streambank disturbance will be seeded or planted. Existing vegetation will be retained, as possible, and replanted, to promote vegetation. • An oil and hazardous substance spill contingency plan will be in place. • Instream work on Category 1 and 2 streams will be accomplished during low-flow stream conditions, and outside of spawning seasons. Work will be ceased if storm events occur, that increase stream flows. • Dust abatement is required to minimize dust during log haul. Dust palliatives such as magnesium chloride and lignin sulfate will not be applied within 50 feet of stream channels. • The gated road closures would be year-long closures to all motorized vehicles. The road could be opened for extended periods for administrative use (by permit only) to allow post-harvest project activities. • Removal of hazard trees within the RHCAs, for the purpose of public safety, is restricted. Only the portion of the tree within the prism of the road or outside the RHCA can be removed. • Use of existing closed roads by motorized vehicles is prohibited during logging operations. 48 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 2: Alternatives Public Safety Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 To ensure public safety, roads and trails within or adjacent the project area including Forest Service Road 1672 and Forest Service Trail 366 (Little Malheur River) will be closed to public use during helicopter yarding activities. Monument Wilderness Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Prior to harvest activities adjacent the Monument Rock Wilderness boundary including hazard tree removal along roads, the boundary will be located and posted to standard, in a manner determined by the Forest Supervisor. No harvest or ground disturbing activities are permitted inside this boundary. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Notify the recreating public about the harvest activities will be occurring adjacent to the Monument Rock Wilderness. There will be public notifications at the trailheads and major access roads, local newspaper, and Forest Web Page. Harvest activities will be restricted during major holidays i.e. July 4, and Labor Day. Haul will be allowed but the use of helicopters will be limited over the Monument Rock Wilderness during these holidays. Non-Forested Land inside Harvest Treatment Areas Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 The Salvage, Resiliency, and RHCA Salvage treatment area include small areas considered as non-forest, ranging in size from 0.5 to 10 acres. These sparsely forested areas would not be salvaged or reforested. They are defined in the Malheur Forest Plan as lands that never have had or that are incapable of having 10 percent or more of the area occupied by forest trees (Malheur LMRP, page VI 22). Wildlife Wildlife Snags Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 If designated snags are identified as a hazard to logging operations within harvest units or along haul roads, they will be cut but not removed. Alternative 2 Wildlife snags would be retained at Forest Plan standards (2.4 snags per acre 21” DBH or larger). If snags greater than 21” DBH are not available, an appropriate number of snags 49 Chapter 2: Alternatives Monument Fire Recovery FEIS of the largest representative diameter class would be retained. The snags would be averaged on a 40-acre basis, and would be left in small clumps where possible. To provide immediate habitat for woodpecker nesting, 25% of the snags would be selected from soft snags, if available. The remainder would be hard snags, to last longer and provide habitat over time. Snags with broken tops are preferred, since shorter snags tend to last longer. Snags with existing woodpecker cavities would be retained, if found. Alternative 3 Wildlife snags would be retained at levels displayed in the following table 2-1. Table 2-1. Alternative 3; Snags per Acre by Diameter Class. Snag DBH Snag Number Per Acre 21”+ 2.5 14” – 20.9” 7 10” – 13.9” 3.5 TOTAL 13 If sufficient snags do not exist at a specified diameter class, snags would be retained from the next lower diameter class. The intent is to leave an average of 13 snags per acre. The snags would be averaged on a 40-acre basis, and would be retained in small clumps where possible (preferably 2 to 6 acres in size). Each 40-acre area of each harvest unit will contain at least two 2-acre clumps. In designated clumps, no snags would be felled, including snags less than 10 inches DBH. All snags retained in this alternative would be hard snags, as directed by the Forest Plan. In addition, soft snags would be retained above and beyond these retention standards where feasible, as directed in the Forest Plan. Snags with broken tops are preferred, since shorter snags tend to last longer. Snags with existing woodpecker cavities would be retained, if found. Alternative 4 Wildlife snags would be retained in 11 patches dispersed across the project area in addition to those within the RHCAs. No harvest would occur in these areas. Approximately 1.5 to 2.5 snags per acre 21” DBH or larger would be retained in the resiliency treatment areas (223 acres), if feasible at least 2.4 per acre would be retained. No snags would be retained within the salvage harvest units except within units 3 and 12. Within these two units, snags would be retained the same as the resiliency treatment areas designated for commercial thinning and salvage harvest. Common to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 If a tree marked for snag retention is required to be felled for operational needs, the tree will not be removed and a green tree of equal or larger size would be girdled and left as a replacement. 50 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 2: Alternatives Down Woody Debris Requirements Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Maintain down logs for wildlife habitat and long-term site productivity by contractually providing and retaining the levels indicated below by leaving either standing dead/dying trees or existing down logs. Table 2-2. Down Log – Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 Species Pieces per Acre Minimum Diameter at Small End (inches) Minimum Piece Length (feet) Total Length (feet/acre) Ponderosa Pine 3-6 12” > 6 feet 20-40 Mixed Conifer 15-20 12” > 6 feet 100-140 Lodgepole Pine 15-20 8” > 8 feet 120-160 Big Game Winter Range Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 The Forest Plan directs the management of Management Area 4A (MA-4A), Big Game Winter Range Maintenance, to provide winter habitats for big game species, including Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer (LRMP, Chapter IV, MA-4A, Description). Among the standards is the direction to “restrict activities that disturb wintering big game in a significant and prolonged manner from December 1 to April 1” (LRMP, Chapter IV, MA-4A, Standard 7). Harvest and yarding activities, as well as haul of logs out of established landings, have the potential to create disturbances that would affect designated winter-range habitat in the project area, as well as in surrounding winter-range habitats outside the project area. Monitoring would be done periodically between December 1 and April 1, to determine snow conditions and presence of big game on the winter-range habitat. If snow conditions and/or lack of presence of wintering big game animals permit, harvest, yarding, loading, and haul activities would be permitted to occur. If wintering big game are present, and effects have the potential to be significant or prolonged, actions will be restricted or suspended. Firewood Cutting Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 No firewood cutting would be approved within the project area until the spring of 2008. This restriction will assure that the dead trees retained for snag habitat are not removed by firewood cutting. Big Game Cover Alternatives 2 and 4 A portion of resiliency treatment unit 16 (approximately 3 acres) meets the standard for marginal cover. Within this portion of the unit, all live trees will be retained. 51 Chapter 2: Alternatives Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Raptor Timing Restrictions Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 Description* Timing – Activities Permitted** Timing – Activities Restricted*** Notes Occupied Goshawk nest sites (within Post Fledging Area or within ½ mile of nest sites) Activities can occur: October 1 – March 31 Activities are restricted: April 1 – September 30 Four goshawk territories existed adjacent to the project area prior to fire. *A survey of the four recorded nest sites would be conducted for northern goshawk prior to any harvest activities. Restriction may be waived based on District Biologist’s recommendations and Responsible Official’s approval. **Activities are permitted within the fire perimeter during these periods except within identified nesting areas, i.e., for goshawks, no activities within 30-acre nesting area; for all other raptors, no activities within 100 feet of nest trees. *** Activities are only restricted within distances specified in Column 1 for each species Noxious Weeds Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 • Avoid or minimize disturbances within or adjacent to existing noxious weed infestations. • Document noxious weed infestations identified during any inventories. • Avoid weed-infested areas for use as landings or parking areas. • Include a noxious weed locator map in the project file, to facilitate avoidance and monitoring. • Complete post-project surveys to document infestations and to evaluate the effects of the project on noxious weeds. • Retain desirable herbaceous growth on road shoulders, cuts, fills, ditches, and drainages. • Reduce the transport or spread of noxious weeds by cleaning certification of ground-disturbing equipment. Equipment will be certified to be clean of all plant or soil material that may result in the establishment or spread of noxious weeds. Certification will occur prior to equipment entering the project area and before leaving, if noxious weeds are present in the area where the equipment is operating. • Obtain rock material used for road maintenance or construction of landings, from weed-free sources. • Use timber sale contract provisions to require that all off-road logging and construction equipment is free of noxious weeds, when moving equipment onto the sale area and/or moving between units that are known to contain noxious weeds. Specifically, use C6.35 - Equipment Cleaning; in this provision, the purchaser is required to certify that his equipment is weed-free. The Forest Service will reserve the right of inspection prior to the equipment's use, to verify that each piece operating in the project area is clean and weed-free. 52 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 2: Alternatives • Continue annual monitoring of the burned area and landings for a minimum of 4 years following activity. • On-going noxious weed treatment will continue to receive high priority in close proximity to this project area. Heritage Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 • The nineteen identified historic properties within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) will be strictly avoided during all phases of the project. Sites will be identified as Areas to Protect (ATPs) during commercial timber harvest, and/or the boundaries of harvest units will be configured so that they do not include sites. Sites will be avoided during construction of temporary roads and log landings. • If cultural resources are located during implementation of Alternatives 2, 3, 4, or 5, work will be halted and the District Archaeologist will be notified. The cultural resource will be evaluated, and a mitigation plan developed in consultation with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) if necessary. • Alternative 2 (RHCA salvage) - All logging slash will be lopped and scattered within the boundaries of obsidian-dominated lithic scatters. No slash piles will be burned within this site type. Sensitive Plants Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 Project design measures are established to ensure that sensitive plant populations are not inadvertently impacted from proposed activities. Prior to any ground disturbing activities associated with road decommissioning on the portion of Forest Road 1672479 where two sensitive plant sites are located, resource specialists including botany, hydrology/fisheries, and engineering would review and revise (if necessary) the decommissioning plan to ensure these sensitive plant populations are not inadvertently impacted. Decommissioning of Forest Road 1672479 may require erosion control through direct seeding of the roadbed. Preferably, local, native grasses would be seeded; however, the source for these grasses has not yet been fully developed. To reduce the risk of creating competitive stress on sensitive plant species, only annual, non-persistent grasses would be used because they pose less threat of long-term competitive stress. Reforestation Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 No sheep grazing within conifer planting units or natural regeneration units will occur until seedlings reach an average height of 3 feet. Before livestock grazing is re- introduced these areas will be reviewed by the District Silviculturist and Rangeland Management Specialist and approved by the District Ranger. 53 Chapter 2: Alternatives Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Monitoring Plans Vegetation Monitoring (Silviculturist) Tree marking will be monitored to ensure compliance with the silvicultural prescription and marking guide. Monitoring will check for correct selection and designation of trees expected to live and snags to be left for wildlife habitat and resource protection. All areas planned for tree planting will be examined prior to planting. Exams will assess levels of competing vegetation, pocket gopher activity, and other environmental conditions. Seedling species and stock type will be prescribed as well as site preparation, planting, and protection methods. Planted areas will be monitored for seedling survival, growth, and damaging agents. Stocking surveys will occur periodically until planting areas are certified adequately stocked and “free to grow”. Deficient areas will be replanted to at least minimum stocking. Protection measures may be implemented to increase tree survival. Soil Monitoring (Soils Specialist) Detrimental soil impacts would be monitored to check how closely they were predicted. Sampling would be done by a method similar to the soil assessment method used initially to determine the current soil conditions. About 25% of the tractor units would be sampled within three years of completion of activities. This would show the cumulative effects of harvest plus fuels treatment. Watershed and Fisheries (District Hydrologist and Fisheries Biologist) Monitor Best Management Practices (BMPs): Five to fifteen percent of activity areas by harvest system will be monitored to ensure BMP standards are being met. Monitoring would be done by the District hydrologist, fisheries biologist, soil scientist, or trained technicians after completion of the project. Monitor Unit Boundaries along RHCAs: Monitor 10% of units adjacent to RHCAs to ensure adequate buffering of mechanized harvest/fuels reduction activities. Monitor Road Decommission and Reconstruction Activities: Implementation monitoring would be conducted to determine if decommission or reconstruction activities were completed. Following completion of road decommission or reconstruction activities, effectiveness monitoring would be completed at year 1 and 3. Monitoring would consist of ocular surveys completed by hydrology or fisheries personnel (including photographs) on decommissioned road prisms within 100 feet of streams and at stream crossings to check for erosion (rilling or sheet) and/or establishment of ground cover on the prism and sediment transport to streams. Upland Sediment Transport Monitoring: Monitoring would be conducted along unit boundaries with sensitive soils to determine if sediment is transported outside of units. Amount of sediment and distance traveled would be estimated and documented if observed. Stream Channel Monitoring: Fine sediment in the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek will be monitored using Wolman Pebble Counts would be conducted at the stream cross sections (installed in 2002) on the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek before and after harvest activities and again after road activities are implemented to determine changes in sediment load and stream channel morphology. Rosgen stream cross sections 54 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 2: Alternatives and longitudinal profiles would be completed if stream channel substrate composition changes by more than 20% or bankfull channel widths at the cross sections change by an observable amount. Grazing (Team) For moderate to high intensity (intensity as described in Johnson 1998 or as mapped by the BAER Team) fire in all areas suitable for grazing, as defined by the Forest Plan, grazing may resume after the vegetation has recovered to the percent ground cover that existed prior to the fire as described for the appropriate plant association type in Plant Association of the Blue and Ochoco Mountains (Johnson & Clausnitzer, 1992). A team consisting of at least two resource specialists, such as a range conservationist, botanist, ecologist, silviculturist, or hydrologist, will conduct the monitoring to determine if the percent ground cover has been reestablished. The method and results will be documented and submitted to the authorized official who will decide when to resume grazing. If monitoring is not done, grazing may resume after three full grazing seasons after the fire occurred, because research indicates that vegetation usually recovers within this timeframe (C. G. Johnson, pers. Comm., February 2003). However, grazing would not resume prior to two growing seasons after the fire, even if monitoring verified that the percent ground cover was the same as the pre-fire condition, to allow for plants to set seed. (Interim Post Fire Grazing Guidelines Malheur National Forest, 12/2/2003). Noxious Weed Monitoring (Botanist or Range Specialist) Monitoring will occur for three years, 2004 through 2006, to determine whether noxious weeds were introduced into the burned area by any means or expanded from known locations (Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Team, Noxious Weeds Technical Specialist Report, August 9, 2002). Monitoring activities will include walking fire lines, landings, and other areas where soil disturbance could have deposited weed seed. These actions should reduce the risk that weeds could spread or existing populations could enlarge. 55 Chapter 2: Alternatives Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Comparison of Alternatives This section provides a tabular summary of the effects for each alternative. Information is focused on activities, effects and/or outputs that can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives. Table 2-3. Description of Activities by Alternative Activities Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Harvest – Dead/Dying (Salvage) None Helicopter areas - removal of 12"+ dead Tractor areas - removal of 9"+ sawtimber Same as Alt 2 Same as Alt 2 None Harvest – Green Tree Thinning (Resiliency) None Helicopter areas- removal of 9" live PP & 8" live other species; dead =12" No green tree removal Same as Alt 2 None Harvest – Dead/Dying in RHCA (RHCA Salvage) None Helicopter (all) – removal of dead 12" to 20.9" DBH None None None Reforestation Natural regeneration Conifer planting throughout the project area. Same as Alt 2 Same as Alt 2 Conifer planting in only in severely burned areas. Road Management None Includes gated closures for wildlife and road decommissioning Same as Alt 2 Same as Alt 2 Same as Alt 2 plus and an additional 9 miles of closures. Old Skid Road Obliteration None Includes subsoiling and re- contouring of old skid trails; 2.2 miles Same as Alt 2 Same as Alt 2 Same as Alt 2 56 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 2: Alternatives Table 2-4. Description of Activities by Alternative. Activity Units Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Treatment Type - Timber Harvest Prescription/Logging Systems Salvage - HSV Acres 0 3451 2825 3121 0 Resiliency - HTH/HSV Acres 0 223 0 223 0 RHCA Salvage - HSV Acres 0 601 0 0 0 Helicopter Acres 0 3785 2520 2885 0 Tractor Acres 0 490 305 459 0 Total Harvest Acres 4275 2825 3344 0 Reforestation/Pre-Commercial Thinning Activities Planting Acres 0 4723 4723 4723 2845 Natural Regen/Interplanting Acres 0 229 229 229 0 Pre-commercial Thin/Planting Acres 0 370 370 370 0 Pre-commercial Thin Acres 0 22 22 22 0 Road Activities/Landing Construction Temporary Road Construction Miles 0 0.6 0.6 0.4 0 Helicopter Landing or Service Landings Number 0 23 23 22 0 Maintenance Miles 0 69.5 69.5 69.5 69.5 Reconstruction Miles 0 .2 .2 .2 .2 Road Restoration Gated Closure Miles 0 7.0 7.0 7.0 16.2 Road Decommissioning/Old Skid Trail Obliteration Decommission Miles 0 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.8 Un-drivable Miles 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Skid Trail Obliteration Miles 0 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 57 Chapter 2: Alternatives Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Table 2-5. Comparison of Alternatives by Issue and Measurement Resource Issue (Number corresponds to Key Issue ) Unit of Measure Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt 5 #1 Snags Retained within Harvest Units Numbers Retained No Harvest All Harvest Areas - 2.4/Ac; clumpy All Harvest Areas - 13/ac; clumpy Salvage Harvest Areas – none except units 3 & 12;* Resiliency - 1.5 – 2.5 /ac; clumpy No Harvest #1 Acres and % severely fire affected forested habitat remaining after salvage (Monument Fire Area- Malheur portion) Acres 16,942 (100%) 13,465 (79%) 14,475 (85%) 14,341 (85%) 16,942 (100%) #2 Acres of tractor skidding Acres 0 490 305 459 0 #2 Acres of harvest in RHCAs Acres 0 601 0 0 0 #2 Stream shading change due to salvage harvest Average 0 -1 % 0 0 0 #2 Non-harvest ground disturbing activities within RHCAs - mod/severe burned areas. Acres 0 20.2 20.2 20.2 20.2 #3 Acres of resiliency treatment (green tree harvest) Acres 0 223 0 223 0 #3 Acres of marginal and satisfactory cover in the project area Acres 281 281 281 281 281 #4 Commercial Harvest Volume (MMBF) 0 30.0 14.4 26.5 0 #4 Present Net Value $ millions 0 $1,734,048 -$1,383,448 $1,287,270 -$2,171,750 #4 Timber Jobs Provided Number 0 271 131 240 0 #5 Fire severity and fire intensity in 20 years as measured by fuel loading within RHCAs of Little Malheur and Camp Cr. ** See Below ** ** ** ** #6 Tractor Harvest on Severely and Moderately Burned Soils Acres No Harvest 466 264 415 No Harvest *Alternative 4 retains un-harvested patches of snags dispersed throughout the project area. ** The fuel loadings vary by fire regime and plant association group; see table 2-6. 58 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 2: Alternatives Table 2-6. Average Fuel Loading by Alternative Project Area Historical Tons/Acre Alternative 1 Tons/Acre Alternative 2 Tons/Acre Alternative 3 Tons/Acre Alternative 4 Tons/Acre Alternative 5 Tons/Acre Camp Creek RHCA 7-15 87 50 87 87 87 Little Malheur River RHCA 7-15 60 26 60 60 60 Little Malheur River Uplands 5-7 31 7 14 7 31 North Fork Malheur River Uplands 5-7 33 9 14 9 33 Table 2-7. Road Maintenance/Reconstruction Activities for Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 Activity Miles Deferred Maintenance 34.2 Brush/Blade 29.5 Brush/Blade/Waterbars/Spot Rock 4.9 Brush/Blade/Waterbars/Rock 0.9 Brush/Blade/Reconstruct Junction 0.1 Reconstruct Cattleguard 0.1 59 Chapter 2: Alternatives Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Table 2-8. Harvest Summary by Alternative; Forested Wildlife Habitat. Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Proposed Harvest Treatments (Includes Non Forest) Salvage (HSV) 3,451 2,825 3,121 RHCA Salvage (HSV) 601 0 0 Resiliency (HTH/HSV) 223 0 223 Harvest in Forested Habitat Light to Moderate Severe HSV 674 324 616 *HTH 76 0 76 High Moderate to Severe **HSV 3,477 2,467 2,601 HTH 0 0 0 Harvest in Forested Habitat (YFMS and OFMS stands) HSV 172 55 155 HTH 7 0 7 *Does not include HTH within Resiliency Treatments for UR and SI Structures; thinning in these two structures is limited to scattered trees; no measurable habitat effect of thinning in UR and SI. **Includes HSV within Resiliency Treatment for UR and SI Forest Structures HTH - Commercial Thinning HSV - Salvage PCE Fire Severity Light to Low Moderate Fire Severity Light - 1, 836 Low Moderate - (Moderate - SEOC, SECC, & YFMS) - 1,011 Total = 2, 847 Acres High Moderate to Severe Fire Severity High Moderate - (Moderate - UR & SI) - 5,076 Severe - 11, 866 Total = 16, 942 acres Total Forested Acres= 19, 794 (11, 475 within wilderness and 8,319 within Project Area) 60 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This Chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the project area and the effects of implementing each alternative on that environment. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented in the alternatives chapter. Changes made between the Draft and Final EIS _______ The following changes were made between the Draft and Final EIS. This listing does not include corrections, explanations, or edits to grammar and spelling. Some of changes resulted from comments made to the DEIS. 1. Noxious weed field surveys were completed during the summer of 2003. A summary of the information is now included in the Affected Environment section for noxious weeds and analysis impact possible impacts of the activities assessed in Chapter 3 of the EIS. A map and data table for each weed site is in the project file. 2. The effects of Alternative 5 were included in all the resource sections in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. The economic analysis in Chapter 3 of the FEIS was modified to reflect changes in lumber values, reduction of deterioration of dead timber, and correct an error in the analysis. 3. A low densely roaded areas analysis (Roads/Access section) was completed for the project area. A map of the findings is included in the project files and summary in the FEIS, Chapter 3, Roads. The maps can be found in the project file. 4. The soils section of the FEIS in Chapter 3 provides additional analysis of soils impacts of harvest on biotic/nutrients; impacts from harvest; food web, and soil impacts of helicopter yarding. 5. The wildlife affected environment and environmental effects sections include additional analysis and information n Chapter 3 of the FEIS. Included updates are the MIS Primary Cavity Excavator snag analysis added additional information and effects. Other changes included additional effects discussion on landbirds and neotropical birds; . the effects to Goshawks, more lynx information; MIS survey information, effects on Pine martin , Bald eagle effects calls were reviewed, and big game winter range road densities were calculated. 6. The sensitive plant section of Chapter 3 of the FEIS was updated to reflect new field survey information gathered in the spring of 2003. 7. The effects to Columbia spotted frogs, Malheur mottled sculpins, and redband trout were reanalyzed and changes were made to the effects determinations. 8. Additional analysis was included relating to the fire threat if harvest does not occur. 61 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS 9. An analysis of unroaded areas was added in response to a comment on the DEIS from the Oregon Natural Resource Council. 10. The stream temperature information was reviewed and additional information was included in the aquatics section of Chapter 3. Past, Present, and Foreseeable Actions Past Actions (Contributed to the Current Condition of the Analysis Area) • Monument Fire suppression and rehab/BAER work (Summer/Fall 2002) • Livestock grazing (Early 1900’s to 2002) • Rebuild fences and other range improvements (2003; continue annually) • Past timber harvest and associated road construction including regeneration harvests (Late 1960s to 1990’s) • Prescribed fire (Awake Timber Sale) • Replanting conifers in old regeneration harvested areas (2003, 21 acres) • Recreation activities including dispersed camping, hunting, and ATV use.(2003) • Hardwood planting; riparian areas (2003) • Road maintenance including cutting of roadside hazard trees (2003) • Mushroom picking (2003; annual event for the next 2- 5 years) • Firewood cutting Present Actions • Noxious weed manual control treatments including cutting of roadside hazard trees (annually). • Maintenance of roads and culverts in fire area (annually). • Recreation: dispersed camping, ATV use, snowmobile use (annually). • Full-size vehicle use on open roads and ATV use on open and closed roads (annually). • Replanting conifers in old regeneration harvested areas (2004, 214 acres) Foreseeable Actions • Livestock grazing (begin as early as 2005 if recovery conditions are met and continue annually) • Firewood cutting (begin in 2009 and continue annually). • Relocation of trailhead and parking area near junction of 1672 and 1672457; non- motorized vehicle access up the Little Malheur River access into Monument Rock Wilderness; maintenance of trail. (2005) • Salvage harvest activities on the Wallowa - Whitman NF portion of the fire area (2004 and 2005). • The fuels loading in the Monument Rock Wilderness will not be reduced and continue to increase. • Animal damage control to reduce pocket gophers numbers in conifer plantation outside RHCAs (2006). 62 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Forest Vegetation ________________________________ Introduction The forest vegetation burned by the Monument Fire exhibits a diverse pattern created by: 1) soil types, 2) aspect, 3) elevation, 4) moisture and temperature regimes, 5) natural disturbances, and 6) past management activities. Approximately 34% of the project area suffered severe burn damage resulting in 90% or more mortality of the trees. On the other extreme, light severity damage in other stands has the appearance of a prescribed burn. Tree mortality is light and patchy. In between these severity conditions, the range of tree mortality is variable, but fire changed the structure of most stands. Regulatory Framework The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires harvested lands be reforested within 5 years. The Forest Service has established a policy that this requirement is applied to salvage as well as to “green” timber sales. In addition, where no salvage is done, deforested lands should be reforested as quickly as practicable (Regional Forester letter, 11/19/2002). The Malheur NF Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) provides Forest-wide management goals and objectives. The applicable standards for the forest vegetation portion of this analysis are: ƒ Maintain stand vigor through the use of integrated pest management such as stocking level control and species composition in order to minimize losses due to insects and diseases. ƒ While favoring high quality natural regeneration, consider the effectiveness of various regeneration methods and prescribe the best site-specific method. Satisfactory stocking of any regenerated stand will be expected to occur within 5 years after harvest. ƒ Use seed collected from phenotypically superior trees from the same seed zone and elevation band for growing planting stock. ƒ Manage to maintain or re-establish ponderosa pine on sites where ponderosa pine is subclimax. The Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2 gives additional direction for timber sales. Alternatives 2 and 4 propose harvest of green trees so this project is subject to the ecosystem standard (HRV) and size removal restrictions. Alternative 3 does not propose harvesting live trees but still must apply riparian and wildlife standards. The applicable wildlife standards for the forest vegetation portion of this analysis are: ƒ If late and old structure (LOS) is below HRV, there should be no net loss of LOS. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) terminology used in this document is old forest single-story or old forest multi-story rather than LOS. ƒ Manipulate vegetation that is not LOS so that it moves towards LOS. Where open, park-like stands occurred historically, encourage the development of large diameter trees with an open canopy structure. 63 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Analysis Method Data about the Monument area was gathered with a variety of methods. Beginning while the fire was still uncontrolled, District resource specialists who were on the ground advising the suppression forces on appropriate firefighting tactics were also gathering information on fire effects. After the fire was controlled, District staff examined timber stands and mapped fire severity to forest vegetation using aerial photographs flown after the fire. Stands were then stratified and formal stand exams were taken on a portion of each stratum. All acres in this section are approximate and are generally rounded off to the nearest 10 acres. Structural stage percentages are shown to the nearest percent, since some are at very low levels, but they are not intended to indicate a degree of precision closer than 5%. The project area is defined as the National Forest lands within the perimeter of the Monument Fire. In some cases, the analysis area includes both surrounding private and Federal forestland up to 5 miles outside the fire boundary to adequately discuss cumulative effects (such as insect spread to stands outside the fire area). This will also include the portion of the Monument Fire on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Biophysical Environments Specific plant species tend to be found together in a characteristic set of ecological conditions. The unit of classification based on the probable, or projected, climax plant community type is termed the “Plant Association”, and may be used to describe and classify sets of ecological conditions. The Plant Associations found within the Monument planning area are documented in Plant Associations of the Blue and Ochoco Mountains (Johnson and Clausnitzer, 1992). For purposes of classification and analysis, plant associations may be grouped into areas with like temperature/moisture and fire disturbance regimes called Plant Association Groups (PAGs) or Biophysical Environments. Stand Resiliency Many of the forests in the West have been altered from their historical condition since Euro- American settlement. This has occurred as a result of fire suppression, logging, cattle grazing, and other activities. There is an increasing realization that forests of the Blue Mountains evolved with the fire, insects, and other periodic disturbances that occur here and that the historical condition was often more resilient and sustainable than the present condition. In particular, the Hot Dry and Warm Dry biophysical environments were typically composed of large ponderosa pine and western larch at fairly wide spacing and there was little conifer undergrowth. Periodic low intensity ground fires kept fuel loads at low levels, killed conifer regeneration and kept trees thinned. Low levels of ground fuels and the lack of fuel ladders from the ground to tree crowns reduced the amount of crown fires and widely spaced crowns inhibited the spread of crown fires. With wide spacing, trees grew at sufficient growth rates to increase resistance to bark beetle infestations. The vegetation has evolved with the periodic disturbances of the region and is adapted to surviving them. The desired condition is to move the forest toward the historical condition for each biophysical environment. This will reduce the risk of uncharacteristically severe fire and restore ecological structure, function, and processes to the forest. 64 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Stands minimally affected by the fire that retained their structure, are qualitatively compared for their resiliency to insect and disease. Stand Development In order to compare the alternatives, the establishment of forest stands occurs either naturally or by planting (artificially). Stand establishment has been estimated to take 5 years if planted, natural reforestation would take 10 to 20 years if within the seed fall zone (within 200’-800’ of live trees, depending upon species) or 20 to 50 years or even several decades if outside the seed fall zone. Cumulative Effects The list of actions identified at the beginning of Chapter 3 was used to analyze the Cumulative Effects. Each one was considered to see if any of them, in combination with actions proposed, had a measurable effect. Those that did were discussed further in the Cumulative Effect sections that follow each topic. Incomplete/ Unavailable information Additional field surveys were conducted during the field season of 2003 to better assess tree mortality in the low to moderate severity burn stands. This field reconnaissance indicates mortality is higher than was originally anticipated. The information available on these stands has a high sampling error due to low number of sample plots. Affected Environment The topography of the project area is composed of moderate to steep slopes, generally ranging from 25 to 70 percent slope. Elevation ranges from approximately 4,800 feet near the confluence of the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek to 6,600 feet at Elk Flat. The fire burned across all slope aspects. Fire has been a principle agent of change that historically created, shaped and maintained ecologically sustainable forest types and structures throughout the Blue Mountain region. Each fire event was unique in terms of ignition, timing, location, extent, duration, and severity. Fire ignitions were not only a result of dry lightening storms but were also purposefully started by native populations (Robbin, 1994). In the Warm Dry biophysical environment (found in much of the Monument Project area) historical fire scare studies indicate a high frequency, low intensity fire regime burned across a portion of the landscape approximately every 12 years (Heyerdalh, 1996). Fire continued to be an important agent of change on the landscape until the late 1800’s (Olson, 2000). In the latter part of the 19th century, native populations were increasingly being displaced by Euro-American settlers (Robbin, 1994). As settlers moved in, the influence and effect of fires started by native peoples began to diminish. Historically, in the Warm-Dry biophysical environments, seral ponderosa pine dominated the landscape because of frequent, low intensity surface fires. Because of the dry nature of these sites and limited seedling establishment, the distribution of trees strongly tended to be found in small patches or clumps. This pattern is a result of frequent low intensity fire and occasional ‘hot spots’ up to an acre in size resulting from accumulations of fuel where patchy mortality occurred. Stocking levels of dominant overstory trees occurred at nearly threshold level where serious mortality was expected to be caused by bark beetles (Harrod, 1999). 65 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Effects from intense grazing pressure in the late 1800s and early 1900s removed much of the sod-forming grass species that inhibited the establishment of conifer species. Insufficient amounts of grass were present to carry low intensity surface fires across the landscape that would normally remove most conifer seedlings and saplings. In response, a new cohort of conifers species were able to become established and survive at much higher levels than what would occur naturally. With prevailing wet climatic conditions at the turn of the 20th century (Ferguson, 2001), the number of trees per acre of most species increased following settlement, with shade-tolerant/fire-intolerant species showing the biggest gain (Camp, 1999). The development and establishment of this new age group had both unforeseeable and unintended consequences spatially and temporally. Unlike the small patches or clumps of ponderosa pine that periodically regenerated after a fire, ponderosa pine regeneration with lesser amounts of Douglas-Fir and grand fir seedlings proliferated across the landscape. With continued heavy grazing pressure and fire suppression, these trees were able to persist where normally they would not have existed in such large numbers. Over time, as these stands grew their structural variability decreased because gaps between patches or clumps of ponderosa pine were filled in with younger trees. As these younger trees began to grow into overstory crowns, a number of different things started to happen. Smaller trees intercepted snow. Snow normally falls to the forest floor and provides surface water inputs as it melts. A portion of this intercepted snow sublimed back into the atmosphere. Limited surface water recharge exacerbated moisture stress competition between the overstory and understory. In drier sites (found in the Warm-Dry biophysical environment), maximum tree competition usually occurs below ground between roots. Ponderosa pine root spread can exceed canopy spread up to five times (Hall 1993). Hence, more moisture competition occurs below ground than above ground. In the Monument planning area there are several average age groups of ponderosa pine that became established and developed under natural fire regimes. The oldest group is 350 years old, the next oldest is 275 years of age and the youngest grouping is 175 years old. A 100- year-old age class became established and developed without the influence of historical, high frequency, low intensity fire regimes. On some sites, these youngest trees can compete enough for soil growing space that older trees lose their vigor. Understory trees can retard growth of overstory ponderosa pines on dry sites and can have a fatal impact on the overstory (Oliver, 1996). Through time, with the removal of mature ponderosa pine combined with 90 years of fire suppression, the landscape has been drastically altered. The landscape is now more homogeneous, patch size has increased, and the number of patches has decreased. Forest stands have been simplified, but insect and disease host continuity has been increased, leading to increased probability of insect and disease outbreaks, and more rapid spread of pests across the landscape. The result is a destabilized condition across the landscape (Scott, 1996). Forest vegetation can be described in terms of plant associations or assemblages of plant species including conifers, hardwoods, shrubs, grasses, and forbs species adapted to utilize available site resources. These assemblages or plant associations form patterns across the landscape in response to available site resources, or environmental gradients of light, moisture, temperature, and soil nutrients (Johnson, 1992). 66 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences In addition to responding to environmental gradients, these associations are shaped by disturbance processes including fire, insects, disease, wind, snow and drought conditions. Plant dominance is expressed by those species best adapted to utilize available growing space or site resources in response to inherent disturbance regimes (IDR). The IDR is defined by the types of disturbance frequency, intensity, and extent. These factors shape the vegetation composition and structure supported over time (Everett, 2000). Environmental gradients, or similar sets of conditions including slope, aspect, moisture, elevation, and soils are relatively constant across the landscape thru time and can be defined in terms of biophysical environments. Biophysical Environments There are five distinct found in the Monument project area. These biophysical environments include: 1) Hot Dry, 2) Warm Dry, 3) Warm Moist, 4) Cool Moist, and 5) Cold Dry. The Herbland, Shrubland, and Woodland biophysical environments are also located within the project area and have been aggregated together because they are sparsely distributed. Table V-1 shows the percentage of each biophysical environment found in the Monument project area. HOT-DRY The lower elevations (3,000 to 4,500 feet) on south and west facing slopes generally contain plant associations of the hot-dry biophysical environment. These associations cover approximately 370 acres (4%) of the project area. The driest sites were occupied by scattered western juniper and ponderosa pine. In the past, there were fewer trees than were present at the time of the Monument Fire. Juniper woodlands have greatly expanded in the last century (Agee, 1993), and ponderosa pine has encroached into some previously non-forested areas. The natural fire regime is one of frequent, low intensity, non-stand replacement fire. Trees typically grow in small, even-aged clumps in stands generally dominated by larger ponderosa pine. Few understory trees and shrubs are present. Tree density is somewhat light, resulting in open stands and good growing space, maintaining tree vigor. Mortality from natural fire regimes is light and patchy; rarely is the whole stand killed. Natural reforestation of small patches is often effective, but the large ponderosa pine seed does not disperse very widely with the wind. WARM-DRY The mid-elevations (4,500-5,500 feet), and north and east facing slopes at lower elevations, generally contain plant associations grouped in the warm-dry biophysical environment. These areas contain plant associations with climax ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, or grand fir. Ponderosa pine is a major seral species present in the Douglas-fir and grand fir plant associations. The Douglas-fir with ponderosa pine associations contained a mix of the two species, as well as occasional grand fir. Western juniper may appear on drier sites and groups of quaking aspen may appear on moister sites. Western larch was a component in many of these stands, as well as incidental amounts of lodgepole pine. These plant associations cover approximately 6,015 acres (70%) of the project area. Generally, the fire regime and stand structure are similar to the hot-dry biophysical environment. WARM-MOIST 67 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS These areas contain wetter climax Douglas-fir and grand fir plant associations covering about 75 acres (less than 1%) of the project area. They occur across a wide range of conditions from the lower portions of southern slopes to the upper middle portion of northern slopes ranging from 2,100 to 5,900 feet in elevation. Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir and western larch are seral tree species. Stand replacing fire is the principle, modifying event in this biophysical environment. Understory shrub and plant species readily sprout following a fire event. COOL-MOIST These areas contain grand fir and subalpine fir plant associations and cover approximately 640 acres (8 %) of the project area. The cool-moist biophysical environment plant associations are found at elevations generally between 5,500 feet and 6,500 feet, and on north and east facing slopes at lower elevations. The cool-moist (grand fir) associations contain a mix of grand fir, Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, and western larch, with minor components of ponderosa pine, western white pine, and subalpine fir. Grand fir associations are generally in the moderate severity fire regime. Stands are fairly continuous and are generally fully stocked. Moderate to high fuel loadings exist because of individual and patch mortality. The fire regime is a mixture of low and high intensity fire in a mosaic pattern across the landscape. In the subalpine fir associations, fire regimes are usually infrequent, high intensity, stand replacement fire. Trees typically grow in clumps or small stands separated by alpine meadows. Trees grow close together and often retain dense branches all the way to the ground. Some stands separated by alpine meadows do not burn since these meadows do not always carry fire. Stands that do burn, however, burn with great vigor due to the torching caused when ground fire reaches the dense branches. Often the whole patch torches, resulting in complete mortality. COLD-DRY Cold-dry biophysical environments principally occur on northern exposures. These areas contain grand fir and lodgepole pine/grand fir plant associations and cover approximately 715 acres (8%) of the project area. Cold-dry biophysical environments are found at elevations generally between 4,250 feet and 6,300 feet on all slope positions. In grand fir plant associations, western larch, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine are early seral species. In the lodgepole pine/grand fir plant association western larch is usually represented at low coverage levels. Grouse huckleberry dominates the shrub layer of the stands while pinegrass and/or elk sedge dominates the herbaceous layer. Soil disturbance in these cold dry plant associations will promote early seral tree species along with understory development of shrubs and forb/grass species. These sites are cold but do not limit grand fir establishment. Lodgepole pine is promoted by repetitive fire and/or thinning and vigorous lodgepole pine can retard establishment of grand fir. Insects and disease of lodgepole pine increase as stands stagnate or mature. 68 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences GRASSLANDS Grassland plant associations occur as small meadows throughout the forested plant associations of the project area. They occupy drier, shallow soiled areas, frost pockets, and riparian areas near perennial streams, as well as alpine meadows. Bluebunch wheatgrass communities are found on gentle to moderate slopes mainly on southern exposures and scablands. Bunchgrass communities respond favorably to low to moderate severity fires. SHRUBLANDS Shrubland plant associations are found primarily along fringe, or transitional zones between grasslands and ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir plant associations. In addition, shrublands occur at higher elevations in the project area on harsh, southerly exposed and rocky sites. Mountain mahogany, low sagebrush and big mountain sagebrush plant associations can be found at elevations between 4,300 and 5,800 feet on gentle to moderate slopes. The understories of these plant associations are often dominated by bunchgrasses. Sagebrush species, along with Mountain mahogany, are readily damaged by fires that promote bunchgrass production. Table V-1. Monument Project Area Forest Types Biophysical Environment Acres % Of Area Warm Dry 6,015 70% Hot Dry 370 4% Cool Moist 640 8% Cold Dry 715 8% Warm Moist 75 1% Herbland/Shrubland/Woodlands 720 8% Non-Forest (rock, streams, etc.) 53 <1% Total Acres 8,588 100% Historical Range of Variability Table V-3 shows the Historic Range of Variability believed to have existed before the 20th century, derived from Forest Service Blue Mountain Area Ecologist analysis, in cooperation with Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forest silviculturists. Figure 16 (Map Section) identifies post-fire structure. The historical range of variability compares the structural stages of each biophysical environment. These structural stages are defined in Table V-2 below. 69 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Table V-2. Forest stand structures found in the Monument project area Structural Stage Definition Also Referred to As: Stand Initiation (SI) When land is reoccupied by trees following a stand- replacement disturbance. Early-successional Early-seral Regeneration Stem exclusion – open canopy (SEOC) Forested areas where the occurrence of new trees is predominantly limited by moisture. Mid-successional Mid-seral Young forest Stem exclusion – closed canopy (SECC) Forested areas where the occurrence of new trees is predominantly limited by light. Mid-successional Mid-seral Young forest Understory reinitiation (UR) When a second generation of trees is established under an older, typically seral, overstory. Mid-successional Mid-seral Young forest Young forest multi-story (YFMS) Stand development resulting from frequent harvest or lethal disturbance to the overstory. Mid-successional Mid-seral Young forest Old single story (OFSS) Forested areas resulting from frequent non-lethal prescribed or natural underburning, or other management. Late-successional single-story Late-seral single-story Old forest single-story Old multi-story (OFMS) Forested areas lacking frequent disturbance to understory vegetation. Late-successional Late-seral multi-story Old forest multi-story SOURCE: Quigley, T., Cole, H., “Highlighted Scientific Findings of the Interior Columbia Basis Ecosystem Management Project,” General Technical Report PNW-GTR-404, USDA Forest Service; Portland, Oregon, May 1997. 70 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table V-3. Historic Range of Variability. Bio- Environment SI SEOC SECC UR YFMS OFSS OFMS Hot-Dry 5-15% 5-20% 0-5% 0-5% 5-10% 20-70% 5-15% Warm-Dry 5-15% 5-20% 1-10% 1-10% 5-25% 15-55% 5-20% Warm-Moist 1-15% 0-5% 5-20% 5-20% 20-50% 0-5% 10-30% Cool-Moist 1-10% 0-5% 5-25% 5-25% 40-60% 0-5% 10-30% Cool-Dry 5-30% 0-5% 5-35% 5-20% 5-20% 1-10% 1-20% Cold-Dry 1-20% 0-5% 5-20% 5-25% 10-40% 0-5% 10-40% Tables V-4 and V-5 show the current condition of stand structures in each whole subwatershed after the Monument Fire. Table V-4. Post-Fire Stand Structures - Swamp Creek Subwatershed Bio- Environment SI SEOC SECC UR YFMS OFSS OFMS Hot-Dry 3% 43% 38% 16% Warm-Dry 13% 2% 31% 7% 33% 14% Warm-Moist 9% 36% 46% 9% Cool-Moist 20% 42% 32% 6% Cool-Dry 9% 41% 24% 26% Cold-Dry 17% 4% 40% 4% 26% 9% Table V-5. Post Fire Stand Structures - Upper Little Malheur Subwatershed Bio- Environment SI SEOC SECC UR YFMS OFSS OFMS Hot-Dry 14% 13% 24% 4% 36% 9% Warm-Dry 14% 8% 6% 7% 14% 51% Warm-Moist 58% 1% 17% 6% 13% 5% Cool-Moist 60% 6% 7% 13% 10% 4% Cool-Dry Cold-Dry 66% 1% 4% 23% 2% 4% As displayed by the above tables, some biophysical environments within the Swamp Creek and Upper Little Malheur River subwatersheds are out of balance with the historical range of structural stages. Generally, the Monument Fire caused a lot of the older structures such as OFMS to move to younger structural stages such as SI, UR, or SEOC. This is due to the 71 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS large amount of stand replacement fire. This is more dramatic in the Upper Little Malheur subwatershed than the Swamp Creek subwatershed because the Monument fire burned more of the Upper Little Malheur subwatershed. For each structural stage, it is considered favorable if current conditions are within or above the historical range of variability. It is desirable to move towards HRV as soon as possible, especially toward old forest conditions if they are below HRV. Vegetative Response to Fire Determining potential tree survivorship or mortality after a wildfire is often difficult because of the varied and complex factors governing the survival of fire injured trees. Numerous factors often interact to determine the fate of trees following wildfire including, but not limited to: 1) age, 2) size, 3) crown ratio, 4) bark thickness (and other fire-resistance characteristics), 5) stand density, 6) fuel loading, 7) season of fire and growing site quality characteristics influencing intensity and duration, 8) degree of damage to trees and 9) insect population and disease status. Further discussion of vegetative response to fire can be found in the following documents: Scott (2002), Miller (2000), Johnson (1998), and Scott (1996). Crown Damage In order for the aerial crown to survive fire, some buds and branch cambium must survive. Fire can affect foliage in the crown in several ways: complete foliage consumption; complete scorching; or partial scorching. Often, on conifers with short needles, crown scorch is equivalent to crown death because small buds and twigs do not survive. On ponderosa pine, larger buds are shielded by long needles and may survive fires that scorch adjacent foliage. While partially scorched foliage may appear green in color, superheated gases from the fire melt away the protective waxy covering or cuticle. The needles desiccate and eventually turn brown and fall from the tree. Crown injury is more often the cause of mortality than bole damage for fire-adapted species such as ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir. Bud survival is more critical for ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir than loss of crown because loss of buds limits photosynthesis. Bole Damage Fires of long duration, and under conditions where moderate to high levels of fuels have accumulated around trees are most likely to cause bole charring. In addition, these conditions are likely to kill most, or all of the cambium some length up the bole, or around the entire circumference of the bole. Killing of the cambium effectively “girdles” the tree. Under these conditions, even fire-adapted species that develop thick bark to insulate their cambium (such as ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir) are damaged. Even light ground fires readily kill species with thin bark, such as, subalpine fir, lodgepole pine, and young grand fir. In the absence of significant crown damage, preliminary work indicates most conifer species can survive some cambial damage or girdling at the root collar if less than 25% of the circumference of the bole is affected. Trees with cambial damage exceeding 75% of bole circumference will not likely survive. Trees with cambial damage greater than 25%, but less than 75% bole circumference have a 50% chance of either living or dying. Trees with severely damaged cambium may still have functioning xylem taking water to the crown. However, the damaged phloem prevents the return of carbohydrates to the lower bole and root system. Effectively, the tree starves to death. 72 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Root Damage Because fire frequencies have been lengthened and heavy accumulations of duff and litter have developed, fine roots and small diameter root systems are often in close proximity to the mineral soil surface. As a result, deep-rooted trees such as ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir have developed fine roots oriented closer to the surface in the mineral soil and are sometimes found in the duff layer. Under these circumstances, low-intensity surface fires pose an increased risk for elevated levels of tree mortality as fine roots are consumed along with duff and litter or because lethal levels of heat are concentrated into the rooting zone. Loss of these feeder roots may be a more significant cause of tree mortality than structural root damage. Damage to fine feeder roots has been associated with both growth reductions in young ponderosa pine stands and with tree mortality in low vigor, mature stands of ponderosa pine. Even light ground fires readily kill grand fir, subalpine fir, and lodgepole pine. These trees may sustain significant damage to shallow root systems while not exhibiting apparent damage around the root collar or in the aerial crown. While the loss of feeder roots may not kill the tree, it can place the tree under significant stress and predispose the tree to other damaging agents (such as insects and diseases). Insect Damage While direct fire damage to the crown, bole, or roots of a tree may not immediately cause mortality, the damage may predispose the tree to bark beetle attack. Bark beetles are the number one biological agent of tree mortality due to wounding by fire. Badly scorched trees are more likely to host successful attacks by western pine beetles, mountain pine beetles, red turpentine beetles, or pine engravers than unscorched or lightly-scorched trees. An injured tree’s ability to produce stem-wood and defense chemicals to protect itself against insects and disease is severely restricted after sustaining fire damage. Production of new foliage and feeder roots take precedence over bole-wood and defensive chemicals making the tree vulnerable to bark beetle attack. Trees that have been severely weakened by various factors such as defoliators, root disease, dwarf mistletoes, moisture stress, and other factors, have less chance of survival after significant injury by fire than healthy, vigorous trees. These weakened trees may succumb to bark beetles in the seasons after a fire, even though they sustained only modest injury from the fire. Damaged trees found in overstocked stands may provide favorable microclimate conditions for successful bark beetle brood production and raise population levels to epidemic levels. Recent evidence suggests large diameter, mature ponderosa pine are especially vulnerable to lethal bark beetle attacks between the second and fourth year after a fire event (Scott et al., 2002). Burn Severity Rating Vegetation burned by the Monument Fire forms a diverse severity pattern created by: 1) soil types, 2) aspect, 3) elevation, 4) moisture and temperature regimes, 5) and past management activities. Burn severity vegetation damage was mapped into four categories, light, moderate, severe, and partial (see figure 3, Map Section).1. 1 Categories follow definitions used from the publication “Vegetation Response after Wildfires in the National Forests of Northeast Oregon” by Charles Johnson Jr. (R-6-NR-ECOL-TP-06-98, page 10). 73 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS ‰ Light: Forest Vegetation - leaves and twigs on tree branches partially to completely scorched, mature trees mostly underburned. ‰ Moderate: Forest Vegetation - leaves and small twigs on tree branches completely scorched, stems and tree trunks charred and partially burned. The moderate burn severity encompasses a wide variation of conditions. Moderate burn severities are often referred to as lower-end moderate and higher-end moderate. Lower- end moderate burn severities have fewer trees with crown scorch and tree trunks with char. Higher-end moderate severity burns have a higher degree of crown scorch and char on tree trunks. They also exhibit a higher degree of litter and woody debris consumption. ‰ Severe: Forest Vegetation - all leaves, stems, and twigs on tree branches consumed; trees and tree trunks deeply charred with branches mostly consumed. ‰ Partial (Mosaic): These areas contain a mixture of burn severities with no one- severity dominating. Severe-Burn Affected Stands The existing vegetation was greatly modified by the Monument Fire in July and August of 2002. Approximately 34% of stands within the project area were killed or heavily damaged. The stands with severe burn damage were converted to an earlier serial stage such as stand initiation (very few or no surviving trees). Some of the most severely damaged stands occur in the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek riparian areas. Light to Moderate Burn Affected Stands Forested areas that burned with low (23%) to moderate (40%) intensity, range greatly in vegetation mortality levels. Stands with a substantial number of live trees are found around the fire perimeter where the fire slowed and burned with less intensity or scattered throughout the fire. These groupings of live trees usually occur in areas of low fuels, flat topography, lower stand density, and in stands of fire tolerant species. These factors contributed to reducing local fire severity (especially in the light fire severity areas). In moderate fire severity areas, stand structures range from stand initiation or understory reinitiation where fire damage is at the upper end of the moderate rating to those with limited mortality leaving stand structure as stem exclusion open canopy or young forest multi-story. Stands with light burn severity range from low density to high density stocking. The low densely stocked stands are located in the southern portion of the project area near Anderson Creek. These stands were thinned within the last 10-year period and prescribed fire was run through the stands in the last 5-year period reducing fuel loading. Many other lightly burned stands are densely stocked and the resiliency of these stands is low to future insect, disease, and wildfire damage. Environmental Effects Vegetative Structure Direct/Indirect Effects Alternatives 1 (No Action), 3 and 5 Risk of secondary mortality from insects and disease would remain high in some overstocked forested stands within the project area. These stands are primarily light to moderate burn affected stands. 74 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Trees that have been severely weakened by various factors such as defoliators, root disease, dwarf mistletoe, moisture stress, and other factors, have less chance of survival after significant injury by fire than healthy, vigorous trees. Weakened trees may succumb to bark beetles in seasons following a fire, even if they sustained only modest injury from the fire. Damaged trees found in overstory stands may provide favorable microclimate conditions for successful bark beetle brood production and raise population levels to outbreak or epidemic levels. Recent evidence suggests large diameter, mature and over mature large ponderosa pine are especially vulnerable to lethal bark beetle attacks between the second and the fourth year after a fire event (Scott et al., 2002). Western and mountain pine beetles attack weakened trees and can also spread into nearby stands. Overstocked stands adjacent the fire area may sustain low levels of bark beetle induced mortality. Approximately 20 per cent of the project area consists of mixed conifer stands containing substantial amounts of Douglas-fir. Douglas-fir bark beetles are expected to spread widely and attack fire-injured trees, eventually killing most trees with intermediate and heavy fire damage. Douglas-fir bark beetles infest 80 to 90 percent of Douglas-fir with greater than 20 percent crown scorch. Western larch is less prone to bark beetle attack after being wounded by fire. There are few insect or disease problems in western larch, with the exception of mistletoe. Mistletoe can cause decline and eventual mortality due to mistletoe-infected branches becoming so heavy they break off from the bole of the tree. It is likely that dwarf mistletoe-infected western larch will have increased likelihood of being killed from fire due to increased fuels and fire susceptibility (Scott, Schmitt & Spiegel, 2002). Alternatives 2 and 4 Alternatives 2 and 4 propose 223 acres of resiliency treatments. In these areas, some green trees expected to survive direct effects of the fire will be harvested to reduce inter-tree competition between residual live trees. This will reduce the risk of tree mortality from secondary drought, disease, and insects. The majority of trees removed will be understory grand fir and Douglas-fir (thinning from below). Commercial and precommercial thinning will reduce competition where it is needed between trees for available site resources and growing space in incidental clumps throughout units where fire severity was lighter. With greater availability of resources, ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir trees will recover faster from fire damage and have an increased chance of survival. These stands generally survived a ground fire with some crown fires occurring that created burned “holes” in the tree canopy. Many of these stands are on the margins of the fire area where the fire spread was slowing and fire intensity was diminishing. These trees have survived the Monument Fire at present, but due to denser canopies and existing fuel ladders, these stands are at high risk from being destroyed by future stand-replacement fires. By thinning green trees from below in these stands, fuel ladders will be reduced and distances between crowns will be increased. Therefore, these stands will become more resilient and the risk of losing them to future fires will be reduced. Surviving trees in the resiliency treatment areas will primarily consist of ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir. Promotion of early seral trees such as ponderosa pine will allow developing stands to better resist drought, fire, insect, and disease agents. 75 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS The resiliency treatment occurs primarily in the warm dry biophysical environment historically shaped by high frequency, low intensity fire regimes. Removal of understory trees will lessen future risk of fire entering into the crowns of dominant, overstory trees. A change in the vertical fuel continuity within these treatment areas would result in lower fire intensity and severity in the future (see Fire/Fuels, Environmental Effects). Post fire, structural stages of stands treated with the resiliency treatments will not change with timber harvesting. Resiliency treatments are a combination of approximately 81 acres of stand initiation (SI), 58 acres of understory reinitiation (UR), and 66 acres of stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) with minor amounts of young forest multi-story (YFMS), and old forest multi-story (OFMS). However, these thinned stands will be more open. Understory and middlestory densities will be reduced by thinning the heavier stocked clumps, usually one or two acres in size, which burned with lighter severity. Outside of the heavier stocked clumps, live trees do not need to be thinned because fire mortality has reduced stocking to at or below the desired density of 60 to 70 square feet of basal area. For example in the SI and UR structure stands, there is generally no need for thinning and no measurable effect to stand density and structure. Residual trees in these stands will exhibit increased growth for the next several years. Therefore, these stands will move towards later structural stages sooner. Species compositions will change following treatment. The most notable change will be reduction in the proportion of grand fir and Douglas-fir. Fire tolerant species such as ponderosa pine and western larch will comprise the majority of species composition. Cumulative Effects All Alternatives Salvage of fire-killed trees on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is a foreseeable action. The salvage will have a slight beneficial effect on reducing insect population buildups and spread into remaining live trees in and near the Monument Fire Recovery Project. These trees would be removed during the summer of 2004 through the winter of 2005. Approximately 11,000+ acres of the Monument Rock Wilderness will remain untreated. There is a risk that insect populations could build in that area and spread into the project area. Reforestation Activities/ Stand Development Direct/Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) and Alternative 5 Under the No Action alternative, no replanting would occur within the project area. Regeneration of stands burned in the 2003 fire would be slower than those proposed to be artificially regenerated in the action alternatives. It may be decades before a fully stocked young sapling/pole sized stand is present. Lack of a reliable seed source in areas that burned with moderate or high severity is the major limiting factor for natural regeneration. Species composition and tree densities would vary depending on available seed source. Natural reforestation depends on many factors. These include: seed dispersal; buried seed; seed survival; germination; and seedling survival and growth. All of these factors were greatly affected by the Monument Fire. Given the conditions for seed dispersal and seedling survival rates of natural regeneration, stocking will vary considerably. In areas with remaining seed sources, reforestation will probably occur within a decade. In the severely burned Camp Creek and Little Malheur 76 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences River drainages, natural regeneration will be a slow process, and tree stocking is estimated to be very sparse for up to a century since it is located far from seed sources and will depend on second generation or third generation seed crops or dispersal by animals. Ground vegetation will be very dense and seedling establishment will be very difficult. The need to reforest the project area will not be met through the No Action alternative. This would directly, indirectly, and cumulatively affect future vegetation patterns across the landscape, affecting many ecosystem functions and resource values. For this analysis, no planting would occur under Alternative 1. However, Forest Service direction states that deforested lands should be regenerated as quickly as practicable (Regional Forester letter 11/19/2002). Therefore, Alternative 5 would plant 2,845 acres of seedlings in areas identified as severely burned. Artificial regeneration would reforest these areas of the fire in two to five years that otherwise would take several decades to reforest with natural regeneration (as in Alternative 1). Approximately 2,500 acres that burned with moderate severity would not be planted with Alternative 5. These areas may take some time to reforest naturally, but it would not take as long to reforest them as severely burned areas due to availability of seed sources lacking in severely burned areas. Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 Natural Regeneration Areas that burned with light severity fire, non-forest areas that occur on rocky or shallow soils, and juniper woodlands would not be planted. Forested areas that burned with lower severities have substantial live trees sufficient to meet management objectives on site without artificial reforestation. If determined by field review or stocking surveys that sufficient natural regeneration is anticipated, these stands will not be planted. Areas sparsely forested (such as juniper woodlands), had fewer trees under natural fire regimes. By not artificially reforesting these areas, they will be returned to their more open, historical condition and will be more likely to survive future fire events. (See Affected Environment). Tree Planting Twenty-one acres of plantations which were destroyed by the Monument Fire were planted in 2003. In 2004, an additional 223 acres of nursery grown trees are anticipated to be available for planting in plantations and precommercial thinning units destroyed by the fire. Species planned to be planted are predominately ponderosa pine, western larch, and some Douglas-fir. Western white pine or lodgepole pine may be planted where cold air drainage is poor. (See Table V-6). Recommended spacing and species to be planted for all plantations are shown in Tables V-8 and V-9. “Suggested Stocking Levels for Forest Stands in Northeastern Oregon and Southeastern Washington: An Implementation Guide for the Umatilla National Forest” by David C. Powell was used to determine what spacing would be preferred to plant conifer seedling. Target tree sizes and target stocking levels were used for specific plant associations to compute desired spacing needed for planting. These figures have been adjusted to reflect local silvicultural knowledge and experience of reforestation successes. For relatively flat terrain with good road access, a target average tree size of 11 inches DBH would be grown in 65 years. This would produce adequate numbers of trees per acre desired in the Upper Management Zone for a commercial thin. For stands with good road access, but 77 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS situated on steep slopes, an average tree size of 13 inches DBH would be grown in 75 years to produce prescribed number of trees per acre as desired in the Upper Management Zone for a commercial thin. For stands in steep terrain with poor or no road access, a target tree size of 21 inches DBH would be grown in 120 years to produce the number of trees per acre desired in the Upper Management Zone for a final harvest. In all three scenarios, it was assumed that seedling survival rate for the first five years after planting would be 50% and an additional mortality rate of 2% per decade would occur. Spacing regimes were calculated to preclude the need for a precommercial thin. Also, for the final harvest scenario, spacing regimes were calculated to preclude the need for any commercial entries as well. Shade cards would be used on higher severity burned areas on south and west slopes throughout the project area, including much of the Camp Creek and Little Malheur River drainages. Shade cards, made from waxed cardboard stapled to wood stakes, reduce seedling transpiration and heat desiccation caused by solar damage on harsh sites during early establishment of seedlings. Shade cards are biodegradable and last 3 to 5 years. Table V-6. Projected Yearly Reforestation for Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5. Year Estimated Planting Acres Alternatives, 2, 3, and 4 Estimated Planting Acres Alternative 5 2003 21 21 2004 223 223 2005 2400 1150 2006 2400 1150 2007 278 301 Total 5322 2845 78 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table V-7. Reforestation and Precommercial Thinning Prescriptions for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Prescribed Treatment Spacing Species Acres RPL 11’ x 11’ 50% PP, 25% WL, 25% DF 179 RPL 11’ x 11’ 100% LP 77 RPL 12’ x 12’ 50% PP, 25% WL, 25% DF 1600 RPL 12’ x 12’ 67% PP, 33% WL 3 RNP/RPL 12’ x 12’ 67% PP, 33% WL 34 RPL 13’ x 13’ 50% PP, 25% WL, 25% DF 367 RPL 13’ x 13’ 67% PP, 33% WL 11 RNP/RPL 13’ x 13’ 67% PP, 33% WL 195 RPL 13’ x 13’ 100% PP 94 RPL 14’ x 14’ 50% PP, 25% WL, 25% DF 509 RPL 14’ x 14’ 67% PP, 33% WL 840 RPL 14’ x 14’ 100% PP 262 RPL 15’ x 15’ 67% PP, 33% WL 698 RPL 15’ x 15’ 100% PP 83 SPC/RPL 18’ x 18’/12’ x 12’ 50% PP, 25% WL, 25% DF 109 SPC/RPL 16’ x 16’/12’ x 12’ 50% PP, 25% WL, 25% DF 4 SPC/RPL 18’ x 18’/15’ x 15’ 50% PP, 25% WL, 25% DF 257 SPC 16’ x 16’ 22 Total Acres 5,344 RNP = Reforestation, Natural Regeneration RPL = Reforestation, Planting SPC = Precommercial Thinning 79 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Table V-8. Reforestation Prescriptions for Alternative 5. Prescribed Treatment Spacing Species Acres RPL 11’ x 11’ 50% PP, 25% WL, 25% DF 63 RPL 11’ x 11’ 100% LP 77 RPL 12’ x 12’ 50% PP, 25% WL, 25% DF 842 RPL 13’ x 13’ 50% PP, 25% WL, 25% DF 225 RNP/RPL 13’ x 13’ 67% PP, 33% WL 15 RPL 13’ x 13’ 100% PP 54 RPL 14’ x 14’ 50% PP, 25% WL, 25% DF 249 RPL 14’ x 14’ 67% PP, 33% WL 642 RPL 14’ x 14’ 100% PP 156 RPL 15’ x 15’ 67% PP, 33% WL 479 RPL 15’ x 15’ 100% PP 43 Total Acres 2,845 RNP = Reforestation, Natural Regeneration RPL = Reforestation, Planting Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 propose to reforest the same acreages. All areas capable of growing trees and lack sufficient live trees will be planted for each alternative, regardless of whether or not harvest is proposed. Alternative 5 calls for planting only in the severe fire severity areas. Therefore, only 2,845 acres would be planted. The higher severity burned areas would be regenerated at the same rate as in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. The major difference between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 lies in the treatment of the moderate severity burned areas. In many of the moderate fire severity areas, some live trees remain and will provide a limited seed source for natural reforestation. On the average, stands are expected to be regenerated at least 15 to 20 years earlier and will have more uniformity with artificial regeneration than with natural regeneration. Seedling Survival Upland Areas If conifer planting is accomplished within two years, seedling survival is expected to range from 60 to 80 percent. After three years post fire, animal damage and competing vegetation may become a problem for seedling survival. If planting is delayed beyond three years, hand scalping and/or reduction of competing ceanothus brush may be needed to control competing vegetation. Animal damage control may be necessary to ensure adequate seedling survival. Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas Reforestation survival in riparian habitat conservation areas is expected to be lower than average because of animal damage and competing vegetation. Even if planted within two years, seedling survival in riparian areas is expected to range from 20 to 60 percent. Herbaceous recovery will occur quickly in most riparian areas and competing vegetation is 80 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences expected to be a problem. Hand scalping of vegetation around planted seedlings will be necessary to obtain adequate seedling survival. Big Game Damage Big game browsing is expected to be heaviest the first few years following the fire, when seedlings are very small. The Monument Fire area has traditionally been heavily used by big game. If damage becomes apparent, protection of planted seedlings would be administered with application of big game repellant (BGR). Big game repellent is made from putrefied chicken egg solids. The odor of the substance deters big game from browsing. The repellant is mixed with food coloring and applied to terminal buds and upper whorls of branches of trees. BGR is highly biodegradable and has not shown any adverse effects to surrounding vegetation or animals. BGR would be applied to planted seedlings in all plantations, including riparian habitat conservation areas. There are no direct or indirect effects associated with the application of BGR on soil or water quality. BGR contains no toxic substances, degrades rapidly, and does not accumulate in the soil. The combination of strict application procedures leads to the conclusion that BGR will not affect soil or water quality. Heat Desiccation Salvaging will reduce shade in the high severity burned areas. Amount of shade remaining will vary slightly by alternative, depending on the level and distribution of trees retained for snags. Decreased shade will slightly increase the range of weather extremes both hot and cold, possibly affecting vegetation growth. The planting in the shade of logs, stumps and rocks increases the chance of seedling survival. Shade cards would be used on higher severity burned areas on south and west slopes throughout the project area. The use and location of shade cards would be determined on a case-by-case basis. Pocket Gopher Control Pocket gopher control is not a proposed action in this analysis, but may be necessary if gopher activity threatens the ability to reforest specific areas. Any future gopher control measures would be prescribed on a site-specific basis, and would be analyzed in a separate environmental analysis. The potential need for future gopher control activities is difficult to predict and will be determined by conducting site-specific surveys. Gopher control methods would only be prescribed on upland areas where gopher activity is above thresholds that threaten plantation survival. Generally, this is when surveys reveal 20% or more of seedlings are being killed by gopher related damage. No gopher baiting would be considered within any RHCA in the project area. The project area is located within the Little Malheur River and the North Fork of the Malheur River watersheds which are proposed critical habitat for bull trout. There is an expectation of lower survival rates and some of these RHCAs may require additional planting. Gopher damage and mortality generally occur in severely burned areas that demonstrate a flush of grasses and forbs a few years after a wildfire. Populations will increase after 2 or 3 years when grasses and forbs increase in the fire area. Gophers will then move in from the fire perimeter and their population will enlarge due to the abundance of food. Even if food is abundant, populations are expected to remain low for several years within interior portions of the fire. Gopher populations will remain low during this period because gophers repopulate fire areas from the perimeter inward. Therefore, potential for gopher damage is greater 81 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS around fire perimeters. Generally, if plantations survive for five years after planting, pocket gopher damage is minimal and not expected to cause plantation failures. Stands that are planted several years after a fire are at a higher risk from gopher damage and mortality. Cumulative Effects All Alternatives Approximately 21 acres were planted in the project area in 2003, utilizing available tree seedlings. Approximately 223 acres of planting is scheduled for the spring or 2004. This would be a beneficial effect. No vegetation control treatments or animal damage control (except BGR applications) are planned for Federal lands that are reforested.2 Therefore, there will be no additional cumulative effect from this project. Livestock Damage Livestock grazing will not be reinitiated on the Monument project area for at least two growing seasons following the fire. Livestock is not anticipated to have a major impact on planted seedlings in upland areas of the fire. The northern portion the Swamp Creek Subwatershed is an active unit that is grazed by about a thousand head of sheep. Grazing would not be an effect on seedling survival as long as sheep will not be allowed to graze conifer plantations until seedlings have reached 3 feet in height. Reintroduction of sheep grazing will not occur in plantations until reviewed for suitability by the District Silviculturist and the District Rangeland Management Specialist. Sheep grazing in these areas may be beneficial to seedling establishment by reducing competition of herbaceous vegetation. In addition, cattle graze the Upper Little Malheur subwatershed. Cattle grazing is to be deferred for two growing seasons. Damage to seedling will be minimal in the uplands due to the large size areas scheduled for planting. Some plantations may sustain trampling damage from heavy cattle concentrations. Trampling is expected in localized areas such as along fences, in bedding areas, or in dusting areas. After planted conifers have developed to the point that cattle can see them above shrubs and grasses, (three feet tall, on average) trampling damage is expected to be minimal. Consistency with Direction and Regulations NFMA (Regional Forester’s Letter of Nov. 19, 2002) The No Action Alternative does not meet direction to reforest areas as soon as possible in severely burned areas. If the No Action Alternative were selected in this analysis, further analysis to meet the intent of the Regional Forester’s direction would be conducted under a different NEPA document. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 all meet direction urging that salvaged areas shall be reforested within 5 years and other deforested areas be reforested as soon as possible. Alternative 5 meets the direction that all deforested areas will be reforested as soon as possible either by artificial or natural regeneration. Forest Plan The No Action Alternative does not meet Forest Plan direction to establish ponderosa pine (and other early seral species) in appropriate sites to increase fire, insect, and disease resiliency. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 meet direction to minimize losses due to insects and 2 Reforested stands include 244 acres planted/ to be planted in the spring of 2003 and 2004. 82 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences disease by establishing ponderosa pine and western larch, where appropriate, within 5 years after harvest. Alternative 5 will reforest severely burned areas with ponderosa pine, western larch, and some Douglas-fir. Naturally regenerated areas, under Alternative 5, will be regenerated with a mix of conifer species depending on available seed sources. Both natural regeneration and planting are utilized to reforest burned areas and seed is collected from superior trees within the seed zone and elevation band. Regional Foresters Forest Plan Amendment #2 ( Screens) All alternatives meet direction not to decrease old forest structural stages. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 better meet the objective to shorten the time to grow additional old forest structure. Stands would reach old forest structural stages more quickly in response to these prescriptive treatments since planting would establish trees 10 to 40 years sooner than would natural regeneration. Alternative 5 shortens the time required to grow additional old forest structures in severely burned areas by planting seedlings. The moderately and lightly burned areas would be regenerated naturally within 5 to 10 years where available seed sources exist. Alternatives 2 and 4 would not remove green trees greater than 20.9 inches DBH. Also, in Alternatives 2 and 4 (where resiliency treatments would take place), residual tree growth would be increased after thinning and stands would move toward old forest structural stages sooner. The type of timber sales proposed in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 is exempted from the interim ecosystem standards including HRV under Amendment #2 except for the wildlife standards. These sales are a combination of salvage with incidental green volume and commercial thinning located outside currently mapped old growth. Also, the sales maintain all remnant late and old seral and/or structural live trees greater than 21” dbh since only dead and dying greater than 21” dbh are removed. Irreversible/Irretrievable Effects There are no anticipated long-term irreversible commitments of the forest vegetation since it is renewable as long as soil productivity is maintained. There may be short-term losses of growth related to soil compaction, but compaction would be kept below 20% of the forest area, and growth reduction on compacted ground is about 15%. This would result in a total maximum growth loss of approximately 3% of growth potential until the compaction gradually diminishes (in about 50 years). Fuels/Fire _______________________________________ Introduction Fire and Fuels Management Fuels management is a process of managing hazards in relation to the size and severity of a potential fire event. The objective of fuels management is to reduce fire hazards to a level where cost effective resource protection is possible should a wildfire ignite. Of the three components affecting wildland fire behavior (fuels, weather, and topography), only fuels can be manipulated. 83 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS The Fire and Fuels section also addresses the following fuels related issues: 1. Fuel loading and fire behavior 2. Firefighter and Public Safety 3. Air Quality Regulatory Framework Malheur Forest Plan and the Malheur Fire Management Plan The Malheur National Forest Plan includes Forest-wide fire management direction consistent with other resource goals. The Malheur National Forest Fire Management Plan is an annually updated operational guide. The Malheur National Forest, Forest Land and Resource Plan provides forest-wide standards and identifies management direction for Fire: 1) Initiate initial suppression action that provides for the most reasonable probability of minimizing fire suppression costs and resource damage. These suppression actions should be consistent with probable fire behavior, resource impacts, safety and smoke management considerations. 2) Identify, develop and maintain fuel profiles that contribute to the most cost-efficient fire protection program consistent with management direction (Forest Plan IV-4). The Malheur National Forest further describes Forest-Wide Standards for Fire Management and, Residue Management: 1) Manage residue profiles at a level that will minimize the potential of high intensity, catastrophic wildfires and provide for other resource objectives in individual management areas. 2) Utilize the Regional fuels analysis process as a guide to determine the most cost effective fuel profile for fire protection purposes. Finance treatment beyond the level needed for fire protection by the requesting or benefiting function. 3) Use all methods of fuel treatment as prescribed by site-specific analysis to achieve resource management objectives. Encourage utilization of wood residue as a priority treatment consistent with long-term site productivity and wildlife habitat needs (Forest Plan IV-44). The Fire Management Plan is a working document and is updated annually or as policy or Land and Resource Management Plans change. The Malheur National Forest Fire Management Plan (FMP) defines how the Fire Management Program will be implemented on the Malheur National Forest.3 The Fire Management Program is based on achieving resource objectives defined in the Land Management and Resource Management Plans for the Forest. National Fire Plan The National Fire Plan provides national direction for hazardous fuel reduction, restoration, rehabilitation, monitoring, applied research, and technology transfer. The USDA Forest Service and Department of Interior (DOI) are developing a common strategy for reducing 3 For more information see the Malheur National Forest, Fire Management Plan. 84 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences fuels and restoring land health in fire-prone areas. The DOI and USDA Forest Service have prepared 2 Documents outlining strategies for protecting people and the environment by restoring and sustaining land health; Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire- adapted Ecosystems.4 The purpose of the strategy is to: 1. Establish national priorities for fuel treatment; ensuring funding is targeted to the highest risk communities and ecosystems. 2. Evaluate tradeoffs between programs that emphasize wildland urban interface and those emphasizing ecosystem restoration and maintenance. 3. Measure the effectiveness of strategic program options at different funding levels. 4. Recommend a strategic program to best achieve national fuel treatment objectives for community protection and ecosystem restoration and maintenance. 5. Emphasize landscape-scale, cross-boundary treatments that reduce hazards while providing benefits to other ecosystem values. The strategy will emphasize improved working relationships between federal land managers, as well as with multiple key disciplines inside the various land management and regulatory agencies and bureaus across geographic scales. Applicable National Fire Plan goals and objectives include: • Reducing the number of small fires that become large • Restoring natural ecological systems to minimize uncharacteristically intense fires • Creating new jobs in both the private and public sectors • Improving capabilities of state and volunteer fire organizations • Reducing threats to life and property from catastrophic wildfire Analysis Method Future fuel loading (tons/acre) and fire behavior for the Monument Fire were modeled on data obtained through stand exams and pre-cruise timber inventory data. All data was collected from a stratified inventory method. Stands sharing like stand characteristics were grouped into strata and individual stands were chosen from within each strata for inventory using variable and fixed radius plots. Weights of standing dead trees were calculated from the Handbook for Predicting Residue Weights of Pacific Northwest Conifers (Brown et al,. 1977). Weights include limbs, tops, and boles of dead trees. Foliage weight was subtracted as it was consumed in much of the project area during the fire. Tons per acre for each strata was determined by averaging fuel loadings5 for treatment areas within that strata. By calculating average fuel loading (tons per acre), we are able to predict future fire behavior and effects, using BEHAVE Plus.6 4 See - A Cohesive Strategy (USDA Forest Service, 2000) and Integrating Fire and Natural Resource Management - A Cohesive Strategy For Protecting People By Restoring Land Health (DOI, in draft). 5Desired fuel loading estimates were derived from a white paper, Coarse Woody Debris and Succession in the Recovering Forest, (Brown et al. 2001). 6 BEHAVE Plus is a fire behavior prediction and fuel modeling system that predicts fires rate of spread, flame length, spotting potential and fire effects on vegetation. 85 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Affected Environment Recent Fire History Wildland fires are the major natural disturbance to vegetative communities on the Malheur National Forest. Fires fulfill an important role in ecosystem maintenance and development across the landscape. The historical fire return interval prior to fire suppression was 12 years in the Dugout Creek Resource Natural Area located in the North Fork Malheur River Watershed, in close proximity to the Monument Fire (Heyerdahl & Agee, 1996). The Monument Fire Area, Upper North Fork Malheur and Little Malheur Watersheds, have experienced several large wildfires, fires greater than 100 acres, during the past 64 years (Table F-1). Average area historical large fire size is approximately 13,980 acres. Small fires have also occurred during this time. However, for the purposes of this analysis, emphasis is placed on large fires. This area experiences lightning and human-caused ignitions annually. Given this level of activity, there is a high probability of an ignition occurring within the Monument Fire area at any given time in the future. Table F-1. Historic Large Fires Fire Size Year Big Cow 39,000 1939 Glacier 11,000 1989 Monument Rock 10,000 1990 Sheep 11,306 1989 Ironside 10,110 1994 Powder 5,780 1994 Camp Creek 125 2001 Monument 24,525 2002 Given the recent large fire history, it is reasonable to assume that another large fire event is likely to occur within the next 30 years. Therefore, this timeframe was used to set the temporal boundary utilized by the analysis found in the fire/fuels section. The current fire condition of the Monument Fire Recovery is best described by historic fire regimes. The document titled Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy, established five primary fire regime groups for all lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service in the United States. Fire regimes are broad and simplified categories that help us understand ecological fundamentals of biotic systems that occur on this landscape. The categories also help depict previous relationships with fire as a process, acting upon these systems at different frequencies and resulting severities for thousands of years. For the purpose of this analysis, fire regimes are grouped into three categories7, high severity regimes, moderate severity regimes and low severity regimes (Walstad et al, 1990). 7 Severity represents fire effect on vegetation and soils. 86 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table F-2. Fire Regimes Fire Regime Group Frequency (Fire Return Interval) Severity Monument Fire Acres Project Area Acres I 0 to 35 years Low severity 7,489 6,254 II 0 to 35 years High severity 1,096 575 III 35 to 100+ year Mixed severity 9,120 1,252 IV 35 to 100+ year High severity 2,408 481 V > 200 years High severity 73 0 High severity regimes are typically moist and cool, except in the grasslands. Fires are very infrequent (more than 100 years between fires), 0 to 35 years in the grasslands. Fires are usually high intensity, stand replacement fires, but burn for short duration. Fires are associated with drought years and an ignition source such as lightning (Huff and Agee, 1980). Fire Regimes II and IV best represent high severity regimes. Fire Regime II represents drier grassland types, tall grass prairie, and some chaparral ecosystems. Fire Regime IV is the long-interval, stand-replacement fire regime. Lodgepole pine/subalpine fir forests best characterize this fire category. Regime IV is especially characteristic of the Monument Fire, specifically in the mid to higher elevations in the Monument Rock Wilderness Area. There is a very small area (73 acres) in the Monument Rock Fire represented by Fire Regime V, which represents rocky, low productivity sites. Moderate severity fire regimes are the most difficult to characterize. Fires are infrequent (25 to 100 years). They are partial stand replacement events that include areas of high and low severity. The overall effect is patchiness over the landscape as a whole. Individual stands often consist of two or more age classes. The moderate regime occurs in areas with typically long summer dry periods. Historically, fires lasted weeks to months. Periods of intense fire behavior are mixed with periods of moderate and low-intensity fire behavior. In some instances, fire frequency is higher than low severity regimes due to higher litter production. Fire Regime III represents the mixed conifer forests in the Monument Fire Area. Low severity fire regimes are associated with frequent fires of low intensity. Frequent fires limit the time allowed for fuel to accumulate. Typical fire intensity is moderate to low. Low severity regimes (Fire Regime I) in the Monument Fire were represented by ponderosa pine forests. Historically, fuels in ponderosa pine forests rarely accumulated to high levels because of the frequent fires that consumed fuels and pruned residual trees. Frequent fires on these sites likely consumed down material as well. It is doubtful that logs remained on the forest floor long enough to provide wildlife habitat. 87 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS The ponderosa pine forests in the Monument Fire burned with uncharacteristically high intensity. 5,654 acres were burned at moderate or high severity, versus 1,835 acres that burned at low severity. The resulting condition left large numbers of standing dead trees that will fall and build up a heavy fuel loading. 53 percent of the second growth pine could fall by year five, while ponderosa pine and western larch with resin-hardened bases may stand for many years after mortality. Decay will be present in all dead trees. The extent of decay will be highly variable, due largely to moisture patterns and amount of direct contact with the ground. Mixed conifer forests (Regime III) burned at higher severities than would normally be expected. These forests burned at high severity over three times the amount of acreage as burned at low and moderate severity. Ponderosa pine will begin to fall most rapidly in mixed conifer stands, followed by grand fir and Douglas fir respectively, in the first five years. Again decay will be present, but the extent will be affected by moisture patterns. Wet conditions encourage the spread of decay. Western larch, subalpine fir and lodge pole pine present in mixed conifer forests will have minimal fall down and decay in the first five years. Higher elevation forests will remain the most unchanged during the first five years following the Monument Fire. Ground cover will begin to reestablish and lodgepole pine seedlings should begin sprouting profusely in these forests. The fire-killed lodgepole pine and subalpine fir snags should remain largely intact, except for limbs and tops damaged by wind throw. Approximately 11,538 acres of the Monument Rock Wilderness Area on the Malheur National Forest burned in the Monument Fire. The Monument Fire burned areas of the wilderness spared by the Monument Rock Fire of 1990. There have also been other large fires in the vicinity of the Monument Fire: Big Cow 1939, Ironside 1994, Powder 1994, and Camp Creek 2001. Table F-3 illustrates the way the Monument Fire moved through existing Fire Regime categories and biophysical environments in the project Area. These figures suggest the Monument fire burned with more severity than would be expected historically. This is particularly relevant given that 73% of the Project Area is categorized as Fire Regime 1 and so should have burned with low intensity. 88 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table F-3. Fire Regimes/ Biophysical Environments/Severity Acres Fire Regime (% Project Area) Biophysical Environment Historic Burn Severity Acres Burned at Low Severity Acres Burned at Moderate Severity Acres Burned at High Severity Regime I 72% Warm Dry and Hot Dry Low 1,835 3,008 2,646 Regime II 7% Warm Dry and Hot Dry (e.g. Grasslands) High 43 410 643 Regime III 15% Cool Moist Mixed 76 2,097 6,947 Regime IV 5% Cold Dry and Lodgepole High 0 937 1,471 Regime V <1% Rock and unproductive sites High 0 0 73 Total Acres 1,954 6,452 11,780 Areas treated by prescribed fire, thinning and/or burning activities prior to the Monument Fire, burned at low to moderate severity. The Monument Fire Regime Map further depicts this fire behavior (see Figure 17, Map Section). Prescribed fire treatment areas: Awake Project. The southern boundary of the project area was treated with commercial and pre-commercial thinning followed by management ignited prescribed fire (underburning), on approximately 1,500 acres, completed within the Monument Fire Recovery Project Area in November 2001 (Awake project). The Monument Fire exhibited low fire intensity and rate of spread in this area, some areas remained unburned by the Monument Fire due to lack of available fuel (see photos 1 and 2, Fire/Fuels Specialist Report). Spring Timber Sale. Plantations resulting from the Spring project also burned at low severity. Spring units were clearcut, burned and reforested approximately 9 years prior to the Monument Fire. Spring units did not burn in the Monument Fire, however there was scorch damage present along the boundaries with severely burned, forested areas (see photo 3, Fire/Fuels Specialist Report). HunterTimber Sale. The Hunter project units suffered mixed severity, being located within areas burned at high severity under extreme fire behavior conditions. The Hunter units were also clearcut, burned and reforested. The Hunter units located in the Little Malheur River drainage burned at low to high severity within each individual unit. Exposure to radiant or convective heating caused most of the damage to the previously mentioned units. Foliage 89 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS was still present on vegetation (tree seedlings, low shrubs, etc.) in the high severity burn areas of these units. The upslope portions of these units exhibited some damage due to convective or radiant heating, terminal leaders on western larch seedlings were killed, but the seedlings flushed new leaves from undamaged buds immediately following the fire. (See photo 4, Fire/Fuels Specialist Report) Fuels Consumed by the Monument Fire Surface fuel loading was completely consumed in the Monument fire, except in the treated areas previously mentioned. Fine fuels and small branch wood were also consumed on trees in the high severity burn areas and most of the moderate severity burn areas due to torching or crown fire activity. This has significantly reduced the potential for large fire activity for approximately the next 10 years. Development of duff and litter layers will occur, but fine fuels and smaller branches (.25 to 1 inches diameter) will be absent until vegetation recovers in sufficient quantity and distribution to begin producing litter (needles, leaves, cured grass, etc.). Tree tops, branches and tree boles are already beginning to accumulate in all areas where forested acres suffered fire damage (see photo 4, Fire/Fuel Specialist Report). Large down wood, including large rotten logs, were consumed in the Monument Fire. Large logs described as moisture reservoirs against drought and wildfire were also consumed. The accumulation of large logs (especially partially decayed logs), contributed to fire growth and to fire severity. The operations section chief on the Monument Fire, Jeff Pendleton, stated that areas containing these large “punky logs8” were receptive for fire brands9 and had numerous spot fires that crews were unable to suppress. These areas were located in forested areas adjacent to the Spring Project units (see photos 3 and 4, Fire/Fuels Specialist Report), which did not burn. Large down wood is beginning to accumulate in the recovering forest, at varying fall down rates. Environmental Effects Common to All Alternatives Direct/Indirect Effects The influence of fine fuels such as litter, duff, grasses, and small woody fuels (less than 3 inches diameter) have the most effect on spread rate and intensity of fires. These fuels are used in fire behavior models developed for predicting fire behavior of initiating fires (Rothermel, 1983). Course woody debris (>3inches) has little influence on spread and intensity of the initiating fire; however, it can contribute to development of large fires and high fire severity. Fire persistence, resistance-to-control, and burnout time (effects to firefighter and public safety, soil heating and tree mortality) are significantly influenced by loading, size, and decay state of course woody debris (Brown et al. 2001). It is generally accepted that most, but not all, of the snags will be on the ground within 10 to 30 years creating a future fire and fuels concern. The optimum quantity of downed course woody debris (CWD) is about 5 to 15 tons per acre for Fire Regime 1 and 10 to 25 tons per acre for Fire Regime 3 and 4 (Brown, 2003). These fuel loadings take into account wildlife and soils concerns. A re-burn involving these 8 “Punky” logs are logs that are partially decayed. 9 A fire brand is burning material transported by wind from burning debris. 90 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences quantities of CWD should not lead to unusually severe fire effects.10 If quantities of CWD are at the high end of the range and composed of mostly smaller diameter pieces (3-6 inches), adverse soil heating might occur at very low fuel moisture contents. A modifying factor in determining optimum CWD levels lies in the notion that the larger the diameter of downed CWD, the greater the loading that can be allowed without resulting in undesirable fire effects (Brown, 2001). Natural regeneration of trees and reforestation activities will also affect future fire severity in the Monument Fire Recovery area. Trees planted at lower plant spacing could develop into stands exhibiting high stand density. This crowding could also lead to high fire severity in the future. This would require additional vegetation management, thinning and piling of created thinning slash, to mitigate future prescribed fire activities or fire severity. Regeneration from remaining natural seed sources and wider tree planting spacing would also serve to reduce future fire severity in addition to any other fuels management activities. A snag retention study conducted on the Sleeping Child Fire, Bitterroot National Forest showed nearly 50% snag attrition in the first five years (Lyon, 1977). Recent studies also support this in second-growth Ponderosa Pine reporting a 53% fall-rate within the first five years (Hadfield, Magelssen & Wood, 1996-2000). Snags smaller than three inches were virtually nonexistent after 15 years, while snags larger than eight inches fell sporadically, not at a constant rate.11 The alternating high and low periods of attrition suggest a possibility of 20 to 30 percent wind throw mixed with years of almost no loss (Lyon, 1977). Within ten years, the previously cited research suggests that fire killed trees in the Monument Fire area will begin to develop into a heavy surface fuel loading increasing the probability of a high severity fire during subsequent fire events. 10 Normal fire severity would include up to 50% mortality of 20-year-old ponderosa pine regeneration (6” dbh, 30’ height) in areas meeting desired maximum fuel loading. 11 The study transects were inventoried every two years. Because transects were not inventoried annually, large wind throw cannot be confirmed for any single year 91 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct/Indirect Effects Table F-4. Average Fuel Loading/No Action Area Tons/Acre Desired Fuel Loading (Tons/acre)* Camp Creek RHCA 87 5 to 15 Little Malheur RHCA 60 5 to 15 Uplands L. Malheur 31 5 to 15 Uplands N. Fork 33 5 to 15 * Desired tons/acre was taken from Brown, Coarse Woody Debris: Managing Benefits and Fire Hazard in the Recovering Forest, Pg. 7. Alternative 1 (No Action) would leave the Monument Fire Recovery Project area in its existing condition. This would leave a fuel loading approximately 31-33 tons per acre in the uplands and 60 to 87 tons per acre in the riparian habitat conservation areas (consisting mainly of standing dead trees). This is a significant amount of fuel given that the desired maximum fuel loading in the project area is 15 tons per acre. The southern boundary of the project area burned with low severity. This area was treated by the Awake Natural Fuels Project in November 2001. Awake employed commercial and pre- commercial thinning followed by management ignited prescribed fire on approximately 1,500 acres. The Monument Fire exhibited low fire intensity and rate of spread in this area, allowing fire suppression crews a safe control point to contain the Monument Fire. Fuel reduction activities would not occur under this alternative. Under this alternative, fuel loading would remain constant through long-term snag attrition into the surface fuel loading. This is significant when examining large fire occurrence in the area adjacent to and including the Monument Fire. The continual buildup of large woody debris will add future available fuel that will lead to high severity fire and long burning duration in the event of a landscape scale wildfire. Cumulative Effects: With regard to cumulative effects, geographic boundaries for this analysis include the Upper North Fork Malheur and Little Malheur River subwatersheds. The temporal boundary is 30 years into the future (the expected fire return interval in the dry sites). The Monument Fire has created an overabundance of early seral conditions within the fire area. This abundance, in addition to burn patterns from previous large fires (Table F-1) has caused a mosaic of early 92 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences seral conditions across the landscape. Fire salvage on 779 acres of the Monument Fire is proposed on the portion of the fire on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Past actions affecting the number of snags, fuel loading, fire intensity, and fire severity include prescribed burning, pre-commercial thinning, timber harvest, insects and disease, and fire suppression. Reasonably foreseeable actions include the natural falling, accumulation and decay of snags, fire suppression activities and some thinning and prescribed burning. Given the extent of the area affected by the Monument Fire, no specifics have been determined at this time regarding the location of future project proposals. It is likely that future projects would be designed to decrease fuel loads in dry sites across this landscape. As the analysis area begins to recover, natural regeneration would be established where seed sources exist, or residual seed remained in the soil. The development of new/young stands would increase available fuel that could burn as time progresses. The No-Action Alternative 1 may provide a cumulative contribution to a continuing disruption of succession processes. Given the fire return interval in Fire Regime I, the probability of another high severity wildfire will increase as vegetation recovers and begins producing fine fuels. A re-burn at high severity could prolong the dominance of stand establishment conditions at large spatial and temporal scales. Alternative 2 Direct/Indirect Effects Table F-5. Fuel Loading/Alternative 2 Areas Existing Tons/Acre Post-Harvest Tons/Acre Desired Fuel Loading (tons/acre)* Camp Creek RHCA 87 50 5 to 15 Little Malheur RHCA 60 26 (17-19 after handpiling) 5 to 15 Uplands L. Mal 31 7 5 to 15 Uplands N. Fork 33 9 5 to 15 * Desired tons/acre was taken from Brown, Coarse Woody Debris: Managing Benefits and Fire Hazard in the Recovering Forest, Pg. 7. Alternative 2 would reduce future fuel loading by approximately 24 tons per acre in the uplands and 34 to 37 tons per acre in RHCAs. This reduction would be accomplished by removing all dead trees 12”> across the 4,542 acres of proposed salvage.12 2.4 snags/acre >21” DBH would be retained. Residual woody debris generated by salvage operations would be lopped and scattered. Areas treated with resiliency treatments would harvest trees by whole tree yarding. Yarding would reduce the amount of activity-generated debris, thereby reducing residual fuel loading in the North Fork Malheur River uplands. This process would 12 This figure is inclusive of dead trees 12” to 20” in RHCAs. 93 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS leave residual fuel loadings of <8 to 11 tons per acre in the uplands, meeting desired fuel loading for dry sites. Twenty-six to 50 tons per acre would be left in RHCAs, failing to meet desired fuel loadings for dry sites. No further fuel treatment is being proposed in upland areas due to benefits to soil productivity, reduced erosion impact, and wildlife benefit. Additional hand piling will be necessary in RHCAs where post-harvest monitoring indicates fuels concentrations exceed 15 tons per acre. Hand piling in the Little Malheur River RHCA would reduce fuel loading by another 7-9 tons per acre. This reduction would result in fuel levels within 2 to 4 tons per acre of meeting desired fuel loading for dry sites. Hand piling would be excluded in the flood plain of the Little Malheur River and would be limited to fuels up to 6” diameter. The Camp Creek RHCA would not meet desired fuel loading. Additional fuel treatment activities such as post harvest handpiling in Camp Creek would not be sufficient to lower residual fuel loading after harvest to within maximum loading guidelines. Salvage activities in the Upper Little Malheur River Subwatershed would increase fuel loading of activity-created fuels in helicopter yarding treatment areas. These salvage activities would increase fuels in the 1 to 6” diameter size classes. Fire hazard would remain low for approximately 0 to 10 years, until vegetation recovers, due to lack of fine fuels and decomposition of wood in contact with the ground. Long-term, potential fire severity would be reduced as smaller diameter fuels decompose and large woody debris (the proposed salvage) is removed. Cumulative Effects Past, Ongoing & Forseeable Actions Alternative 2 proposes fuel reduction on a total of approximately 4,311 acres equating to 50% of the Monument Fire Recovery Project area, and 18% of the total Monument Fire area (Malheur & Wallowa-Whitman National Forests). This is in addition to the 779 acres of proposed fire salvage on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest portion of the Monument Fire. At the landscape scale, this alternative would lead to a substantial change in potential fire intensity and fire severity. A disruption of fuel continuity within proposed treatment units would result in lower fire intensity and severity on these sites in addition to previously treated areas (Awake Natural Fuels Project). Reasonable foreseeable actions include: 1) the natural fall, accumulation, and decay of snags, 2) fire suppression, and 3) some thinning and prescribed burning. Given the extent of the area affected by the Monument Fire, no specifics have been determined at this time regarding the location of future project proposals. It is likely future projects would be designed to decrease fuel loads in dry sites across this landscape 94 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences . Alternative 3 Direct/Indirect Effects Table F-6 Fuel Loading/Alternative 3 Area Existing Tons/Acre Post-Harvest Tons/Acre Desired Fuel Loading (tons/acre)* Camp Creek RHCA 87 87 5 to 15 Little Malheur RHCA 60 60 5 to 15 Uplands L. Mal 31 14 5 to 15 Uplands N. Fork 33 14 5 to 15 * Desired tons per acre was taken from Brown, Coarse Woody Debris: Managing Benefits and Fire Hazard in the Recovering Forest, Pg. 7. Alternative 3 would reduce future fuel loading by approximately 19 tons per acre by harvesting conifers > 12” diameter, that are dead at the time of marking, and retaining 12.0 snags per acre across the 2,825 acres13 of proposed salvage and leaving all snags in RHCAs. This would leave a residual fuel loading of 14 tons per acre in the upland treatment units, meeting the desired fuel loading. Fuel loadings in RHCAs would remain at 87 tons per acre in the Camp Creek RHCA and 60 tons per acre in the Little Malheur River RHCA, not meeting the desired fuel loading. Activity-created fuels would be scattered due to breakage and limbing during harvest activities. Treatment areas harvested with ground based skidding equipment would remove trees down to 9” DBH and whole-tree skid to landings. Fuel accumulation at landings would be piled and burned. Salvage activities in the Upper Little Malheur River Subwatershed would increase fuel loading of activity created fuels in helicopter yarding treatment areas to a level that increases fuels 1 to 6” diameter. Fire hazard would remain low until vegetation recovers (approximately 0 to 10 years), due to lack of fine fuels and decomposition of wood in contact with the ground. Yet, fire hazard would remain higher than Alternative 2 due to attrition of dead and dying trees outside treatment areas. Long-term, predicted future fire intensities and duration would remain high, except in upland treatment areas, due to potential fuel loading remaining on site. Cumulative Effects Past, Ongoing & Forseeable Actions Alternative 3 proposes to treat fewer total aces than Alternative 2. Proposed fuel reduction would occur on approximately 2,943 acres, 34% of project area and 12% of the total fire area (Malheur & Wallowa-Whitman NFs), in addition to the 779 acres of proposed fire salvage on 13Acreage includes34% of project area, 12% of the total Monument fire area on the Malheur & Wallowa- Whitman NF. 95 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest portion of the Monument Fire. Cumulative effects for this alternative would be the same as Alternative 2. Alternative 4 Direct/Indirect Effects Table F-7. Fuel Loading/Alternative 4 Area Existing Tons/Acre Post-Harvest Tons/Acre Desired Fuel Loading (tons/acre)* Camp Creek RHCA 87 87 5 to 15 Little Malheur RHCA 60 60 5 to 15 Uplands L. Mal 31 7 5 to 15 Uplands N. Fork 33 9 5 to 15 * Desired tons/acre was taken from Brown, Coarse Woody Debris: Managing Benefits and Fire Hazard in the Recovering Forest, Pg. 7. Alternative 4 proposes fuel reduction on a total of approximately 3,344 acres. This acreage size equates to 39% of the Monument Fire Recovery Project area, and 14% of the total Monument Fire area (Malheur & Wallowa-Whitman NF). At the landscape scale, this alternative would lead to a substantial change in potential fire intensity and fire severity. However, RHCAs would not be treated with any fuel reduction activities, excessive fuel loadings would be maintained in those areas. A disruption of fuel continuity within proposed treatment units would result in lower fire intensity and fire severity on these sites in addition to the previously treated areas (see Awake Natural Fuels Project). Alternative 4 would reduce future fuel loading by approximately 25 tons per acre in upland treatment areas. The uplands would be left with an average fuel loading of approximately 9 tons per acre. This amount of fuel falls well below the maximum desired fuel loading of 15 tons per acre. Fuel accumulations generated by harvest activities would be lopped and scattered in treatment areas yarded by helicopter. Treatment areas harvested with ground based skidding equipment would remove trees down to 9” DBH and whole-tree skid to landings, where fuel accumulation would be piled and burned. Salvage activities in the Upper Little Malheur River Subwatershed would increase fuel loading of activity-created fuels in helicopter yarding treatment areas to a level that increases fuels 1 to 6” in diameter. Fire hazard would remain low, until vegetation recovers (approximately 0 to 10 years), due to lack of fine fuels and decomposition of wood in contact with the ground. Long-term, fire intensities and duration will be reduced due to removal of large woody debris 12”> by harvest operations. 96 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Cumulative Effects Past, Ongoing & Forseeable Actions Alternative 4 proposes to treat fewer total aces than Alternative 2. Proposed fuel reduction would occur on approximately 3,344 acres or 39% of the Monument Fire Recovery Project area, and 14% of the Monument Fire area (Malheur & Wallowa-Whitman NF), in addition to the 779 acres of proposed fire salvage on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest portion of the Monument Fire. Cumulative effects for this alternative would be the same as Alternative 2. Alternative 5: Direct/Indirect Effects Direct/indirect effects are the same as Alternative 1, (No Action). However, 779 acres of fire salvage is proposed on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest portion of the Monument Fire. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are the same as those disclosed for Alternative 1 (No Action) Consistency with Direction and Regulations Malheur National Forest Plan and Fire Management Plan Alternatives 1 & 5 are not responsive to objectives and standards in the Forest Plan, as it will not allow the utilization of prescribed fire in the future because fuel loadings will be high and outside of the historical range of variability. Alternative 2 is responsive to the objectives and standards in the Forest Plan. Proposed fuel reduction activities will minimize the potential of high intensity fire that also results in a cost-efficient protection program, as fires would show low resistance to control. Reduced fuel levels would create a fuel profile that will allow use of prescribed fire to meet land management objectives. Fuel levels would be within the historical range on much of the landscape allowing compatibility with the role of fire. This alternative would meet standards relating to air quality. Alternative 3 is only partially responsive to objectives and standards in the Forest Plan. It is responsive to Forest Plan direction as described above for Alternative 2 on the acres proposed for treatment, however, untreated acres would not meet objectives and standards in the Forest Plan. Burning activities proposed with this alternative will meet standards relating to air quality. Alternative 4 is only partially responsive to the objectives and standards in the Forest Plan. Burning activities proposed with this alternative will meet standards relating to air quality. National Fire Plan Alternative 1 is not responsive to the National Fire Plan. Alternative 2, 3 and 4 are responsive to the National Fire Plan by reduction of hazardous fuels. Alternatives 2 and 4 reduce more acres of hazardous fuels than Alternative 3. 97 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Laws and Regulations State and federal air quality regulations would be followed. All burning would be done in accordance with the Oregon State Smoke Management Plan in order to ensure that clean air requirements are met. The Monument Recovery Project area lies directly adjacent to the Monument Rock Wilderness Area. The prevailing winds are from the southwest and west. During the day, diurnal heating forces air up valley and up slope out of the area, sometimes into the Unity Valley. During the night, air follows the drainages in the area downstream. Inversions affect air quality the most during the winter months, but during the rest of the year inversions sometimes develop in the morning hours and dissipate by noon. The Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Area is the only Class I airshed located in close proximity, (13 miles west of the analysis area). A Class I area allows only very small increments of new pollution above already existing air pollution levels. There are several homes scattered in Unity Valley that can be affected by smoke from nearby burning. Currently, air quality in surrounding sensitive areas is limited to short term impacts. These impacts result from wood burning, prescribed burning, and field burning to the west. The greatest impact to the Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Area is from field burning in the Willamette Valley and Central Oregon. This burning affects haziness and can last for several days in the spring and summer. The only burning proposed in the project area in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would be landing pile burning and in Alternative 2 additional piles within RHCAs would be burned. These smoking producing activities would be very short in duration and limited to very few acres. In compliance with the Clean Air Act, burning of any kind will not occur unless prior approval is granted by Oregon Department of Forestry. All amounts of PM10 emissions will be calculated using the CONSUME software, which is also submitted with planned burn operations to the Oregon Department of Forestry to determine compliance with the Clean Air Act. Sensitive Plants__________________________________ Regulatory Framework The Malheur National Forest Plan (pages IV-32 to IV-33) requires managers to: • Assess all proposed projects involving habitat changes or disturbance having potential to alter the habitat of threatened, endangered or sensitive plant and animal species. • Perform biological (field) evaluation for use in planning of proposed projects when sensitive species are present or suspected. Conduct surveys in cooperation with other agencies and groups to document the locations of sensitive species populations and to provide more specific information on habitat requirements and relative management guidelines. 98 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Analysis Method Sensitive plants suspected to occur on the district are derived from the 1999 Region 6 Sensitive Plant List. A prefield review and field survey are conducted to determine the presence/absence of TES species, or their habitats. Once presence/absence of TES species or their habitats is documented, impacts to individuals or habitat can be assessed. Prefield Review Many sources of information were consulted during the prefield review to determine the presence/absence of TES species, or their habitats, within the Monument Recovery Project14 The prefield review was performed to identify all sensitive species that could be encountered within the proposed Monument Recovery Project area. No existing accounts of TES plant populations within the project area were found. However, potential habitat exists in the riparian areas of Hunter Creek for ten species listed as Sensitive by Region 6: Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lanceolatum, B. minganense, B. montanum, B. pinnatum, Carex backii, C. interior, C. parryana, and Phacelia minutissima. Potential habitat for Carex backii, C. interior, C. parryana, and Phacelia minutissima also exists in the riparian areas of the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek. Potential habitat also exists within the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed and Swamp Creek subwatershed for three species listed as Sensitive by Region 6: Lomatium ravenii, Achnatherum hendersonii and A. wallowaensis. Affected Environment The affected environment is identified first by reviewing the Forest GIS and sensitive plant database to locate known sensitive plant populations occurring in or near the project area. Second, to identify habitats that may harbor sensitive plants, the physical and biological features in the project area are correlated with those in which sensitive plants are known or suspected to occur (Nelson, 1985). Habitats suspected of harboring sensitive plant populations are identified based on aspect, elevation, and ecoclass (plant association). Brooks et al. (1991) describes specific habitat features for Malheur National Forest sensitive species. Forest botanists have compiled habitat data from field surveys for the remainder of species with potential occurrence, listed since the above book was written. Lastly, potential habitats identified in step 2 are surveyed for new populations of sensitive plants. Field surveys in 2002 identified potential habitat for thirteen species listed as Sensitive by Region 6: Achnatherum hendersonii, A. wallowaensis, Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lanceolatum, B. minganense, B. montanum, B. pinnatum, Carex backii, C. interior, C. parryana, Lomatium ravenii, and Phacelia minutissima. Field surveys in 2003 focused on areas identified in 2002 as potential habitat. All areas outside of RHCAs determined to be good habitat were surveyed. All areas inside RHCAs determined to be good habitat and to have activities proposed within them were also surveyed. Due to low potential for effects, areas within RHCAs that were determined to have limited potential habitat and have no activities proposed within them, were not 14 Sources consulted include: Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List, Malheur National Forest Sensitive Species Plant List, Sensitive Plants of the Malheur, Ochoco, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests (1991), Forest or district sensitive species database(s) and the GIS mapping layer(s), Oregon Natural Heritage Program, Rare, Threatened and Endangered Plants and Animals of Oregon (2001), project area maps (topographic maps and aerial photographs) and pertinent literature (on file or borrowed from other sources) 99 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS surveyed. Field surveys in 2003 documented two sensitive species on an unnamed category 2 tributary to Camp Creek, Botrychium minganense and Listera borealis. For additional information about sensitive species in the planning area, refer to the Monument Recovery Project, Biological Evaluation. Environmental Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct and Indirect Effects The No Action Alternative would have no direct or indirect effects to sensitive plant populations because no ground disturbing activities are proposed. Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 Direct and Indirect Effects Re-locating designated old-growth areas would have no direct or indirect effects to sensitive plant populations because no ground disturbing activities are part of this activity. Proposed road maintenance, reconstruction and road closure activities would have no direct or indirect effects to sensitive plant populations because no ground disturbing activities are proposed within potential sensitive plant habitats or known sensitive plant sites. Proposed helicopter and service landings (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4), temporary road construction (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4), and skid trail rehabilitation activities would have no direct or indirect effects to sensitive plant populations because no sensitive plant sites are located in these areas. Proposed road decommissioning would have no direct effects to sensitive plant populations because no sensitive plants are present in these areas except for decommissioning of Forest Road 1672479. Listera borealis and Botrychium minganense have been documented in an unnamed category 2 tributary to Camp Creek next to Forest Road 1672479. As part of the decommissioning process of Forest Road 1672479, a plugged culvert where the unnamed category 2 crosses the road would be removed. Potential direct effects to Botrychium minganense from removing this culvert could include uprooting or crushing of individuals and indirect effects include changes in hydrology, which may negatively affect this sensitive species in the short-term. In the long-term, removing the culvert could be beneficial because over time the stream would return to a more natural condition. Potential effects to Botrychium minganense may impact individuals, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population of this species (MIIH). Potential direct effects to Listera borealis from removing this culvert could include uprooting or crushing of individuals and indirect effects could include changes in hydrology as well as smothering of individuals from silt deposits, which may negatively affect this sensitive species in the short term. In the long-term, removing the culvert would return the stream course to a more natural condition potentially benefiting Listera borealis if they are still present. Since the distribution of Listera borealis is limited, the potential effects will impact individuals 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 (WIFV). 100 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Prior to any ground disturbing activities associated with road decommissioning on the portion of Forest Road 1672479 where two sensitive plant sites are located, resource specialists including botany, hydrology/fisheries, and engineering would review and revise (if necessary) the decommissioning plan to reduce potential impacts to these sensitive plant populations. Indirect effects of skid trail rehabilitation and road decommissioning would be reduced damage to the riparian area supporting these species’ habitat in the long term because motorized access to this area would be eliminated. Hydrologic function would also improve (see effects section on Hydrology), thus improving potential habitat for Botrychium and Carex species, Listera borealis, and Phacelia minutissima in the long term. Proposed skid trail rehabilitation and decommissioning Forest Road 1672479 may require erosion control through direct seeding of the roadbed. Preferably, local, native grasses would be seeded; however, the source for these grasses has not yet been fully developed. To reduce the risk of creating competitive stress on sensitive plant species, only annual, non-persistent grasses would be used because they pose less threat of long-term competitive stress. Proposed hand planting of conifer seedlings would have no direct or indirect effects to the two known sensitive plant sites because this area was unburned and has no need for reforestation. Proposed hand planting of conifer seedlings would have no direct or indirect effects to Lomatium ravenii, and Achnatherum species because these activities would not take place in potential habitat for these sensitive species. Proposed hand planting of conifer seedlings would have no direct or indirect effects to Botrychium and Carex species, Listera borealis, and Phacelia minutissima because these species were not found (except as noted above). Proposed big game browsing protection including the application of Big Game Repellent (BGR) would have no direct or indirect effects to the two known sensitive plant sites because this area was unburned and has no need for reforestation. Alternative 2 Direct and Indirect Effects Proposed Salvage – HSV treatment areas 12, 13, 14, 17 and 24 are adjacent to potential habitat for Lomatium ravenii, and Achnatherum species. These areas were surveyed in 2003 and no sensitive plants were found therefore there would be no direct or indirect effects to these sensitive plant species as a result of these treatments. RHCA salvage treatment areas 40 thru 49, 51 and 52 are within potential habitat for Botrychium and Carex species, Listera borealis and Phacelia minutissima. These treatment areas were surveyed in 2003 and no sensitive plants were found therefore there would be no direct or indirect effects to these sensitive plant species as a result of these treatments. These treatments would also have no impact on the two known sensitive plant sites because they are located outside of these areas. Removal of dead and dying conifer trees through helicopter logging would have no direct effect on potential habitat for these species. In the Little Malheur River RHCA slash would be hand piled and burned. This activity should have no direct or indirect effects to potential habitat because hand piling would be excluded in the flood plain and limited to fuels up to 6” diameter. In Camp Creek RHCA slash would be lopped and scattered and would have no direct effects to potential habitat. Indirect effects from lopping and scattering slash would be 101 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS beneficial because the slash would act as a barrier to ungulates, thereby permitting some form of protection. The 2002 Monument Fire has reduced shading along the lower reaches of the Little Malheur River to about 40% of pre-fire conditions. Current shading along the upper reaches of the Little Malheur River and along the lower reaches of Camp Creek is about 3% of pre-fire conditions and consists primarily of boles of standing dead trees (refer to the Aquatics section for more detailed information on stream shading). The indirect effects of salvaging timber in RHCAs would likely reduce shading along lower Camp Creek and Little Malheur River by 1% compared to Alternative 1. An additional 1% reduction in shade would have no measurable effects on potential habitat for these species. Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects Proposed Salvage – HSV treatment areas 13, and 24 are adjacent to potential habitat for Lomatium ravenii, Achnatherum hendersonii, and Achnatherum wallowaensis. These areas were surveyed in 2003 and no sensitive plants were found; therefore there would be no direct or indirect effects to these species as a result of these treatments. Alternative 4 Direct and Indirect Effects Proposed Salvage – HSV treatment areas 12, 13, 14 and 24 are adjacent to potential habitat for Lomatium ravenii, and Achnatherum species. These areas were surveyed in 2003 and no sensitive plants were found; therefore there would be no direct or indirect effects to these species as a result of these treatments. Cumulative Effects Common To All Alternatives Botrychium species, Carex species, Listera borealis and Phacelia minutissima Past domestic grazing, timber harvesting and fire suppression have contributed to changes in riparian habitats and the plant communities they support. The distribution and vitality of Botrychium species, Carex species, Listera borealis and Phacelia minutissima before these management activities began are unknown. Historic grazing has resulted in loss of potential habitat for these species through stream downcutting and accelerated erosion processes that alter local surface hydrology. Past timber harvesting has also increased erosion and altered hydrologic relationships. Historic logging practices included skidding logs through riparian areas, which could have destroyed existing plants but could have also provided soil openings for new plants to establish. Fire suppression may have caused a decline in populations through increased competition for soil moisture and nutrients by shade-tolerant plant species. The 2002 Monument Fire has altered riparian habitats and the plant communities they support (see aquatics and vegetation section). This fire has altered the habitat conditions for these species most likely leading to insufficient moisture levels due to decreased shading and/or greater competition by other plant species due to increased light availability. 102 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Cottonwood, willows and dogwoods were planted in the riparian areas along the lower reaches of the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek in June 2003; additional hardwoods will be planted over the next two to three years. Planting riparian hardwoods along Camp Creek will decrease the time it takes the stream to recover from effects from the 2002 fire. This in turn will decrease the time it takes to restore riparian habitat ultimately benefiting Botrychium species, Carex species, Listera borealis and Phacelia minutissima. Future foreseeable activities such as resting the area from livestock grazing for a minimum of 2 growing seasons would have short-term beneficial effects on these sensitive species habitat. Cumulative effects with the resumption of livestock grazing are unlikely if grazing occurs after the recovery of stream channels (refer to aquatics section for description of stream recovery). If resumption of grazing occurs prior to recovery of stream channels than channel recovery will be delayed and full recovery may not occur. This in turn would negatively impact these species habitat. Under the Action Alternatives this would be a cumulative effect to Botrychium minganense and Listera borealis. Future activities are also planned by the Unity Ranger District of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest on national forest lands within the 2002 Monument Fire. Activities proposed by the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest are not expected to have cumulative effects on Botrychium species, Carex species, Listera borealis and Phacelia minutissima because salvage harvest would not take place in RHCAs. Lomatium ravenii, Achnatherum hendersonii and A. wallowensis The habitat in which these sensitive plants grow influences the kinds of disturbances they have been subjected to. Lomatium ravenii grows on lithosolic soils defined as “a great soil group of azonal soils characterized by an incomplete solum or no clearly expressed soil morphology and consisting of freshly or imperfectly weathered rock or rock fragments” (Brady, 1974). This type of soil provides a very low-nutrient, shallow substrate that cannot support many plants; therefore, this habitat is very sparsely vegetated with little fuel to carry a fire and little to no forage to attract grazers. Lomatium ravenii, Achnatherum hendersonii and A. wallowaensis grow in an environment naturally unaffected by fire because of limited fuels. Lomatium ravenii appears unaffected by grazing because of sparse forage where it grows. It has been shown that the more common Indian ricegrass, Achnatherum hymenoides, has decreased in abundance under heavy grazing pressure (Murphey, 1959). It is highly likely Achnatherum hendersonii and A. wallowaensis have also decreased with heavy grazing. However the distribution and vitality of these species before management activities began are unknown. Past timber harvest activities may have affected these species because habitat areas were not protected from harvest activities. These areas, known as scab flats, may have been used in the past as landing sites, parking areas or may have had logs skidded through them. Because these sensitive plants grow in a habitat almost devoid of vegetation, these sites serve as a natural fuel break and were unaffected by the 2002 Monument Fire. However, these sites were impacted by suppression activities. Tractor fire line and seeding of fire lines was completed in potential habitat as a result of the fire. Increased motor vehicle traffic as a result of suppression activities may have compacted potential habitat for these species. Activities proposed in this EIS under all alternatives would have no measurable effects on these sensitive species because these species have not been documented in the area. 103 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Future foreseeable activities such as resting the area from livestock grazing for a minimum of 2 years would have short-term beneficial effects to these species habitat. Resumption of grazing should have no cumulative effect to Lomatium ravenii and sensitive Achnatherum species because they are not present in the project area. Future activities are also planned by the Unity Ranger District of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest on national forest lands within the 2002 Monument Fire. These activities are not expected to have cumulative effects on Lomatium ravenii, Achnatherum hendersonii, and A. wallowensis because these species have not been documented in the area. Additionally, salvage harvest activities would not occur in their habitat. Effects and Determinations of Effects for Sensitive Species Determinations of effect" are provided for sensitive species in FSM 2670 and in the May 15 and June 11, 1992 Associate Chief/RF 2670 letters on this topic. Achnatherum hendersonii and A. wallowensis Under the No Action Alternative and Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5, there would be NO IMPACT (NI) to Achnatherum hendersonii and A. wallowensis. Botrychium species Under the No Action Alternative there would be NO IMPACT (NI) to Botrychium species. Under alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5, activities may impact Botrychium minganense individuals, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population of this species (MIIH). Under Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5, there would be NO IMPACT (NI) to other Botrychium species. Carex species Under the No Action Alternative and Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5, there would be NO IMPACT (NI) to Carex species. Listera borealis Under Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5, activities will impact individuals 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 (WIFV). Under the No Action Alternative, there would be NO IMPACT (NI) to Listera borealis. Lomatium ravenii Under the No Action Alternative and Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5, there would be NO IMPACT (NI) to Lomatium ravenii. Phacelia minutissima Under the No Action Alternative and Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5, there would be NO IMPACT (NI) to Phacelia minutissima. 104 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Consistency with Direction and Regulations All alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan and other direction with respect to botanical resources. Consultation There are no known federally listed TES plant species within the project area. No consultation with the regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was need. Irreversible/ Irretrievable Effects There are no irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that may result from the alternatives with respect to botany. Noxious Weeds __________________________________ Regulatory Framework The Malheur Plan forest wide standard #188 (under protection from noxious weeds) is to implement weed control programs to confine present infestations and prevent establishment of noxious weeds in new areas. Other weed direction is included the Forest Service Manual and in the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974. These policies require cooperation with state, local, and other federal agencies in the application and enforcement of all laws and regulations relating to management and control of noxious weeds. Analysis Method Activities that expose bare ground or areas where vehicle traffic occurs were used to assess the potential of spreading weeds. Acres affected by tractor yarding, old skid trail restoration, and helicopter landings were chosen as indicators to evaluate effects, because off-road equipment use would disturb soil during harvest activities and could spread seed or reproductive plant parts stored in the soil. Roads are a significant source of seed and off-road equipment use has the potential to greatly increase weed spread to large areas. Planting conifers would also ensure that ground cover is more quickly established and site conditions are not as favorable to noxious weeds. Affected Environment Noxious weeds, located on the Prairie City Ranger District, are concentrated on roads, recreation sites, and other areas that have ground disturbance. The spread of noxious weeds are mainly by vehicle traffic, recreational use, livestock grazing, and ground disturbing activities. Following fire suppression activities, noxious weeds likely spread by vehicle traffic and use of heavy equipment. The open ground conditions that increased light and the nutrients in the ash also improved conditions for noxious weed spread. The open machine lines and safety zones are also very susceptible to invasion. In addition to the spread of existing populations, 105 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS a major threat is the introduction of more weeds into the fire areas by equipment. There was no equipment washing stations for vehicles arriving at or leaving the fire areas. In the summer of 2003, field surveys were conducted adjacent the firelines to identify noxious weed sites. Surveys were primarily along system roads adjacent the fire perimeter. The Monument project file contains a map of the locations of the new weed sites. Prior to this survey, no locations were documented before the fire (Technical Specialist’s Report Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation, 2002) but field personal had know of widespread occurence. The 2003 survey documented 52 weed locations within or adjacent to the Monument Fire project area (Malheur NF portion). On the Wallowa - Whitman NF portion of the fire to the east, six infestation sites were identified and additional widespread occurrence of hounds tongue is also found (Monument Fire Recovery DEIS Whitman Unit, Chapter 3 Noxious Weeds). Survey personnel used "Weed List of Grant County" list to determine target species. Ten species of noxious weeds occur in or adjacent the Monument Fire project area: yellow toadflax, diffuse knapweed, spotted knapweed, Canada thistle, scotch thistle, musk thistle, houndstongue, St.Johnswort, teasel, and white top. Species of greatest concern are spotted knapweed, diffuse knapweed, yellow toadflax, and white top, because these weeds can spread quickly, crowding out native plants, and are difficult to eradicate once established. Approximately 35% of the total weed acres within the project area burned with moderate to high severity. The remaining 65% burned at a low severity or did not burn. For most invasive species this means the plants probably were not killed and will probably resprout and produce seed or additional underground parts from which they will produce new plants. The species that will probably survive include dalmation toadflax, diffuse knapweed, field bindweed, and houndstongue. Most weed sites are located within 300 feet of roads or old harvest units. Environmental Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct/Indirect Effects The risk of noxious weed spread along open roads would continue since there would not be a reduction in open road miles. Since roadways support the heaviest populations of noxious weeds and pose the biggest threat for invasion by not decreasing vehicle access this alternative would have the greatest risk of vehicles spreading noxious weeds into the project area. There are few areas within the project area that do not have vehicle access. Alternative 1 would also not plant conifers on any upland areas. The risk is increased since weeds could be established within the project area before native vegetation could occupy the site. 106 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Direct/Indirect Effects There are known populations of weeds within treatment areas primarily along roads. There is a risk that off-road harvest equipment could spread existing weed seed or plant parts that survived the fire below ground and cause new populations to be established. These alternatives would also construct 0.4 to 0.6 miles of temporary road. Ground disturbance would also occur during ground skidding operations, landing construction, road maintenance, skid trail obliteration, and road decommissioning. The risk of weed spread is minimized during logging since the majority (80-85%) of the harvest uses helicopter yarding methods, minimal ground disturbance. The risk that weeds might spread and find favorable growing sites would be also reduced by contract provisions that require off-road equipment to be cleaned before entering National Forest lands and requiring seeding disturbed areas. The design measures are included to report and treat weeds lowers the risk substantially, since monitoring shown early treatment successfully eliminates weeds. The road closure and decommission projects would reduce open road density within the two subwatersheds by 16.2 miles. This will reduce the risk of weed spread by motorized vehicles. The risk of weed spread would be further reduced by conifer planting throughout the project area. By establishing ground cover quickly, conditions would be unfavorable for weed establishment and native plants could establish first. Alternatives 5 Direct/Indirect Effects Ground disturbance would occur during road maintenance, skid trail obliteration, and road decommissioning that would increase the risk of weed spread. The design measures to require equipment cleaning would reduce the risk of bringing in new weeds into the area. The risk of spread is decreased in Alternative 5 since there is a reduction in the open road density that limits the use by motorized vehicles. The road closures and decommissioning projects would reduce open road density to motorized vehicles by 26.0 miles. This provides a greater reduction of risk of weed spread by motorized vehicles than proposed in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Common to All Alternatives Cumulative Effects The past, ongoing, and reasonalbly forseeable activities listed at the beginning of Chapter 3 were reviewed for possible cumulative effects. There is a risk that the fire itself may have stimulated undocumented weed populations and that weeds were transported into the project area by off-road equipment during suppression activities. These weeds could germinate and spread, but this risk would be reduced because the Forest has decided to monitor for noxious weeds on disturbed areas created by fire suppression activities over the next three years. Some manual removal of weeds is anticipated. These areas include hand and machine fire lines, constructed safety zones and landing sites, and roads (Technical Specialist’s Report Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation, 2002). 107 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS No cumulative noxious weed spread is anticipated related to projects proposed on the Whitman Unit portion of the Monument Fire recovery. Ground disturbing activities and road use would be limited to the Whitman Unit portion of the fire area. As another precaution, livestock grazing will be deferred for at least 2 growing seasons in those allotments affected by the fire. This management strategy is important for both the short and long-term recovery of the area to assure that vegetation is re-established. This action should also reduce the risk of domestic livestock transporting seeds into the fire area and ensure that conditions in the future will not be as favorable for weed establishment. Consistency with Direction and Regulations All alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan and other direction with respect to noxious weeds. Irreversible/ Irretrievable Effects There are no irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that may result from the alternatives with respect to noxious weeds. Soil ____________________________________________ Regulatory Framework The Malheur National Forest Plan meets all legal and regulatory requirements for soil conservation. Forest Service Manual R6 Supplement No. 2500.98-1, section 2520.2 says objectives of soil management are "To meet direction in the National Forest Management Act of 1976 and other legal mandates. To manage National Forest System lands ... without permanent impairment of land productivity and to maintain ... soil ... quality. .... Soil quality is maintained when soil compaction, displacement puddling, burning, erosion, loss of organic matter and altered soil moisture regimes are maintained within defined standards and guidelines." Therefore, where an action maintains detrimental impacts within the standards and guidelines of the Forest Plan, legal requirements for soil conservation would be met. Forest-Wide Standards state: 101. Harvest timber from slopes that are less than 35% using ground skidding equipment and from slopes greater than 35% using cable or aerial systems. Approve exceptions through the environmental analysis process, including a logging feasibility analysis. 125. Evaluate the potential for soil displacement, compaction, puddling, mass wasting, and surface soil erosion for all ground-disturbing activities. 126. The total acreage of all detrimental soil conditions shall not exceed 20% of the total acreage within any activity area, including landing and system roads. Consider restoration treatments if detrimental conditions are present on 20% or more of the activity area. Detrimental soil conditions include compaction, puddling, displacement, severely burned soil, and surface erosion. 127. Meet minimum percent ground cover levels following management activities (Table S- 1). 108 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table S-1.-Minimum Percent Effective Ground Cover Following Land Management Activities: Soil Erodibility First Year % Second Year % Very High 60-75 75-90 High 50-60 65-75 Between Moderate & High 45 60 Moderate 38 50 Between Low & Moderate 30 40 Low 20 30 128. Seed all disturbed soil occurring within 100 to 200 feet of a stream or areas further than 200 feet that could erode into a stream. 129. Seed all skid trails positioned on slopes greater than 20%. These standards are appropriate for soils found in the project area and will maintain soils to meet appropriate guidelines. Analysis Method A Malheur National Forest Soils Scientist trained technicians to collect data on existing soil conditions. Soil conditions were categorized using Soil Class Disturbance Definitions, and Assessment Data Forms. They inspected the forested areas (including proposed harvest units) that burned to inventory detrimental impacts. All areas of proposed harvest areas were inventoried. Regeneration units from the last 20 years were not considered as no future ground disturbance is planned. Quantitative data was collected on transects.15 Areas logged within the last 30 years, and areas experiencing 10% or more detrimental impacts were included in the analysis. Field reviews during the process of inventorying sites verified that protocol was being followed consistently and procedures are replicable. Variability of examiners occurred in areas of higher rock content. During the process, field crews often worked in pairs to field verify each other’s data for consistency and provide quality information. The Malheur Soil Resource Inventory (SRI) was used to provide general baseline soil and land type information for the project area. Overall, identified groupings proved accurate. Variability was found in some sites due to topography, aspect and current vegetative occurrences. The largest inconsistency occurred on soils described as non-forested. These soils types have areas of non-forested and forested stands. The project soils specialist has formed judgments on the probable qualitative effects. Judgment is based on forest monitoring results obtained by a local Soil Scientist, personal observation16, scientific literature, the Malheur Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) Environmental Impact Statement and professional contacts. 15 Data collection methods were based upon protocol identified in the Monument Project file. Roads and landings were excluded from analysis. 16 Personal observation includes observation of Monument Fire and similar areas. 109 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Project specific fire severity mapping was completed for the Monument fire area.17 Ground verification for soil conditions was considered necessary as photos represent burning of the vegetation. Substantial correlation between this evaluation and ground condition was established. Soil conditions differed in various stands and were dependent on the preceding vegetative occurrence. Fire severity mapping was used extensively during proposed action development and is referenced in proposed action descriptions. BAER evaluation from satellite data was originally used, but was found to understate severity in many areas. This same severity mapping is also use to predict forest vegetation mortality. Identified spatial boundaries for soil effects are proposed unit boundaries by alternative, or boundaries of past sales. Unless otherwise stated, potential harvest effects are described for 1 to 2 years following proposed activities. It is during this time period that the potential for soil movement and erosion is greatest due to minimal ground cover and exposure to weather events. Affected Environment Topography The project area is located generally on the western slope of the Table/Monument Rock fault block. Elevation varies from about 4,700 feet on the Little Malheur River to 7,873 feet at Bull Run Rock. Streams on the Malheur National Forest portion flow generally southerly in direction, emptying into the North Fork Malheur River. Precipitation in the area ranges from 22 to 44 inches. Geology Varied volcanic deposits are located throughout the area. Strawberry volcanic formations18 and andesite can also be found. Rock of this type erupted from numerous vents located near Strawberry and Lookout mountains. Clarno formation deposits are generally located in the southeastern portion in the Camp Creek area, and consist of clastic and andesite flows. Ash surface soils are located on the low slope gradient areas of the Little Malheur River and in the headwaters of Spring, Flat, and Fopian Creeks. Alluvium deposits are located along the lower reaches of the Little Malheur River. Within the project area, Clarno soils are considered the most sensitive soils to erosion. SRI surface erosion is rated as high to very high, especially when humus is removed by a fire event. These areas should be avoided with ground-based equipment, as this would only increase the potential for surface erosion. Soil Management Types The four major SRI management recommendation groupings within the project area included the following: 17 This mapping was completed using a combination of aerial photos of the Monument fire and ground verification. 18 These formations are identified by medium to pale gray colored basalt 110 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Loamy and Clayey Soils (Nonforested) 4% of Project Area Soils in this group are loamy and clayey soils with very limited plant available water. These soils are generally less than 15 inches deep. This supports only discontinuous vegetative ground cover, leaving part of soil surface vulnerable to erosional processes. Pavement areas19 develop where finer soils particles have eroded away exposing the courser rock fragments at the surface level. Ground disturbances that remove ground cover could cause unacceptable erosion. This is also true in pavement areas, and areas where channelized water occurs. The surface erosion potential hazard generally is high to very high in these soil types. Loamy Forested Soils 5% of Project Area Soils in this group have high potential for accelerated sheet and rill erosion on slopes greater than 30 percent. These soils are generally more than 12 inches deep. Erosion can also occur if high intensity rainfall or runoff occurs. The moderate infiltration rate increases the amount of runoff water available for overland flow. If water is allowed to concentrate or is discharged onto bare soils, this condition becomes severe. It is important that erosion control practices be used following harvest, and maintained for each ongoing activity until sufficient vegetation is in place. The surface erosion potential hazard is generally low to high dependant on vegetative cover for these soil conditions. Forest Clayey Soils 1% of Project Area Clayey soils have characteristics that create a high detrimental compaction hazard. Clayey soils are easily compacted over a wide and variable soil moisture range. Puddling occurs during excessively wet periods that result in damaged or destroyed soil structure. Clayey soils are generally quite resistant to surface erosion, however erosion potential increases when litter and vegetation is removed. Excessive erosion can occur when water is concentrated and allowed to channel. The surface erosion potential hazard is generally low to high, with high ratings on slopes greater than 30 percent. Volcanic Ash Soils 52% of Project Area Ash soils have low bulk density. Soil particles are easily detached; have a high water infiltration rate; high water holding capacity; and are very resistant to compaction. Characteristics of low bulk density allow for easy movement (displacement) of the soil by mechanical treatment. Soil detachability increases erosion potential by water and wind. For these soils, high infiltration and water holding capacity decreases erodibility by holding water in place. Ash soils are vulnerable to mixing, displacement, and dustiness. Moisture content can increase or decrease the effects of management. Ideal moisture content range for logging, 19 areas of hard impervious material 111 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS livestock trailing and vehicle traffic is between 10 and 35 percent moisture by weight. Moistures below 10 percent result in excessive mixing, displacement, and dust. Moistures exceeding 35 percent are too wet to support intensive activities. Surface erosion potential hazard for ash soils is low to medium in volcanic ash soils. Complexes of 2 or More Soil Types 38% of Project Area Complexes of soils types included in the four major management types also occur within the project area. These complexes include loamy clayey nonforested/loamy forested 25% and loamy clayey non-forested/ash 13%, which are defined as two or more soil mapping types found in an arrangement too small to separate at the scale the SRI represents. Sensitive soil types in the planning area include highly and very highly erodible, shallow, rocky soils supporting low amounts of ground cover. Shallow soils hold about 0.5 to 1.8 inches of available water and support juniper woodlands or non-forest vegetation, and thus are unsuitable for (or limit) timber production. Shallow highly erodible soils are present in several areas in the fire area, with a large presence in the Camp Creek area and near the mouth of South Bull Run Creek. Among forested soils, the most sensitive are those with both 1) slopes greater than 30% and 2) little or no volcanic ash at the surface (“non-ash soils”). These soils have an erodibility hazard between moderate and very high. Non-ash soils are mostly gravelly loam, loams, and clays holding 2-2.5 inches available water and they typically support ponderosa pine. Soil that has substantial amounts of volcanic ash (6 inches or more) are less erodible than non-ash soil because of the water holding capacity of ash, permitting more rapid plant growth and ground cover establishment. In addition, ash soil has a high porosity and little clay, so it has a high infiltration rate. In areas of severely burned vegetation, ash soils tend to be more hydrophobic, but recover quickly. Ash soils typically hold 3 to 5.5 inches available water and support mixed conifers. Post Fire Soil Conditions Fire severity delineation was completed from aerial photos of the project area. Vegetative burn severity delineation (refined from BAER) is used to display potential soil severity effects of the fire (see figure 3, Map Section). Table S-2 depicts acreage by vegetative burn severity within the fire area. In the Monument Fire area, ground cover was reduced below 50% in many areas that experienced low vegetative burn severity. Ground cover was completely consumed in many areas that experienced moderate vegetative burn severity. Ground cover was generally consumed over the entire area that experienced high vegetative burn severity. Using BAER soil burn definitions, moderate and high vegetative burn severity areas would be classified as "High" soil burn severity areas with less than 20% ground cover remaining after the fire. In areas mapped as moderate vegetative burn severity, ground cover will not increase quickly, because fewer live needles remain and less ground vegetation will sprout. Areas mapped as moderate vegetative burn severity were treated similarly to areas mapped as high vegetative burn severity for this analysis. Majority of low vegetative burn areas would be classified as "Moderate" soil burn severity areaswith 20-50% ground cover remaining. In areas mapped as low vegetative burn severity, many trees that are expected to die remain with live or dead needles and ground cover will 112 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences increase as needles fall to the ground. Overall, ground cover in the fire area will likely exceed 30% by the summer of 2004 due to litter fall and increases in herbaceous vegetation. Table S-2: Vegetative Burn Severity by Subwatershed Subwatershed Total Acres (USFS Acres) Low or Partial Severity Acres Moderate Severity Acres High Severity Acres Total Burned# Acres % of SWS Burned Swamp Cr 25,600 283 734 274 1,291 5 Upper Little Malheur 31,474 1,895 5504 11,490 18,889 60 Many areas do not meet Forest Plan standards for ground cover and are at risk for soil erosion with as low as 5% to 10% ground cover found in areas of moderate to high burn severity. The BAER Team approximated 5 to 15% of acres within the Monument Fire area are high in hydrophobicity. Fire lines constructed with dozers during fire suppression activities resulted in displacement and compaction of soils. These lines were rehabilitated in 2002. Detrimental effects to soils from these activities20 were found to be less than 1% of the project area. Sensitive Surface Erosion Conditions in Harvest Units Surface erosion ratings are derived from the SRI description (see figure 18, Map Section). The rating is based on expected loss of soil when all vegetative cover is removed. Post fire surveys indicated only 10-15% of ground cover remained in most areas, creating similar conditions for surface erosion potential. Several rain events after the fire resulted in surface erosion in the areas rated as high and very high in the SRI. Surface erosion potential varies widely in the project area. When describing surface erosion potential, the highest threat of soil loss21 is displayed first where a range of erosion potentials are present. For example, a harvest unit with a High - Low rating indicates the presence of both hazard conditions in that represented area. Soil Productivity Biotic Conditions Soil productivity is limited by low amounts of water, by cold temperatures, and perhaps by insufficient nutrients, especially nitrogen. Fire usually decreases the amount of nitrogen on the land.22 In the absence of fire, nitrogen increases.23 Before the Monument Fire, significant fires had not burned in the area for many decades thus resulting in a build up of nitrogen levels. Accumulated levels of nitrogen were likely higher than levels in the 1800s, (before fire suppression practices came into play). Some of the nitrogen built up over the decades was lost during the Monument fire. However, in lightly burned areas there is 20 measured during the soil disturbance surveys 21 the most restrictive for planning 22 Easily available nitrogen often increases for one to a few years 23 Nitrogen from the atmosphere accumulates in the organic matter of biomass, forest floor, and soil, especially due to the fixation of nitrogen by plants such as Ceanothus. 113 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS probably more nitrogen present in the soil compared to levels during the pre-fire suppression era. More nitrogen was lost from severely burned areas, but the amount of loss is unknown. Organic material in the form of coarse woody material (CWM) is needed for long-term soil productivity. Current research recommends retention of 5-10 tons/acre on dry ponderosa pine and Douglas fir types (Brown et al., 2003). The adjacent Wallowa-Whitman National Forest recommends 5-10 tons/acre for ponderosa pine sites and 7-15 ton/acre for mixed conifer sites (Tim Bliss/ Soil Scientist, personal communication). Food Web Moisture retention in CWM is important for maintaining the productivity of soil (Amaranthus, et al. 1989). Decaying material needed to support organisms and return nutrients to the soil will be formed as standing dead trees in the project area fall and come into contact with the ground. Woody plants depend on ectomycorrhizae for water and nutrient up take. Harvey et al. (1979) found ectomycorrhizae in decaying wood in higher numbers than in the soil alone. Moisture content in adjoining soils will also remain at elevated levels and provide areas of accelerated vegetative recovery. Water retained in woody material is not available for augmenting late-season stream flows. The droughty conditions present in the project area prevent the moisture stored in decaying wood to augment stream flows, but would provide moist micro-sites for conifers and other vegetation. Mycorrhizae form symbiotic communities with the roots of conifers and are important in aiding nutrient uptake, water uptake and in warding off pathogenic fungi. Mycorrhizal fungal communities and other soil microbes are important not only because of their role in nutrient production and transfer, but also because of their contribution to soil formation and structure.24 Stability of soil aggregates is important for maintenance of soil pores that transmit air and water to plant roots (Amaranthus et al., 1989). Mycorrhizae populations are expected to decrease within the Monument area as result of the fire. Highest decreases in mycorrhizae populations would occur were burn severities were the highest. Many other organisms are import for soil formation, fertility, and nutrient recycling. The soil horizons generally affected are the organic litter and duff layer, and the “A” horizon where carbon and nitrogen are stored and recycled. Organisms that influence soils include viruses, archaea, bacteria and blue-green algae, protozoa, fungi, molds and lichens, mosses and liverworts, all types of vascular plants (shrubs, trees, herbs); and various animals such as nematodes, snails, earthworms, and burrowing animals. Detrimental Soil Conditions Each proposed unit was surveyed for impacts from past logging, road building, wildfire, and fire suppression activities. Table S-3 displays results of surveyed transects, site visits, and GIS analysis. 24 Mycorrhizae and free-living fungi produce compounds derived from humus that accelerate decomposition of primary minerals and secrete substances serving as organic glue to bind soil particles into water-stable aggregates. 114 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table S-3. Existing Detrimental Soil Conditions by Proposed Treatment Unit Existing Detrimental Soil Conditions from Past Management Activities and the Monument Fire (%) Proposed Timber Harvest Unit Unit Acres Roads Skid Trails Fire Effects Total 1 - T 66 4 0 1 5 2 - T 11 4 0 1 5 3 - T 12 5 0 2 7 4 - T 20 4 0 1 5 5 - T 41 3 0 1 4 6 - T 40 2 0 1 3 8 - T 28 1 0 1 2 9 – T 8 3 0 0 3 10 - T 76 2 10 0 12 11 - T 53 1 0 1 2 12 - T 113 1 5 1 7 13 - H 17 1 0 1 2 14 - H 29 1 0 2 3 15 - H 91 1 0 2 3 16 - H 16 1 8 2 11 17 - H 131 3 10 2 15 18 - H 178 3 8 1 12 19 - H 34 4 6 1 11 20 - H 18 1 6 1 9 21 - H 54 2 5 1 8 22 - H 48 4 6 2 12 23 - H 345 0 0 2 2 24 - H 16 1 0 2 8 25 - H 257 1 10 2 13 26 - H 35 1 0 2 3 27 - H 34 3 8 2 12 28 - H 90 1 8 1 11 29 - H 107 3 5 2 9 30 - H 98 1 8 2 11 31 - H 70 3 8 2 13 32 - H 201 4 9 2 15 33 - H 169 3 5 2 10 115 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Existing Detrimental Soil Conditions from Past Management Activities and the Monument Fire (%) Proposed Timber Harvest Unit Unit Acres Roads Skid Trails Fire Effects Total 34 - H 316 1 6 2 8 35 - H 486 3 5 2 10 36 - H 73 2 5 1 8 37 - H 76 4 6 1 11 39 - H 42 1 8 1 8 40 - H 184 5 0 2 7 41 - H 216 7 0 2 9 42 - H 24 3 5 1 9 43 - H 29 1 6 2 9 44 - H 13 1 1 1 3 45 - H 19 1 10 1 12 46 - H 17 3 10 2 15 47 - H 9 3 5 2 10 48 - H 16 3 5 2 10 49 - H 21 4 5 1 10 51 - H 29 1 5 1 7 52 - H 24 9 3 2 14 53 - H 37 3 3 1 7 54 - H 37 0 8 2 10 55 - H 26 1 0 1 2 57 - H 40 3 6 1 10 The fire caused about 1 to 2 percent of soil in surveyed units to be detrimentally burned (Table S-3). Detrimentally burned soil was limited to areas around stumps and concentrations of slash or blow down. Areas of high vegetative burn severity contained the highest percentage of burnt soils. Also present were small amounts of displacement and compaction resulting from fire suppression activities generally located along fire lines constructed with dozers. Areas where high and moderate fire severity occurred and effective ground cover was reduced to approximately 5% to 10% are considered to have high to very high surface erosion potential given the high clay content in these soils along with natural low vegetative cover. Detrimental surface erosion has occurred in portions of proposed units 24, 25, 28, 29, 35, 36, 37, and 41 located in the Camp Creek area following intense thunderstorms in the fall of 2002, during the spring melt off in 2003, and during an intense thunderstorm during the summer of 2003. 116 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Soil types located in the project area within the Swamp Creek Subwatershed have ash soils or soil complexes with high ash content and have low erosion potential. Low slope angles further reduce the surface erosion potential level in these areas. Very little to no surface erosion has been witnessed in these ash soils areas following intense thunderstorms in the fall of 2002, during the spring melt off in 2003, and during an intense thunderstorm during the summer of 2003. Mass Wasting No recent landslides were mapped during post-fire soil surveys. Existing soil types found in the project area are generally considered stable, and are not prone to landslides or mass wasting. About 4 percent (150 acres) of the helicopter harvest units in Alterative 2 are rated as unstable or moderately stable in the SRI. Portions of unstable or moderately stable areas are located in units 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, and 40. All areas of tractor harvest are rated as very stable and are not prone to landslides or mass wasting. Past Harvest Activities Logging impacts to soils from previous timber sales are present on about 5,910 acres in the project area (Table S-4). Multiple entries have occurred on about 1,149 acres. Majority of previous timber sale were logged with ground-based systems, normally tractors, and occurred within the planning area twenty to forty years ago. In many cases, skidding and road construction occurred on steep slopes during harvest operations. However, current Malheur Plan standards for soil condition are being met Table S-3). Table S-4. Past Logging Entries in the Monument Project Area Subwatershed All Entries (Acres) Tractor Harvest (Acres) One Entry (Acres) Two Entries (Acres) Swamp Creek 407 407 388 19 Upper Little Malheur River 5,503 5,425 4,373 1,130 During past timber harvest projects roads and skid trails were also constructed in the draw bottoms of the Camp Creek area. An increase in the stream network has occurred in various places, with total channel interception causing multiple channels to be present in certain areas. The majority of harvest prescribed in the Swamp Creek Subwatershed area is proposed in units that have never been previously harvested. Some use has occurred from woodcutting and use by equipment for adjacent harvest units. Environmental Effects Soil effects not described below are considered negligible. These negligible effects include effects on mass movement, effects on detrimentally burned soil, effects on soil microbes, and effects from vegetative plantings. 117 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Alternatives - 1 Direct/Indirect Effects: Soil Erosion Soil erosion rates have increased following the 2002 fire due creation of hydrophobic soil layers, and consumption of ground cover and CWD. Surveys conducted during the Monument BAER review noted that highly hydrophobic soils were present in 10 to 15 percent of the high intensity burn within the Camp Creek and Little Malheur River areas. Average ground cover was reduced to 5 to 10% in high severity burned areas. Majority of CWD in the project area was consumed during the fire. As noted in the aquatics report, WEPP (Elliott et al., 2000) derived numbers estimated the potential for significant soil loss during heavy rainfall or melt off events. Typically, erosion after a fire is highest the first year and returns to pre-fire conditions in four years. WEPP was used to estimate soil loss during the first 1 to 3 years following the wildfire. Soil loss of 7.5 to 17 tons/acres is possible on the steep slopes of the Monument area. This equates to about 0.01 to 0.15 inches of topsoil and will result in a fertility loss of about 3 to 5 percent in some areas. See aquatics section for detailed information on sediment effects to water quality and aquatic habitat. Water repellency will rapidly decrease under natural conditions, with more than 50% of repellency disappearing before the summer of 2003 (Robert McNeil/ Soil Scientist, Personal communication), and returning to background levels by the summer of 2004 or 2005. Root action, animals that burrow in the soil, and freezing water will gradually loosen compacted soil over the course of decades. Soil Productivity No organic material or nutrients would be removed. With time, organic matter will gradually accumulate from the CWD, forbs, and grasses. Nutrients will gradually accumulate due to inputs (in precipitation, dry deposition, weathering of parent material, and nitrogen fixation) and retention. These processes will take decades. Retention of all dead and dying trees will create elevated fuel levels (see Fire/ Fuels Specialist Report) and may create a problem in the future. Soils may be detrimentally burned if another fire occurs as logs are consumed at ground level. Additional soil would be eroded and nutrients and organic matter lost. Productivity loss is difficult to predict at this time. Future wildfire has the potential for detrimental burning effects to the soil resource. The Alternative 1 would have no effect on ectomycorrhizae or other beneficial fungi or organisms in this area. Ectomycorrhizae are most abundant in the organic soil components, including the litter, humus; soil wood, charcoal and organic enriched mineral horizons. Since the Monument fire reduced the soil organic component, it follows that the total number of ectomycorrhizae would be reduced. This occurs for a number of reasons including the reduction of habitat sites, chemical changes in the remaining organic matter and the reduction of conifer needs for the added nutrient uptake capacity gained through ectomycorrhizal associations. Soil chemistry can change after fire, resulting in unfavorable conditions for some ectomycorrhizae species. Prescribed fire has been observed to decrease ectomycorrhizae activity for up to four years. However, it should be noted that ectomycorrhizae are abundant in charcoal incorporated into the soil and the habitat sites provided by burning may compensated for the in initial population reductions. 118 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Cumulative Effects Soil Erosion All of the past, ongoing, and reasonable foreseeable future activities identified in the beginning of Chapter 3 have been considered for their cumulative effects on soil resources. The following discussion focuses on those activities that may contribute negative or positive effects. Decommissioning of roads and obliteration of old skid trails from past harvest activities would not occur. Erosion from these sources would continue at baseline levels. Short-term increases from road treatments would not occur. Existing erosion from substandard roads would persist because drainage and erosion improvements on the open road system would not occur. Livestock grazing beginning as early as 2005 is foreseeable in the fire area if requirements of the Malheur Post Fire Grazing Guidelines are met. Livestock grazing can result in the reduction of ground cover soil displacement during dry and wet periods, and soil compaction during wet periods. Therefore, livestock grazing may delay the recovery of erosion rates to pre-fire levels. Soil Productivity Large organic matter levels would continue to increase as trees die and as weather related processes (windthrow, snow, etc.) recruit large wood to the forest floor. Within the severely burned areas, large organic matter levels will increase as fire killed trees fall to the forest floor. Fine organic matter levels will increase in response to revegetation of the area with grasses, shrubs, and young trees. As organic matter accumulates on the ground and decomposes, nutrient levels will increase. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Direct and Indirect Effects Soil Erosion Ground skidding When contemplating long-term effects to soils, ground disturbance from machinery is the most significant factor to consider. Ground based harvest activities can result in compaction and displacement of soils. The use of tractor harvest within wildfire areas has the most potential for unacceptable effects to soil resources (Beschta et al. 1995). Displacement will decrease soil productivity. Removal of the top layer of soil and loss of productivity can last for years. Design measures will reduce impacts substantially, but cannot eliminate effects. Displacement occurs at landings and temporary road locations. Tractor skidding causes compaction with as few as one to two passes. Compaction usually lasts more than 20 years. Some compaction remains for more than 50 years. Tractor harvest will decrease existing vegetative ground cover as skidding and harvesting occurs. Ground cover on skid trails will be decreased, especially in areas of high fire severity. Harvest will add additional ground cover from slash throughout the treatment areas and can serve as a base to distribute weight and lessen compaction from machinery. Skidding on slopes greater than 35% or unsuitable lands may cause displacement and will not be allowed. Skidding also creates areas of bare soil, decreases infiltration, and channels overland flow, and thus accelerates erosion, especially on steep slopes and non-forested land. 119 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Seeding of skid trails is required by the Forest Plan on steeper slopes of 20% or greater. Slopes throughout the tractor harvest portion of the project area are less that 20% on average. Soil monitoring conducted on skidding operations after two and three years after the Summit Fire on the Malheur National Forest, demonstrated that skidding caused export of a total of 0.02 m3 of sediment from units totaling 230 acres (McNeil 2001). This is an insignificant amount and close to baseline levels. Potential soil erosion in the project area is related to site-specific fire severity, soil type, average unit slope, surface erosion potential, and compaction information on tractor units (Table S-5): Table S-5. Erosion Potential Tractor Harvest Units Alternative 2 Unit Average Slope Soil Type Fire Severity Acres Surface Erosion Potential Compaction Potential Ash Light 4 L M Loam Clay/Ash* Light 1 M-H M-L Ash Moderate 16 L M Loam Clay/Ash* Moderate 4 M-H M-L Ash Severe 33 L M 1 10 Loam Clay/Ash* Severe 8 M-H M-L Ash Moderate 7 L M 2 7 Loam Clay/Ash* Moderate 4 M-H M-L 3 10 Ash Light 12 L M Ash Light 6 L M 4 20 Loam Clay/Ash* Light 14 M-H L-M Ash Light 2 L M 5 12 Ash Severe 39 L M Ash Moderate 31 L M Loam Clay/Ash* Moderate 4 M-H M-L 6 12 Ash Severe 5 L M 8 13 Ash Moderate 28 L M Loam Clay/Ash* Moderate 1 L M 9 12 Loam Clay/Ash* Moderate 7 M-H M-L 120 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Unit Average Slope Soil Type Fire Severity Acres Surface Erosion Potential Compaction Potential Ash Light 1 L M 10 10 Ash Moderate 75 L M Ash Moderate 16 L M 11 10 Ash Severe 37 L M Ash Moderate 110 L M 12 11 Loam Clay/Ash* Moderate 3 M-H L-M Ash Moderate 4 L M Loam Clay/Ash* Moderate 14 M-H L-M Ash Severe 3 L M 55 7 Loam Clay/Ash* Severe 5 M-H L-M *Loamy Clayey Non-Forested (complex) Skid trails used for the salvage of material will occupy about 10% to 14% of each unit. Skid trails are typically spaced at 100 to 120 feet apart.25 Probable detrimental soil conditions (DSCs) from compaction would increase by 6% (on dry soil) to 11% (on moist soil) on tractor units due to skidding.26 The amount of compaction depends much more on soil moisture than on soil type. If a unit were harvested over snow or on deeply frozen soil, compaction would be about 0.5%. Use of feller-bunchers would increase detrimental impacts by an additional 1% to 2% (McNeil, 1996). Design elements restricting skidding on wet soil would keep compaction27 to a minimum. Mitigation in the form of subsoiling can reduce compaction, but does nothing about displacement. Subsoiling is feasible when soil depths are 12 to 24 inches in depth. Soils with high rock content usually are not subsoiled. Subsoiling is recommended on skidtrails and landings in all units that are tractor harvested unless activities occur on frozen or snow-covered ground. Skid trails will be evaluated after harvest before treatment. Tractor-logging units in the Monument Project have ash surface soils or are made up of a complex that includes a high percentage of ash. Ash soils are more resistant to compaction under proper soil moistures than are residual soils in the area. Caution is used when prescribing subsoiling because subsoiling: 1) bares soil, 2) forms channels, 3) makes soil particles more easily detachable, and 4) disrupts roots. Thus, subsoiling raises the risk of erosion for a few years. Subsoiling can cause mixing of the soil horizons if improper equipment is used, and implemented incorrectly. However, subsoiling also increases infiltration, which decreases long-term risks 25 includes skidding patterns near landings 26 Detrimental soil conditions would increase because skidtrails usually are about 50% to 80% compacted, and because existing skidtrails would be re-used where they were appropriately located. 27 The 80% compaction level was used for computation of DSC’s for the tractor units in this project. 121 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS of erosion. This increased infiltration together with subsoiling design elements, means sediment production from erosion due to subsoiling would be negligible. Machinery used for subsoiling must be cleansed offsite to prevent noxious weeds from entering the area. This procedure would be required for all ground base machinery including loaders and log trucks working at landings. Subsoiling and resultant amelioration of the compaction will increase infiltration and reduce potential surface erosion. Tractor harvest and skidding will leave about 5-7% of the area affected. About 50% of the total DSCs created by harvest activities will be reduce by subsoiling. Implementation of design features and site-specific BMPs; such as designated skid trails, seasonal restrictions, use of low ground pressure logging equipment and rehabilitation of landings and skid trails; total additional detrimental impacts range from 5 to 7 percent above existing DSC levels. Therefore, overall impacts from ground skidding activities will likely range from7 to 14 percent in most tractor units. For unit 10, additional mitigation measures will be used to limit additional impacts to 2 to 4 percent above existing DSC levels. These measures will result in total DSC in unit 10 ranging from 14 to 16 percent. Predicted detrimental effects are expected to leave the tractor harvest areas below the 20% standard as required by the Forest Plan (Table S-6). Table S-6. Predicted Total Disturbed Soil Conditions Following Tractor Harvest Under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Note: Units 10 and 12 will not be logged under Alternative 3. Assumes use of feller-bunchers, and dry or moist ground conditions. Proposed Timber Harvest Unit Unit Acres Existing DSC (% of Unit Area) Total DSC (% of Unit Area) 1 - T 66 5 10 - 12 2 - T 11 5 10 - 12 3 - T 12 7 12 - 14 4 - T 20 5 10 - 12 5 - T 41 4 9 - 11 6 - T 40 3 8 - 10 8 - T 28 2 7 - 9 9 – T 8 3 8 - 10 10 - T 76 12 14 - 16 11 - T 53 2 7 - 9 12 - T 113 7 12 - 14 55 - T 26 2 7- 9 Helicopter harvest For Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, helicopter yarding will be used for log removal on all harvest areas within the Upper Little Malheur Subwatershed. Potential DSC increases include compaction and displacement from the felling operation. Affected would be small and are considered insignificant. Measurements from past helicopter logging operations have 122 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences indicated that up to 12 percent of the ground surface in any one area can be disturbed by felling and yarding operations (Klock & Glen, 1975). Of this disturbance, less than 1 percent was considered severe or excessive. This amount of disturbance will not be considered as a detrimental impact according to Forest Standards. Increases in DSC will occur in some helicopter units due to the construction of landings and temporary access roads. Predicted detrimental effects are expected to leave the helicopter harvest areas below the 20% standard as required by the Forest Plan (Table S-7). Table S-7. Predicted Total Disturbed Soil Conditions Following Helicopter Harvest Under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Proposed Timber Harvest Unit Unit Acres Existing DSC (% of Unit Area) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Total DSC (% of Unit Area) 13 - H 17 2 Harvested Harvested Harvested 2 14 - H 29 3 Harvested Harvested Harvested 5 15 - H 91 3 Harvested Harvested Harvested 3 16 - H 16 11 Harvested Harvested 11 17 - H 131 15 Harvested Harvested 16 18 - H 178 12 Harvested Harvested 13 19 - H 34 11 Harvested Harvested 11 20 - H 18 9 Harvested Harvested Harvested 9 21 - H 54 8 Harvested Harvested Harvested 8 22 - H 48 12 Harvested Harvested 13 23 - H 345 2 Harvested Harvested Harvested 2 24 - H 16 8 Harvested Harvested Harvested 10 25 - H 257 13 Harvested Harvested Harvested 14 26 - H 35 3 Harvested Harvested Harvested 3 27 - H 34 12 Harvested Harvested 12 28 - H 90 11 Harvested Harvested 11 29 - H 107 9 Harvested Harvested Harvested 11 30 - H 98 11 Harvested Harvested Harvested 11 31 - H 70 13 Harvested Harvested Harvested 14 32 - H 201 15 Harvested Harvested Harvested 16 33 - H 169 10 Harvested Harvested Harvested 10 34 - H 316 8 Harvested Harvested Harvested 10 35 - H 486 10 Harvested Harvested Harvested 11 36 - H 73 8 Harvested Harvested 8 37 - H 76 11 Harvested Harvested Harvested 13 123 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Proposed Timber Harvest Unit Unit Acres Existing DSC (% of Unit Area) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Total DSC (% of Unit Area) 39 - H 42 8 Harvested 8 40 - H 184 7 Harvested 9 41 - H 216 9 Harvested 9 42 - H 24 9 Harvested 9 43 - H 29 9 Harvested 9 44 - H 13 3 Harvested 3 45 - H 19 12 Harvested 12 46 - H 17 15 Harvested 15 47 - H 9 10 Harvested 10 48 - H 16 10 Harvested 10 49 - H 21 10 Harvested 10 51 - H 29 7 Harvested 7 52 - H 24 14 Harvested 14 53 - H 37 7 Harvested Harvested Harvested 7 54 - H 37 10 Harvested Harvested Harvested 10 57 - H 40 10 Harvested Harvested 10 In areas of harvest, increases in down woody material, and subsequent reduction in the amount of surface erosion is expected. Tops, branches, and boles remaining on site and making contact with the ground can trap sediment retaining it on slope. Ground cover is expected to increase 10% or more from logging slash. Areas of high to very high surface erosion located in the Camp Creek and Little Malheur River areas will be logged. Woody debris remaining from logging will decrease surface erosion and accelerate nutrient return. Alternatives 3 and 4 have no harvest along RHCA areas. Alternative 3 includes additional buffers added to RHCAs to lessen potential sediment. Alternative 4 includes the standard RHCA buffer size. Effect to soils from these changes would be the reduction of a needed landing and associated construction effects. Actual ground disturbance reductions will not be discernible owing to limited impacts from this type of activity. Not harvesting in the RHCA and additional buffers could have detrimental soil burning consequences in the future. Fuel levels will be above the historic range and areas with down material could cause detrimental soil damage. Temporary Road Construction and Landings Decrease in soil productivity from construction of temporary roads and landings can be expected. Productivity would increase and DSC will decrease when these areas are sub- soiled, but will not return to reference conditions for many years. Seeding will occur at all landings. 124 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Twenty landings will be constructed to land and process material. Landings are approximately one acre in size. DSC increases from displacement and compaction will occur at each landing. DSCs from displacement will occur and take years to recover. Landings used for ground based skidding have lower displacement problems and return to reference conditions rapidly. Temporary road construction would reduce or eliminate productivity of affected areas during active use. Obliteration of temporary roads subsequent to use should return productivity to near original levels unless topsoil displacement is excessive. Fuel treatments Effects of this Alternative would be similar to effects under the No Action Alternative. The main differences are as follows: No machine piling will be allowed to protect soils; whole tree yarding will be used in the tractor logged resiliency stands. Lop and scattering of slash will be done as needed. Hand piles will treat fuels in one unit within the RHCA along the Little Malheur River. Burning piles will cause a DSC increase of approximately 1% to 2% caused by burning of the piles. Landing slash will be piled and burned. Soils where landing slash is burned will be detrimentally impacted by high intensity heat over an extended period.. Helicopter landings are located in upland areas with flat terrain and low sedimentation risk. All landing will be seeded to stabilize soils. . Soil Productivity Logging will remove nutrients and organic matter from the units. This removal may decrease site productivity on some sites. Generally, removal of nutrients or organic matter does not limit productivity. In addition, relatively small amounts of nutrients will be removed due to harvest plans and snag retention.28 See the Fire/ Fuels section for estimates pertaining to the amount of fuels that would remain on site. Projected CWM amounts throughout the project area have been estimated to meet or exceed the minimum amounts of material needed for long time productivity. For Alternatives 2 and 4, about 7 tons/acre will remain in upland harvest units of the Little Malheur River, and about 9 tons/acre in upland harvest units of the Swamp Creek Subwatershed. Alternative 3 retains about 14 tons/acre in upland units. Alternative 2 harvest activities will lower CWM to 50 tons/acre in the Camp Creek RHCA areas. Combining harvest and hand piling of CWM, about 26 tons/acre will remain along the Little Malheur River. These levels of CWD meet the recommendations for their respective forest types (see affected environment discussion for productivity). Salvage prescriptions that leave all live trees and down woody material are expected to maintain ecotomycorrhizae populations over the project area. Soil organisms will be reduced in areas where equipment used for ground skidding, landing construction and operation, and subsoiling impacts the soil. This effect cannot be avoided when using ground based harvest methods. Pile burning will also affect soil organisms in localized areas where soil is sterilized from high intensity heat. 28 This is the case because wood has a low concentration of nutrients, and because some trees retained for wildlife are not merchantable and are being retained in the draws. 125 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Road Management Road reconstruction proposals would tend to increase productivity somewhat over the long- term as risk of road failure is reduced and drainage improved. Increased resistance to storm damage and improved water management would reduce the possibility of soil loss at or adjacent (downhill) to the reconstructed sections. Over the long-term, road obliteration treatments would increase productivity as previously dedicated roadbeds and cut-and-fill areas become more hospitable to plant growth. No short- term loss of productivity is expected. No measurable increase in surface erosion is expected and stabilization will occur rapidly (1 to 3 years). Obliteration activities will allow for vegetative growth in areas where roadbeds have lessened or prevented growth in the past. Expected infiltration increases, overland flow decrease, and re-sloped material would be better utilized as it is replaced on existing roadbeds. Old Skid Trail Restoration and Road Obliteration Short-term increases in sediment are possible in areas of old road treatments. Additional soils will be exposed as compacted material is loosened, and redistributed. Roads from this era were generally built to a lower standard than current construction requirements. Existing berms, and in-sloping channel runoff can cause additional soil loss. Culverts will be removed, and the channel put back to grade. Woody material sites associated with the berms will be utilized and placed on the former roads prism. This material, along with mulching and seeding will minimize short-term soil runoff and should eliminate it long-term. Cumulative Effects All of the past, ongoing, and reasonable foreseeable future activities identified in the beginning of Chapter 3 have been considered for cumulative effects on soil resources. The following discussion focuses on those activities that may contribute negative or positive effects. In general, the scale of the fire will elevate the sensitivity of the Little Malheur subwatershed to all ground disturbing activities. Soil Erosion Road obliteration and rehabilitation of old skid trails from past harvest activities would occur. Erosion from these sources would be reduced from baseline levels. Existing erosion risk from roads proposed for reconstruction would be reduced as any active erosion from as rills or gullies would be removed. Resumption of grazing after two or more growing years would increase levels of compaction in riparian areas containing new sediment deposits associated with first and second year soil runoff. Bank development and sediment retention will be reduced even if current Forest Plan Standards are followed. Recovery of vegetation areas will be reduced as will potential residual vegetative matter. Recovery to baseline surface erosion may take longer than two years. These potential effects would occur in addition to activities planned in the alternatives within the RHCAs that have potential ground disturbance such as old skid trail obliteration and road maintenance. Grazing could also potentially reduce ground cover and organic matter in upland areas where ground-disturbing activities are proposed. These activities include use of skid trails, obliteration old skid trails, construction of new landings and temporary roads, and roads decommissioned. This would delay vegetative recovery planned on these areas to stabilize the soil. 126 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Resumption of grazing using the Malheur Post Fire Grazing Guidelines would be implemented so it would not violate ground cover standards or increase soil erosion, but care is needed in the areas of high to very high surface erosion potential located in the Little Malheur River Subwatershed portion of the project. Soil Productivity Reduction of fuel loading by salvage harvesting will lower potential fire spread in the near future. If a wildfire occurs, proposed harvest treatments would decrease fire severity and effects to soils (Vihnanek and Ottmar, 1993). Alternative 5 Direct and Indirect Effects Soil Erosion Erosion rates will be similar to Alternative 1 as the result of no harvest and temporary road construction. No additional detrimental impacts would occur. Road maintenance activities will be conducted as planned under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Additional closures prescribed by this alternative carry potential to reduce erosion on native surface roads. Roads planned for closure must be monitored to assure proper drainage in the future. Previous management practices of road construction, skidding techniques, and general guidelines have caused additional impacts to soil resources and have had long-term consequences. Rehabilitation of these old roads and skid trails is planned to lessen long-term effects of increased runoff and sedimentation. Soil loss from native surface roads will be reduced from the additional road closures as vegetation grows over wheel tracks and use is eliminated during wet periods. Soil Productivity No organic material or nutrients would be removed. Productivity of the soil will continue to increase as woody material falls to the ground. No additional detrimental impacts will occur from harvest related activities and temporary road construction. Effects to soil organisms and nutrients would be the same as Alternative 1. Decommissioning of roads under this alternative is the same as Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Addition closures will allow for a slow rate of natural recovery with removal of traffic on closed roads. Cumulative Effects All past, ongoing, and reasonable foreseeable future activities identified in the beginning of Chapter 3 have been considered for their cumulative effects on the soil resource. The following discussion focuses on those activities that may contribute negative or positive effects. Soil Erosion Same as Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Soil Productivity Same as Alternative 1. Consistency With Direction and Regulations All alternatives would be consistent with Forest Plan soil protection standards. All Forest- Wide Standards would be met (see"Regulatory Framework" section). 127 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Irreversible/ Irretrievable Effects If a wildfire burns after about 10-15 years from the present, the risk of soil erosion and loss of soil productivity is higher under Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 than Alternative 2. Alternatives 1 (No Action Alternative) and 5 (Restoration only) pose the highest potential for detrimental burning of soil because they leave all of the wood material. No other irreversible impacts are expected. Aquatics - Fish/ Water Quality ______________________ Introduction This section of the FEIS analyzes effects from proposed activies on: 1) aquatic habitats, 2) aquatic management indicator species, 3) Region 6 sensitvie species, 4) aquatic species and habitats protected by the ESA, and 5) water quality. This section includes hydrology analysis and incorporates conclusions from soils analysis. Major limiting factors for the analysis area are elevated levels of fine sediment and water temperatures in the Little Malheur River watershed. Both of these limiting factors reflect effects from past and current management activities as well as the 2002 Monument Fire. Elevated levels of fine sediment can result in filling of interstitial spaces (i.e. gaps between rocks on stream bottoms) thus eliminating habitat for many macroinvertebrates and various life stages of fish species. Spawning success of salmonids can also be adversely affected by increases in fine sediment in spawning gravels. Elevated water temperatures can limit populations of fish species adapted to cold waters and can result in extirpation of some species such as bull trout. The Little Malheur River, from its mouth to headwaters, is currently on Oregon’s 303(d) list for exceeding state water temperature standards for rearing habitat for salmon and trout. No other streams within the Project Area are listed. In the future, the amount of woody debris (including large woody debris), in stream channels and the availability of replacement LWD are concerns due to direct and indirect effects from the 2002 fire. Potential levels of LWD in the lower reaches of Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River in the project area were analyzed over the next 100 years. Regulatory Framework Malheur Forest Plan The Malheur National Forest Plan (USDA 1990) as amended, provides direction to protect and manage resources. Only direction pertaining to the water resources portion of the Burned Area Recovery project is included here. Forest Plan Goals for water resources • Provide a favorable flow of water (quantity, quality, and timing) for off-Forest users by improving or maintaining all watersheds in a stable condition. (Goal 27, p. IV-2) • Maintain or enhance water quality to meet State of Oregon standards, considering downstream uses and protection of other riparian and floodplain values. (Goal 28, p. IV-2) 128 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Forest Plan Objectives state how resources will be managed under the Forest Plan. They are discussed by Riparian Area and for Soil and Water (only objectives pertaining to water are listed): Riparian Area: • All riparian areas will be managed to protect or enhance their value for water quality, fish habitat and wildlife. • All new or updated management plans will include a strategy for managing riparian areas for a mix of resource uses. A measurable desired future riparian condition will be established based on existing and potential vegetative conditions. When current riparian condition is less than that desired, objectives will include a schedule for improvement. (Note: Access and Travel Management Plans are proposed under alternatives 2, 3, and 4). Water: • Manage soil and water resources to maintain or enhance long-term productivity of the Forest. • Much of the management activity under this Plan will be directed toward improving those riparian areas that are in undesirable condition. A combination of watershed improvements in or adjacent to riparian areas will be the major soil and water improvement activities on the Forest. Any one method, or combination of methods, may be incorporated to treat a less than desirable riparian area. • Integrate mitigation into management activities. Examples of mitigation for soil and water protection include waterbarring skid trails, seeding disturbed soil along riparian areas and size and distribution of harvest units. Forest-wide Standards Protection of Water Quality: • Comply with State requirements in accordance with the Clean Water Act for protection of waters of the State of Oregon (Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 34041) through planning, application, and monitoring of best management practices (BMPs) in conformance with Clean Water Act, regulations, and federal guidance issued thereto (Standard 117). • In cooperation with the State of Oregon, the Malheur National Forest will use the following process (Standard 118): (a) Select and design BMPs based on site-specific conditions (b) Implement and enforce BMPs. (c) Monitor to ensure that practices are correctly applied as designed (d) Monitor to determine effectiveness of practices in meeting design expectations and in attaining water quality standards. (e) Evaluate monitoring results and mitigate where necessary to minimize impacts from activities where BMPs do not perform as expected. (f) Adjust BMP design standards and application when beneficial uses are not being protected and water quality standards are not being achieved. Evaluate appropriateness of water quality criteria for reasonably assuring protection of beneficial uses. Consider recommending adjustment of water quality standards. • Implement the State Water Quality Management Plan, described in the Memoranda of Understanding between the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and US. 129 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Department of Agriculture.29 Site-specific BMPs will be identified and documented during environmental analysis, along with evaluations of ability to implement and estimated effectiveness. BMPs are described in General Water Quality Best Management Practices, Pacific Northwest Region, November 1988. (Standard 119) • Evaluate site-specific water quality effects as part of project planning. Design control measures to ensure projects will meet Oregon water quality standards. Projects failing to meet Oregon water quality standards shall be redesigned, rescheduled, or dropped. (Standard 120) • Conduct a watershed cumulative effects analysis in watersheds where project scoping identifies cumulative effects of activities on water quality or stream channels as an issue. This will include land within all ownerships in the watershed. Disperse activities in time and space to the extent practicable, and at least to the extent necessary to meet management requirements., On intermingled ownerships, coordinate scheduling efforts to the extent practicable. (Standard 121) • Rehabilitate disturbed areas that could contribute sediment to perennial streams. (Standard 122) Management Areas and Amendments to the Forest Plan Riparian habitats are directly affected by water and exhibit either visible vegetation or physical characteristics reflecting influence from water. The Malheur National Forest originally designated these areas under the land allocation of Management Areas (MA) 3A and 3B. Amendment #29 of the Malheur National Forest Plan (1994) established additional Forest- wide standards by modifying Forest Plan Standard 5 for MA 3A, non-anadromous riparian areas. Modification included incorporation of numeric standards for the following aquatic habitat elements: sediment/substrate, water quality, channel morphology and riparian vegetation. Numeric standards were designed to manage designated habitat elements within their natural ranges of variability. The Malheur National Forest Plan was amended in 1995 by direction of the Regional Forester with the Interim Strategy for Managing Fish-Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, Western Montana and Portions of Nevada (INFISH) and the Interim Strategy for Managing Anadromous Fish-Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California (PACFISH). Activities in the Monument project area fall under direction of INFISH because the project area is located outside of anadromous fish habitat. INFISH amended the Plan by establishing riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs), establishing numeric riparian management objectives (RMOs), and establishing standards and guidelines for managing activities in RHCAs. INFISH replaced existing direction contained in the Forest Plan except where the Plan provided more protection for inland native fish habitat. Riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis in RHCAs, and management activities are subject to specific standards and guidelines. 29 MOU (February 2, 1979 and December 2,1982), and Attachments A and B' referred to in this Memoranda of Understanding (Implementation Plan for Water Quality Planning on National Forest Lands in the Pacific Northwest, December 1978, and Best Management Practices for Range and Grazing Activities on Federal Lands, respectively). 130 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences RHCAs are differentiated by the following four categories of which three are present in the Monument Fire Recovery project area (Table A-1). INFISH establishes default buffers for RHCAs on the Forest (USDA 1995a: A-4 to A-6). Default values for priority watersheds were used for this project. INFISH priority watersheds were designated based on the presence of bull trout. Swamp Creek subwatershed is located in the North Fork Malheur River watershed, an INFISH priority watershed; Category 4 buffers are 100 ft by default. Bull trout are now known to be seasonally present in the lower one mile of the Little Malheur River therefore the 100 ft buffer width was used for streams in Little Malheur River watershed. Table A-1. RHCA Buffer Widths RHCA Category Description RHCA Width (Feet) 1 Fish bearing streams that are either perennial or intermittent 300 2 Non-fish bearing streams that are perennial 150 4 Non-fish bearing streams that are intermittent 100 4 Ponds, lakes, or wetlands < 1 acre 50 INFISH Standards and Guidelines • Prohibit timber harvest, including fuelwod cutting, in RHCAs except where catastrophic events such as fire, flooding, volcanic, wind, or insect damage result in degraded riparian conditions, allow salvage and fuelwood cutting in RHCAs only where present and future woody debris needs are met, where cutting would not retard or prevent attainment of other RMOs, where adverse effects can be avoided to inland native fish. For priority watersheds, complete watershed analysis prior to salvage cutting in RHCAs. (INFISH Standard TM-1a) • For each existing or planned road, meet the RMOs and avoid adverse effects to inland native fish by minimizing road and landing locations in RHCAs. (INFISH Standard RF-2b) • Determine the influence of each road on RMOs. Meet RMOs and avoid adverse effects on inland native fish by: o reconstructing road and draingae features that do not meet design criteria or operation and maintenance standards, or that have been shown to be less effective than designed for controlling sediment delivary, or retard attainment of RMOs, or do not protect priotiry watersheds from increased sedmentaion. (INFISH Standard RF-3a) o prioritizing reconstruction based on the current and potential damage to inland native fish and their priority watersheds, the ecological value of the riparian resources affected, and the feasibility of options such as helicopter logging and road relocation out of RHCAs. (INFISH Standard, RF-3b) o Closing and stabilizing or obliterating, and stabilizing roads not needed for future management activities. Prioritize these actions based on current and 131 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS potential damage to inland native fish in priority watersheds, and the ecological value of the riparian resources affected. (INFISH Standard, RF-3c) • Trees may be felled in RHCAs when they pose a safety risk. Keep felled trees on site when needed to meet woody debris objectives. (INFISH Standard, RA-2) INFISH Priority Watersheds Priority watersheds were designated in Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Washington by INFISH. Criteria considered to designate priority watersheds were: 1. Watersheds with excellent habitat or strong assemblages of inland native fish, with a priority on bull trout populations. 2. Watersheds that provided for meta-population objectives. 3. Degraded watersheds with a high restoration potential. Subwatersheds designated as INFISH priority watersheds in or adjacent to the Monument project area are (Figure 19, Map Section): • Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed o Elk Creek subwatershed o Swamp Creek subwatershed • Little Malheur River Watershed o None Designated Other Regulatory or Legal Requirements that Direct Watershed Management • Section 208 of the 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Public Law 92-500), specifically mandates identification and control of nonpoint- source pollution resulting from silvicultural activities. • Clean Water Act, Sections 303, 319, 404: o Section 303(d) directs states to list Water Quality Limited Waterbodies (303(d) listed streams) and develop Total Daily Maximum Loads to control non-point source pollutant causing loss of beneficial uses. The State of Oregon has established a schedule for completing Total Daily Maximum Loads with which the Malheur National Forest is consistent. Streams in or downstream of the project area that are currently on the 303(d) list are: 1) the Little Malheur River (exceeds 64°F temperature parameter from mouth to headwaters), and 2) the North Fork Malheur River (exceeds 50°F temperature parameter from Crane Creek to headwaters). The North Fork Malheur River is not within the project area. o Section 319 directs states to develop programs to control non-point source pollution, and includes federal funding of assessment, planning and implementation phases. At this time, no known Section 319 projects would be detrimentally affected by project activities. o Section 404 controls the dredge and fill of material in waterbodies of the U.S.; culvert replacement and other project watershed improvement activities that may fall within the jurisdiction of section 404 are covered with a nationwide general permit. 132 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences o The objective of emergency watershed protection and conservation programs30 is to assist in relieving imminent hazards to life and property from floods and products of erosion created by natural disasters causing sudden impairment of a watershed. Analysis Method Analysis Area The analysis area consists of the Monument Fire Recovery project area, stream reaches upstream of the project area where existing conditions have potential to impact aquatic habitat in the project area, and stream reaches downstream from the project area where potential cumulative effects could occur from proposed activities. The analysis area includes streams in the Upper Little Malheur River Subwatershed in the Little Malheur River Watershed and the Spring Creek drainage in the Swamp Creek Subwatershed in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed (Figure 2, Map Section). Forest Plan Riparian Management Objectives Information from stream surveys, supplemental stream surveys, ODFW data reports, observations of existing conditions by District fish and hydrology personnel were used to determine existing conditons of streams in the analysis area. Amendment #29 standards were used as the basis for the Monument Fire Recovery analysis since they were site-specific and provide more protection for aquatic habitat compared to INFISH RMOs. Changes in levels of LWD were modeled for the next 100 years. A complete discussion of this analyis is presented in the aquatics and hydrology specialist report. Estimates of soil erosion (see soils specialist report) and a sediment impact model (see aquatics and hydrology specialist report) were used to estimate impacts to aquatic habitat. Incomplete and Unavailable Information Stream shading data were not available for the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek. The District Fishery Biologist and Hydrology Technician made estimates of stream shading based on professional judgment during visits to the project area. Major Changes from the DEIS to the FEIS Based on public comments the effects to Columbia spotted frogs, Malheur mottled sculpins, and redband trout were reanalyzed. The following changes in effects determinations were made: 30 Section 403 of Title IV of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2201-2205) and Title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 624 (7 CFR 624), the Emergency Watershed Protection Program. 133 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Table A-2. Effect Determinations/ Changes Between DEIS and FEIS Effects Determination Species Watershed Alternative DEIS FEIS 3 NI / BI MIIH / BI Redband Trout Little Malheur River 4 NI / BI MIIH / BI 3 NI / BI MIIH / BI Malheur Mottled Sculpin Little Malheur River 4 NI / BI MIIH / BI Columbia Spotted Frog Little Malheur River 2 NI MIIH Notes: 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; NI = no impact; BI = Beneficial Impact. Forest Plan Riparian Management Objectives (Forest Plan Amendment 29) Critical aquatic habitat elements defined by the Malheur NF Forest Plan (Forest Plan Amendment 29) and ODEQ water quality standards include: 1) pool frequency, 2) LWD, 3) replacement LWD, 4) bank stability, 5) width to depth ratio, 6) sediment/substrate (fine sediment), 7) shading, and 8) water temperature. These elements are important in maintaining function and health of riparian and aquatic habitats. The eight elements can be combined into the following groups: physical habitat elements (e.g. LWD, replacement LWD, pool frequency, fine sediment), channel stability elements (e.g. width to depth ratio, bank stability), and water quality elements (e.g. shading, water temperature). Affected Environment and Environmental Effects - Physical Habitat Elements Large Woody Debris Affected Environment Woody debris plays an important role in forested stream reaches. Woody debris aids in dissipating stream energy, trapping sediment, and in formation of pools and associated aquatic habitat. Woody debris also provides hiding cover for aquatic organisms. Large pieces of woody debris generally account for the majority of pool formation and are the most stable pieces (compared to smaller pieces) of woody debris. Woody debris must be > 12” in diameter 35 ft from the large end to be classified as LWD under INFISH. Region 6 further divides LWD into two size classes on Forests east of the Cascades (Table A-3). Malheur N.F. has an additional size standard for LWD in lodgepole pine ecosystems because of the smaller size potential for LWD in these ecosystems (Table A-3). 134 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table A-3. Size Classes of Large Woody Debris. Ecosystem Size Class Size Standard Description Medium Region 6 Diameter > 12 in, at a length of 35 ft from the butt Ponderosa Pine & Mixed Conifer Large Region 6 Diameter > 20 in, at a length of 35 ft from the butt Medium Malheur N.F. Diameter > 6 in, at a length of 20 ft from the butt Lodgepole Pine Large Malheur N.F. Diameter > 12 in, at a length of 35 ft from the butt Forest Plan standard (Amendment 29) is based on expected frequencies of LWD by size classes based on ecosystem types (Table A-4). Table A-4. Forest Plan Standards (Amendment 29) for Large Woody Debris (LWD). Ecosystem Total Pieces/mile Medium Size Class (#/mi) Large Size Class (#/mi) Ponderosa Pine 20 to 70 16 to 56 4 to 14 Mixed Conifer 80 to 120 64 to 96 16 to 24 Lodgepole Pine 100 to 350 90 to 315 10 to 35 Non-forested No standard No standard No standard Currently, five of the 10 surveyed stream reaches in the analysis area are meeting the Forest Plan standard for LWD (Table A-5). Table A-5. Number of Pieces of LWD Per Reach. Number of Pieces of LWD per Mile by Reach Stream Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4 Little Malheur R 9 21 38 91 Camp Cr 51 107 94 65 Hunter Cr 18 --- --- --- Spring Cr 53 --- --- --- Note: Shading indicates that the Forest Plan Standard for LWD is met. Direct / Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action): In areas that burned with moderate to high intensities, the fire damaged some of the existing LWD. Damage ranged from partial to entire consumption of pieces reducing the effectiveness of LWD in stabilizing stream channels and floodplains. Partially damaged LWD is vulnerable to movement during high flow events. Where entire pieces of LWD were consumed, fine sediment deposits are vulnerable to erosion during high flow events. 135 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Alternative 2: Alternative 2 will have no effect on current LWD levels in the analysis area. While salvage logging activities are proposed in Category 1 RHCAs adjacent to Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River salvage of existing LWD in stream channels is not proposed. Disturbance or displacement of existing LWD is unlikely to occur during salvage activities because helicopters will be used to yard salvaged material from RHCAs. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5: Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 will have no effect on current LWD levels in this analysis area because salvage activities are not proposed in Category 1 RHCAs. LWD levels will increase over time as dead standing trees are recruited into stream channels (see replacement LWD discussion). Replacement Large Woody Debris Affected Environment The Forest Plan requires that enough standing trees be available in forested stands adjacent to stream channels to provide replacement of existing LWD as it is depleted through time. We estimate that to meet the minimum Forest Plan standard for LWD (i.e. 20 pieces per mile), 391 standing dead trees per mile would be needed for replacement of LWD in ponderosa pine ecosystems (Table A-6). See the Aquatics and Hydrology specialist report for a description of methods used to estimate future LWD levels. Table A-6. Number of Standing Dead Trees Per Mile Needed to Provide Replacement LWD In Ponderosa Pine Ecosystems to Meet Minimum Forest Plan Standards. Size Class Number of Standing Dead Trees per Mile Needed to Meet Minimum Standard for Replacement LWD Medium 313 Large 78 Total 391 We estimated the depletion of existing LWD and accumulation new LWD to determine if future woody debris needs would be met for Reaches 1 and 2 of the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek because of potential effects from salvaging dead trees < 20” dbh adjacent to these reaches. No estimates were made for the other stream reaches in the project area because management activities that would potentially impact future levels of woody debris in these reaches are not proposed. Direct / Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action): Based on the estimated depletion of existing LWD and estimated recruitment of available replacement LWD, the Little Malheur River is likely to meet Forest Plan standards for LWD for the next 100 years (Figure A-2). LWD levels will spike from 20 to 30 years after the fire when the majority of standing dead trees will have fallen. LWD in lower reaches of the Little Malheur River portion of the fire area may reach as high 89 pieces per mile around 136 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 2028 (Figure A-1). By 2103, about the time that new trees have reached the size necessary to provide new LWD (about 20” dbh), LWD levels will drop to about 30 pieces per mile in the Little Malheur River (Figure A-1). 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 LW D (P ie ce s pe r M ile ) 70 2003 2028 2053 2078 2103 Year 80 90 100 Replacement Large LWD Replacement Medium LWD Existing Large LWD Existing Medium LWD Figure A-1. Predicted changes in LWD levels as existing LWD is depleted and replacement LWD is recruited into the Little Malheur River,31 Monument planning area from 2003 through 2103. Note: The Forest Plan standard is 20 to 70 pieces per mile. Based on estimated depletion of existing LWD and estimated recruitment of available replacement LWD, Camp Creek is likely to meet the Forest Plan standard for LWD for the next 100 years (Figure A-2). Levels of LWD will spike from 20 to 30 years after the fire when the majority of standing dead trees will have fallen. LWD in the lower reaches of Camp Creek may reach as high 246 pieces per mile around 2028 (Figure A-2). By 2103, about the time that new trees have reached the size necessary to provide new LWD (about 20” dbh), LWD levels will drop to about 80 pieces per mile in Camp Creek (Figure A-2). 31 (Burnt portion of Reach 1 combined with Reach 2) 137 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS 300 0 50 2003 2028 2053 2078 100 150 2103 Replacement Large LWD Replacement250 Medium LWD Existing Large LWD Existing 200 M ile ) LW D (P ie ce s pe r Year Medium LWD Figure A-2. Predicted changes in LWD levels as existing LWD is depleted and replacement LWD is recruited into Camp Creek (Reaches 1 and 2) Monument planning area from 2003 through 2103 Note: The Forest Plan standard is 20 to 70 pieces per mile. A A lternative 2: lternative 2 will have no effect on future LWD levels in the analysis area. Salvage HCAs adjacent to Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River. However, standing dead trees s for LWD will not be salvaged. Therefore, under Alterna 100 years will be the same as levels under Alternative 1. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5: Altern 4, and 5 will e no effect on re LWD levels in the analysis because salvage activities are not proposed in Category 1 RHCAs. Ther re, under these alternatives levels of LWD over the next 100 years will be the same as levels under Alter lt channel types. The standard for pool spacing is a pool at least every 4 to 7 bankfull widths (BFWs). activities are proposed in Category 1 R ufficiently large to meet size criteria tive 2 levels of LWD over the next atives 3, hav futu area efo native 1. Pool Frequency Affected Environment Pool frequency is a gauge of aquatic habitat diversity, and an indicator of the degree to which streams are capable of supporting a varied and complex community of fish species. Pools are important for providing rearing habitat for juvenile fish and cool-water refugia areas for adu fish during periods of low flow and elevated temperatures. Pool spacing varies by channel morphology (Rosgen, 1996). Spacing between pools is calculated based on the bankfull width of the stream channel. The Forest Plan standard for pools is based on expected spacing between pools from Rosgen (1994) for “B” and “C” 138 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Currently, six of the 10 surveyed stream reaches in the analysis area are meeting the Forest Plan standard for pool frequencies (Table A-7). Table A-7. Spacing of Pools by Reach.32 Spacing of pools (by BFWs) by Reach Stream Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4 Little Malheur R 8.3 6.5 3.9 6.8 Camp Cr 6.6 5.5 6.4 8.4 Hunter Cr 28.4 --- --- --- Spring Cr 17.8 --- --- --- irect / Indirect Effects stabilized . am Channels. D Alternative 1 (No Action): The number of pools in the analysis area may decline as existing woody debris is de and floated away. This decline would likely last for 5 to 10 years when large amounts of woody debris will begin to be recruited into stream channels. A majority of woody debris will likely be recruited into channels from 20 to 30 years following the 2002 fire. Pool frequencies will likely increase as new woody debris is recruited into stream channels Based on research on the Forest, about 11% of woody debris in channels is effective in creating pools (Cordova, 1995). Based on the estimated number of trees > 20” dbh likely to fall into the channel, 23 new pools may be formed by replacement LWD in the lower reaches of the Little Malheur River and 48 new pools in the lower reaches of Camp Creek (Table A- 8). Table A-8. Estimated Number of Pools Likely to be Formed in the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek as Replacement LWD is Recruited into Stre Stream Number of Standing Dead Trees per Mile (> 20” dbh) Number of Trees Likely to be Recruited per Mile Number of Pools Likely to be Formed per Mile Tota f l Number o Pool s Likely to be Formed Camp Creek 5 136. 1559 9 .1 48 Little Malheur River 298 68.5 7.5 23 W pools. Sm oody debris smaller than LWD is generally too small to be effective in directly forming aller pieces of woody debris normally indirectly increase pool habitat by ze of woody debris accumulation to a point where a pool is scoured, or by increasing the si increasing the size or depth of existing pools. Under some circumstances, woody debris smaller than LWD will directly form pools. Important factors determining the effectiveness of woody debris in creating pools is the relationship between the diameter of a piece of 32 Spacing based on the number of BFWs between pools. Shading indicates that the Forest Plan Standard for pools is being met. 139 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS woody debris and the bankfull width of the channels (Beechie & Sibley, 1997). Based on Beechie & Sibley (1997), the minimum effective size of woody debris for forming pools is estimated to be about 8.3 inches for the Little Malheur and about 5.5 inches for Camp Creek. Based on the estimated number of trees < 20” dbh likely to fall into the channel that meet the above diameter sizes, two pools may be formed by in the lower reaches of the Little Malheur reaches of Camp Creek in (Table A-9). These pools will be River and 18 in the lower created in addition to those by LWD. Table A-9. Estimated Number of Pools That Will Be Formed From Small Woody Debris (< 20” diam) for the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek.33 Stream Minimum Diameter for Effective Pool Formation Minimum dbh for Effective Pool Formation (@35’) Total Number of Number Trees That Could Potentially Estimated Number Pools Trees Available Reach the Channel Created by Woody Debris Little Malheur R. 8.3” 17” 95 22 2 Camp Cr. 5.5” 14” 700 161 18 Alternative 2: Compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 will result in a reduction of woody material in the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek due to salvage of standing dead trees < 20” dbh. The om s (0.7 pools/mile) in the Little Malheur iver and 18 pools (5.6 pools/mile) in Camp Creek compared to Alternative 1 (Table A-9). Altern ect on the num area because activities i s that would disru l formation are not proposed. Numbers of pools over the next 100 years will be the sa . Embeddedness ne Sediment ffected Environment ssemblage of benthic macroinvertebrates as ell as eggs and early life stages of numerous fish species. Macroinvertebrates are a ds and sculpins. Filling of interstitial spaces (e.g. gaps be h fine sediment (particles < 6 mm in size), eliminates habita early life stages can also be buried and smoth en interstitial spaces are em with fin r habita uvenile salm s and hidin or sculpins also lost as interstitial spaces are embedded with fine sediment. mean height for trees in this size class is about 60 ft. This creates an influence zone for woody debris of about 25 ft wide on either side the channel for the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek for trees in this size range. About 5 trees per acre < 20” dbh adjacent to the Little Malheur River and about 35 per acre adjacent to Camp Creek will be removed fr within this zone of influence. Salvage of standing dead trees < 20” dbh in RHCAs prescribed ay result in a reduction in two poolin Alternative 2, m R Alternatives 3, 4, and 5: atives 3, 4, and 5 will have no eff ber of pools in the analysis n RHCA pt poo me as under Alternative 1 / Fi A Composition of stream substrate is an important feature of aquatic habitat. Cobble and gravel substrates provide habitat for a diverse a w substantial portion of the diet available to salmoni tween rocks on stream bottoms) wit t for many macroinvertebrates. Fish eggs and ered wh bedded e sediment. Winte t for j onid g cover f are 33 Minimum diameter based on Beechie and Sibley (1997). Number of pools formed based on Cordova (1995). 140 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Embe ta is no lon llected duri gion 6 strea veys. Instea eam substrate data is collected using pebble count procedures. Either estimate the am ne sediment in streams. Adverse impacts to macroinvertebrates and fish can occur where fine sed t exceeds 20% of the surface ar f a streambed or ddedness da ger co ng Re m sur d, str methodology can be used to ount of fi imen ea o embeddedness exceeds 20% (Table A-10). Table A-10. Potential Effects to Aquatic Organisms from Fine Sediment. Percentage of Fine Sediment <6 mm Effects to Aquatic Organisms 0 to 15 None >15 to 20 Potential for Adverse Effects > 20 Adverse Effects Likely Currently, three of the 10 surveyed stream reaches in the analysis area are meeting the Forest ent (Table A-11). Table A-11. Percentage of Fine Sediment34 by Reach. Plan standard for fine sedim Percentage of Fine Sediment by Reach Stream Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4 Little Malheur River 38.5 20.5 15 to 20 50 Camp Creek 35.3 41.5 48.5 55.0 Hunter Creek 7.3 --- --- --- Spring Creek 20.0 --- --- --- Note: Shading indicates that the Forest Plan standard is being met. Italics indicate estimate based on observations by the District fishery biologist and hydrology technician. Following the 2002 fire, intense thunderstorms occurred in the project area on August 23 and 24, 2002. Large quantities of fine sediment and ash were transported to Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River from adjacent hill slopes and Category 4 tributaries. The effects of the 2002 fire combined with the late August thunderstorms on fine sediment levels in the Little Malheur River are evident. Fine sediment levels tripled for Reach 1 from 13.3% in 1999 to 38.5% in 2002 (Table A-12). Based on field observations, fine sediment levels in Reach 4 have probably tripled too because of the fire and thunderstorms. Fine sediment levels will continue to increase because of increases in soil erosion rates due to the 2002 fire. 34 (Particles < 6mm) 141 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Table A-12. Levels of Fine Sediment (particles < 6mm) in the Little Malheur River.35 Particles < 6mm (%) Stream Reach 1999 2002 Comments 1 13.3 38.5 2 21.0 20.5 3 17.5 15 to 20 2002 level based on field observation Little Malheur R. 4 17.0 50 2002 level based on field observation Additional fine sediment was transported into the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek during the spring melt off in late May of 2003 and during intense thunderstorms which occurred during late July of 2003. The majority of roads located in RHCAs in the analysis area are native surface roads (Table A-14). Native surface roads are more likely to contribute fine sediment to streams that can adversely affect aquatic habitat compared to roads with other surface types. Adverse affects are more likely to occur where native surface roads are located adjacent to Category 1 streams. Over 80% of roads located in Category 1 RHCAs in the project area are native surface roads (Table A-13). Table A-13. Miles of Roads in RHCAs by Surface Type in the Analysis Area. Surface Type Miles in Cat 1 RHCAs Miles in Cat 2 RHCAs Miles in Cat 4 RHCAs Crushed Rock 0.0 0.0 0.4 Improved Native 1.5 0.1 0.1 Native Material 7.8 0.7 2.8 Asphalt 0.1 0.0 0.2 Total 9.4 0.8 3.5 Fine sediment levels are likely elevated in the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed portion of the project area due to the number of native surface roads located in RHCAs (Table A-13). Fifteen roads, totaling about 9.5 miles in length, were identified as contributing to elevated levels of fine sediment in Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River (Table A-14). 3535Sites are arranged from downstream to upstream. Data for 1999 from stream survey. Data for 2002 from supplemental stream survey. Levels of fine sediment in italics are estimated. 142 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table A-14. Roads Identified as Contributing to Elevated Levels of Fine Sediment in the Project Area. Subwatershed Road No. Current Status Proposed Status Road Miles Surface Type U.L.M.R. 1600202 Closed Decommission 0.90 Native U.L.M.R. 1600303 Closed Decommission 0.35 Native U.L.M.R. 1672264 Open Decommission 0.32 Native U.L.M.R. 1672478 Open Decommission 0.19 Native U.L.M.R. 1672479 Open Decommission 3.64 Native U.L.M.R. 1672482 Open Decommission 0.38 Native U.L.M.R. 1672483 Open Decommission 0.27 Native U.L.M.R. 1672484 Open Decommission 0.26 Native U.L.M.R. 1672485 Open Decommission 0.27 Native U.L.M.R. 1672486 Open Decommission 0.66 Native U.L.M.R. 1672491 Open Decommission 0.26 Native U.L.M.R. 1672492 Open Decommission 0.50 Native U.L.M.R. 1672493 Open Decommission 0.77 Native U.L.M.R. 1672494 Closed Decommission 0.35 Native U.L.M.R. 1672495 Closed Decommission 0.42 Native Total Miles 9.54 There are about 2.2 miles of old skid trails in the project area that date from timber harvest activities during the late 1960s. These skid trails have been chronic sources of fine sediment due to their location adjacent to or in Category 4 stream channels and have likely contributed to elevated levels of fine sediment in the lower reaches of Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River. The majority of these skid trails are located in the Camp Creek drainage. Direct / Indirect Effects Alternative 1(No Action): The 2002 fire resulted in large increases in fine sediment in Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River in 2003. The Disturbed Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP, Elliott et al., 2000) model predicted that about 107,078 tons of fine sediment from severely burned areas in the upper Little Malheur River subwatershed had the potential to be transported into the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek in 2003. Based on a simple sediment impact model (see Aquatics and Hydrology specialist reports) this amount of sediment has the potential to result in adverse impacts to aquatic habitat due to filling of interstitial spaces in the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek in and downstream of the project area. Adverse impacts could potentially affect about 27.8 miles of the Little Malheur River downstream from Camp Creek. These predicted increases in fine sediment will likely result in decreases in pool depths, filling of interstitial spaces in cobble substrate, and degradation of spawning gravels. This will likely result in loss of habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates, winter habitat for juvenile 143 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS salmonids, and spawning and rearing habitat for sculpins. Increases in fine sediment in spawning gravels will reduce spawning success of salmonids. WEPP and the sediment impact model predict that the amount of erosion from the fire area will rapidly decline in 2004 and return to pre-fire levels in 2005 due to the recovery of ground cover in severely burned areas. Johnson (1998) found that in the Blue Mountains of Oregon, ground cover in severely burned forests and grasslands normally recovers to pre-fire levels in about five years. Assuming similar recovery rates hold for the Monument Fire area, recovery of ground cover will likely return to pre-fire levels and erosion rates will likely return to background levels sometime from around 2005 to 2007. It will likely take at least two additional years for fine sediment levels to return to pre-fire levels in low gradient reaches of the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek as fine sediment is flushed through the system during spring runoff events. Elevated levels of fine sediment in the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek from road and old skid trail sources would continue under Alternative 1 once the increased levels of fine sediment from the 2002 fire has abated. Adverse impacts to aquatic habitat in Spring Creek, in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed, are not likely to occur because of Alternative 1. Impacts from the fire were relatively light with few impacts to RHCAs or stream channels. The 2002 fire did not occur along Category 1 or Category 2 streams in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed. About 22 acres in Category 4 RHCAs burned during the fire of which 10 acres burned moderately and 12 acres burned lightly. Fine sediment transported off of burned areas will likely be trapped in Category 4 RHCAs before reaching Spring Creek, the nearest Category 1 stream. Fine sediment is currently at the 20% threshold level in Spring Creek. However, the majority of this fine sediment appears to be road related and additional fine sediment from the fire area is not likely to reach fish bearing portions of Spring Creek. Alternative 2: Under Alternative 2 proposed salvage-logging activities in the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed would be conducted using helicopter-logging techniques. Trees will be manually felled with chainsaws and yarded to landings by helicopter. Klock (1975) found little soil disturbance in burned areas where helicopters were used for yarding. In his helicopter study area, 88% of the area had no soil disturbance, 11.3% was slightly disturbed, and 0.7% was severely disturbed (Klock, 1975). Erosion occurred on 29.2% of the burned area logged with helicopters of which 3.4% was related to logging activities (Klock 1975). Based upon these findings, soil disturbance resulting from salvage activities using helicopter- logging techniques will not likely result in an increase in erosion rates. Salvage-logging activities in the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed will result in an increase in ground cover from creation of slash. Ground cover reduces the potential for soil erosion to occur. The increase in ground cover is predicted to reduce erosion by 10% from salvage units. Based on our sediment impact model, this would result in about a 14% reduction in adverse impacts to aquatic habitat in the Little Malheur River downstream of Camp Creek in 2004 under Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1. Erosion rates from the fire area are likely to be similar under Alternative 2 and Alternative 1 after 2004 due to the recovery of herbaceous ground cover. Fifteen roads, totaling about 9.5 miles in length, that are contributing to elevated levels of fine sediment in the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek will be decommissioned under 144 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Alternative 2 (Table A-15). Elimination of these sources of fine sediment would reduce fine sediment levels in Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River below the baseline condition. These old skid trails are proposed to be obliterated. About 5 acres of ground disturbance will occur during obliteration of old skid trails. There is a potential for an increase in fine sediment in Camp Creek for up to two to three years from this activity because soil disturbance will occur adjacent to Category 4 stream channels in unstable soils. These potential adverse effects will likely be limited to the lower portions of Camp Creek. Mitigation measures (placement of woody debris, seeding, and straw mulching) will be used to reduce the potential for erosion. Obliteration of old skid trails will result in a long-term reduction of fine sediment in the Camp Creek drainage because natural drainage patterns will be restored. Alternative 2 will result in improved aquatic habitat conditions compared to Alternative 1. Improvement will be evident in about seven years when streams recover from increased erosion rates from the 2002 fire. Overall, Alternative 2 will decrease fine sediment levels in the long-term in Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River below pre-fire levels compared to Alternative 1 due to reduction in fine sediment from native surface roads and old skid trails. Alternative 2 proposes to conduct salvage activities on about 490 acres in the Swamp Creek subwatershed. Units to be salvaged in the Swamp Creek subwatershed (the majority of which drain into Spring Creek) are relatively flat (slopes <30%) and contain ash soils having low potential for erosion. These units will be tractor logged. Salvage activities are not planned for RHCAs in the Swamp Creek subwatershed under Alternative 2. Adverse effects to aquatic habitat and species are not expected to occur due to the low erosion potential on these units and the current condition of RHCAs. Alternatives 3 and 4: Felling and yarding activities in the uplands will be the same as proposed under Alternative 2. Impacts to aquatic habitat from salvage activities outside of RHCAs are unlikely based on Klock’s findings (Klock, 1975). Based on a 10% reduction in erosion in salvage units and our sediment impact model, this would result in about a 10% reduction in adverse impacts to aquatic habitat in the Little Malheur River downstream of Camp Creek in 2004 under Alternatives 3 and 4 compared to Alternative 1. Erosion rates from the fire area are likely to be similar under Alternatives 3 and 4 as Alternative 1 after 2004 due to the recovery of herbaceous ground cover. Road closure and decommissioning activities in the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed are the same as those proposed under Alternative 2. Effects to aquatic habitat and species will be the same as those described under Alternative 2. Old skid trails dating from the late 1960s will be obliterated and restored to natural conditions. Effects to aquatic habitat and species will the same as those described under Alternative 2. Overall, Alternatives 3 and 4 will decrease fine sediment levels in the long-term in Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River below pre-fire levels compared to Alternative 1 due to the reduction in fine sediment from native surface roads and old skid trails. 145 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Alternatives 3 and 4 propose to conduct salvage activities on about 305 and 459 acres respectively in the Swamp Creek subwatershed. No salvage activities are planned for RHCAs in the Swamp Creek subwatershed under Alternatives 3 and 4. Effects to aquatic habitat and species will be the same as those described under Alternative 2. Alternative 5: In the short-term, fine sediment levels in the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed would be similar to those under Alternative 1 because increases in ground cover related to salvage activities would not occur. Road closure and decommissioning activities on roads that are current sources of fine sediment are the same as those proposed under Alternative 2. Effects to aquatic habitat and species will be the same as those described under Alternative 2. Old skid trails dating from the late 1960s will also be obliterated and restored to natural conditions as proposed under Alternative 2. Effects to aquatic habitat and species will the same as those described under Alternative 2. Overall, Alternative 5 will decrease fine sediment levels in the long-term in Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River below pre-fire levels compared to Alternative 1 due to the reduction in fine sediment from native surface roads and old skid trails. Affected Environment and Environmental Effects - Channel Stability Elements Bank Stability Affected Environment The Forest Plan standard for stream bank stability calls for 90% of banks to be stable. No decrease in bank stability is allowed because of management activities if bank stability is greater than 90%. Bank stability plays an important role in determining the stability of some types of stream channels present in the Monument project area (Table A-15). “C” channel types (especially C4 channel types) present in the project area are very sensitive to disturbance due to the importance of bank vegetation in maintaining stable channels. Table A-15. Sensitivity of Channel Type to Disturbance.36 Channel Type Sensitivity to Disturbance Bank Erosion Potential Vegetation Influence on Bank Stability A Very High Very High Negligible B4 Moderate Low Moderate C4 Very High Very High Very High Riparian vegetation needs to consist of deeply rooted species typical of late seral riparian plant communities in order for C4 channel types to remain stable after large disturbance events such as the 2002 Monument Fire. C4 channel types are “C” channel types that possess gravel as the dominant streambed substrate. “B” channel types are inherently more 36 Table is inclusive of bank erosion potential and influence of vegetation for channel types present in the Monument project area (adapted from Rosgen, 1996). 146 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences stable compared to “C” channel types and riparian vegetation plays less of a role in maintaining stable channels (Table A-15). Currently, two of the 10 surveyed stream reaches in the analysis area are meeting the Forest Plan standard for bank stability (Table A-16). Table A-16. Bank Stability for Streams in the Project Area.37 Stream Reach Channel Type Percent Stable Banks 1 C 65 2 C 75 3 C/B 81 Little Malheur River 4 B/A 80 1 C <90 2 C/B <90 3 B ≈90 Camp Creek 4 A ≈90 Hunter Creek 1 C/B <90 Note: Shading indicates that the Forest Plan standard is being met. Direct / Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action): Alternative 1, would allow channel stability elements to recover from effects of the 2002 fire at natural rates. Almost all organic ground cover was consumed and ground cover reduced to about 10% in areas that burned with high and moderate severities (Monument BAER Report). Highly hydrophobic soil was found in about 10 to 15% of the high intensity burned areas and in about 5% of the moderate intensity burn areas. The depth of the hydrophobic layer varied, but most often started about 0.5 inch below the surface, and was 1 to 2 inches thick. At one location, the hydrophobic layer started about 4 inches below the surface and was about 5 inches thick. Both runoff and sedimentation are expected to increase in the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek due to creation of hydrophobic soil conditions (Monument, BAER Report). Peak flows are predicted to increase by 20% in Camp Creek and by 15% in the Little Malheur River (Table A-17). These increases in peak flows will decrease as hydrophobic soil conditions return to pre-fire conditions. This will likely occur over the next three to five years. 37 The Forest Plan standard for bank stability is 90% stable banks. Data for the Little Malheur River from 1999 stream survey. Bank stability estimated for Camp Creek and Hunter Creek based on 2002 field observations. 147 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Table A-17. Pre and Post-Fire Estimated 25-Year Peak Flows for Subwatersheds Most Influenced by the Monument Fire. Flows are Expressed in Cubic Feet Per Second. Stream Estimated Pre- fire Peak Flow (25 yr event) Estimated Increase in Runoff (%) Estimated Post- fire Peak Flow (25 yr event) Camp Creek 237 cfs 20 296 cfs Upper Little Malheur River 716 cfs 15 842 cfs Channel stability would likely decrease in the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek over the next three years due to increases in peak flows and fine sediment resulting from the 2002 fire. In urban watersheds, stream channels become unstable due to increases in discharge when infiltration in the watershed is reduced by 10 percent or greater (Booth & Jackson, 1997). Streams tend to adjust to increases in discharge by widening or down cutting. Stream bank vegetation can buffer stream channels from these. Where late seral species are present, little adjustment of the channel may occur due to high root-holding capacity. However, where bank vegetation is dominated by early seral species, channel adjustments may be dramatic due to lack of root-holding capacity. Bank stability along the lower reaches of Camp Creek is well below 90%. Recovery of herbaceous vegetation along the lower Camp Creek will probably exceed 3 years due to the pre-fire condition of bank vegetation and the severity of the 2002 Monument Fire. Channel adjustments to increases in flow and fine sediment are likely. Such adjustments could potentially result in formation of braided channels in low gradient areas and gullying in higher gradient areas. Areas of braided channels and gullying would provide little if any habitat for fish. Formation of braided channels or gullying are less likely along the lower reaches of the Little Malheur River compared to Camp Creek due to the lower severity burn and better pre-fire condition of bank vegetation. Alternative 2: Direct effects to bank stability can occur during salvage logging activities in RHCAs where trees are felled or yarded over weak and unstable stream banks. To reduce the likelihood of adverse effects to stream banks, trees will be directional felled away from stream channels and yarded to landings using helicopters. Woody debris in stream channels traps fine sediment. In stream channels the size of Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River woody debris accumulations are normally on or adjacent to stream banks. Fine sediment trapped by woody debris accumulations would normally be incorporated into stream banks increasing bank stability and narrowing channels. Salvage of standing dead trees < 20” dbh will reduce the amount of woody debris in the stream channels of Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River. Dead trees in this size range would normally fall down 5 to 10 years following the 2002 fire. This period will likely overlap with movement of the last two years of fire related fine sediment through the system. In the short-term, some reduction in the amount of fine sediment incorporated into stream banks would occur compared to Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would result in a long-term reduction in the amount of woody debris available to trap fine sediment from a future large erosion event such as a wildfire or flood event 148 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences compared to Alternative 1. For example, following the eruption of Mount St. Helens, the presence of large quantities of woody debris lessened the adverse effects of large increases in fine sediment on aquatic habitat compared to streams where woody debris was salvaged after the eruption (Lisle 1995). Streams where salvage occurred took longer to recover from effects of fine sediment compared to streams where salvage did not occur. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5: Channel stability elements will not be affected under these alternatives since standing dead trees < 20” dbh will not be salvaged from RHCAs. Recovery rates for channel stability will be the same as under Alternative 1. Width to Depth Ratio Affected Environment The Forest Plan standard for width to depth ratio is based on wetted width and depth. Bankfull width to depth (W/D) ratio is one of the most sensitive indicators of channel stability (Rosgen, 1996). W/D ratios are correlated to drainage area. Natural events and management activities can result in increases in W/D ratios due to increases in sediment inputs to stream channels. As W/D ratios increase bank erosion rates increase leading to further increases in sediment supply thus perpetuating further increases in W/D ratios. An important distinction between natural events and management activities is that increases in sediment supply resulting from natural events tend to be episodic. Stream channels can adjust to and recover from episodic increases in sediment inputs because the level of inputs eventually returns to pre-event levels. In contrast, increases in sediment supply due to management activities tend to be more chronic in nature especially from activities such as road construction and grazing. Stream channels are less likely to recover to their former condition from chronic inputs of sediment due to the cyclic nature of the relationship between the increases in sediment supply, increases in W/D ratios, and increases in bank erosion. Rapid destabilization of channels occurs once they reach the threshold level for W/D resulting in significant adverse impacts to aquatic habitat and organisms. Malheur River: Bankfull W/D ratios for the four reaches (range 19.4 to 22.2) are within the normal range for their respective channel types. W/D ratios will probably increase in response to increases in sediment because of the 2002 fire leading to an increase in stream bank erosion rates. Camp Creek: W/D ratio data are not available. Based on field observations, Reaches 1 and 2 appear to be in the upper portion of the normal range for W/D for C4 channel types. Reaches 3 and 4 appear to be in the middle portion of the normal range for their respective channel types. Hunter Creek: W/D ratio data are not available. Based on field observations, the lower portion of Hunter Creek appears to be in the upper portion of the normal range for W/D for a “B” channel type. The upper portion of Hunter Creek appears to be in the upper portion of the normal range for a “C” channel type. Spring Creek: The W/D ratio for Spring Creek is 22.3. This is within the normal range (13.5 to 28.7) for its channel type (“C” type channel). 149 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Direct / Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action): W/D ratios are likely to increase because of the 2002 fire. W/D ratios will likely increase due to 1) a reduction in bank stability where bank vegetation was killed during the fire, 2) an increase in erosion rates due to the loss of ground cover in areas that were severely burnt, and 3) increases in stream discharge due to decreases in infiltration in severely burned areas. As bank vegetation, erosion rates, and infiltration rates return to pre-fire levels, W/D ratios will return to pre-fire levels. Alternative 2: W/D ratios in streams in the analysis area are not expected to increase because of activities proposed under Alternative 2. Proposed salvage logging activities in RHCAs adjacent to Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River will not result in direct effects to stream banks because trees will be felled away from stream channels and helicopters will be used to yard logs to landings. Levels of fine sediment will decrease below pre-fire levels in the lower reaches of Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River in the long-term due to decommissioning roads and obliteration of old skid trails in the Camp Creek drainage area. Reducing the amount of fine sediment will reduce shear stress along stream banks and likely result in reducing W/D ratios below pre-fire levels. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 Levels of fine sediment will decrease below pre-fire levels in the lower reaches of Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River in the long-term due to decommissioning roads and obliteration of old skid trails in the Camp Creek drainage area. Reducing the amount of fine sediment will reduce shear stress along stream banks and likely result in reducing W/D ratios below pre-fire levels. Affected Environment and Environmental Effects - Water Quality Elements Shading and Water Temperature Affected Environment - Shading Little Malheur River: On the Little Malheur River, Reaches 1, 2, 3, and 4 burned severely (Figure 25, Map Section). However, shading along Reaches 1 and 2 should recover relatively quickly because shrubs were top killed for the most part and should re-sprout and return to former condition in four to five years. In contrast, Reaches 3 and 4 burned much like the lower reaches of Camp Creek and will take much longer to recover. Current shading along lower reaches of the Little Malheur River is about 40% of pre-fire conditions. Current shading along upper reaches is about 3% and consists primarily of boles of standing dead trees. Camp Creek: The 2002 fire greatly reduced shading along the majority of stream reaches in the fire perimeter. On Camp Creek, the RHCA adjacent to Reach 1 and about two thirds of the RHCA adjacent to Reach 2 burned severely during the fire (Figure 25, Map Section). Based on visual observations, it is estimated that current shading along the lower reaches of Camp Creek are about 3% of pre-fire conditions and consists primarily of boles of standing dead trees. 150 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Affected Environment – Water Temperature Water temperature influences the metabolism, behavior, and mortality of fish and other aquatic organisms. Although fish may survive at temperatures near extremes of their suitable temperature range, growth rates are greatly reduced. At low temperatures, growth is reduced because all metabolic processes are slowed. At the opposite extreme, growth is reduced at high temperatures because most if not all energy from food must be used for maintenance needs. Other sub-lethal effects of high water temperatures on salmonids (trout, whitefish, char, and salmon) are: increased incidence of disease, inability to spawn, reduced survival of eggs, reduced growth and survival rates for juveniles, and reduced ability to compete with other fish species that are adapted to warmer temperatures. Current Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) standards for water temperature are: seven day moving average of the daily maximum shall not exceed: 64° F (17.8° C) or 50° F (10° C) in waters that support bull trout. Little Malheur River: The Little Malheur River, from the mouth to headwaters, is currently on the Oregon DEQ 303(d) list for exceeding the 64° F standard (Table A-18). Table A-18. 303(d) Listed Streams in the Project Area. Stream Reach Parameter Season Little Malheur River Mouth to headwaters Temperature (>64°F) Summer Before the 2002 fire, data shows the Little Malheur River exceeded the current ODEQ standard for salmon/trout by an average of about 10° F at the Forest Boundary and by about 9° F at the Wilderness boundary (Table A-19). In 2003, the 7 day mean maximum temperature was 79°F at the Forest boundary, about 5°F higher than the average before the 2002 fire. Table A-19. Comparison of Pre- and Post Fire 7-Day-Mean-Maximum Water Temperatures in Streams in the Project Area. Stream Location Mean 7 Day Mean Max Temp Prior to 2002 Fire 7 Day Mean Max Temp in 2003 100 yds above Forest Boundary 73.8°F1 79.0°F Little Malheur R 400 yds above Wilderness Boundary 72.5°F2 No Data Near confluence w/ Little Malheur River No Data 80.4°F Camp Creek Near FSR 479 No Data 65.0°F Spring Creek Near confluence with N.F. Malheur River 60.7°F2 Note: ODEQ standard is currently 64°F for all streams. Data periods: 1) 1993- 2001, 2) 2000 – 2001 151 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS The Little Malheur River was described as being “clear and cold” upstream of Hunter Creek in the late 1960’s (USFS 1967). Rock Creek and South Bullrun Creek are potentially important contributors of cold water to the Little Malheur River above Hunter Creek. Camp Creek: Water temperatures were not monitored in Camp Creek before the 2002 fire. In 2003, water temperature at the lower monitoring site exceeded the ODEQ standard (Table A-18). Water temperature at the middle-monitoring site was slightly above the ODEQ standard. A comparison of water temperatures at this site and the pre-fire water temperature at the monitoring site on the Little Malheur River in the wilderness indicates the potential of Camp Creek as an important contributor of cold water to the Little Malheur River. Hunter Creek: Water temperatures have not been monitored in Hunter Creek. Hunter Creek, in its present condition, has little potential to contribute cold water to the Little Malheur River. Hunter Creek is perennial for about 0.7 miles downstream from Hunter Spring and is then intermittent to the confluence with the Little Malheur River; about 1.2 miles. The 1934 Forest map shows Hunter Creek was perennial from Hunter Spring to the Little Malheur River. Spring Creek: ODFW monitored water temperature in Spring Creek in 2000 and 2001. Spring Creek is currently meeting ODEQ water standard for summer water temperatures (Table A-19). Spring Creek also meets EPA’s latest recommendation for juvenile salmon/trout rearing in core habitat (< 61°F). Direct / Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action): Alternative 1 would allow water quality elements to recover from effects of the 2002 fire at natural rates. Currently, the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek are exceeding ODEQ standards for water temperature. Stream temperatures are expected to rise before of the Monument Fire. In 2003, water temperature in the Little Malheur River was about 5°F warmer at the Forest boundary compared to the pre-fire period (Table A-20). The loss of shading along Category 1 and Category 2 streams will affect stream temperatures because flow is present in these stream types during the hottest months of the year. About 70% of the area of Category 1 RHCAs and about 55% of the area of Category 2 RHCAs burned severely during the fire (Table A-20). Table A-20. Acres Burned by RHCA Category in the Monument Fire Area. Acres Burned by RHCA Category Fire Severity Category 1 Category 2 Category 4 Light 27 25 78 Moderate 328 136 179 Partial 2 0 13 Severe 839 199 358 Total 1196 360 628 152 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences The largest increases in water temperature in the analysis area will likely occur in Camp Creek. The majority of shade along the lower reaches of Camp Creek was lost during the fire. Current shading is estimated to be about 3% of pre-fire levels. Boles of standing dead trees adjacent to lower Camp Creek are currently the only source of shade. In comparison to Camp Creek, shade along the lower reaches of the Little Malheur River was affected less by the 2002 fire. Current shading along the Little Malheur River in the project area is estimated to be about 40% of pre-fire levels. While trees in the over story were killed during the fire, many shrubs adjacent to the channel appeared to be only top-killed. Alders showed rapid sprouting following the fire and should recover to pre-fire conditions in 5 to 10 years, depending on the amount of browsing that occurs. Water temperatures in the analysis area will remain elevated above pre-fire levels and will gradually decline to pre-fire levels as shrubs become reestablished and shading is restored. Significant shading by shrubs such as alders will likely occur in 5 to 10 years and by cottonwood in 10 to 15 years. Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpo) can grow 30 to 50 ft tall in 7 to 10 years (Crowe & Clausnitzer, 1997). Mountain alder (Alnus incana) can grow to 9 feet tall in 5 years. Significant shading by conifers will likely begin in 80 years. Additional reductions in water temperature will occur as W/D ratios decrease. Stream channels will narrow as fine sediment is trapped behind woody debris and incorporated into stream banks. Narrowing of channels will reduce surface area and amount of energy absorbed, reducing the rate of stream heating. Alternative 2: Salvage of standing dead trees < 20” dbh will likely reduce shading along lower Camp Creek by 1% compared to Alternative 1. There is a very low likelihood of a measurable increase in water temperatures above post-fire levels by reducing shade from 3% of pre-fire conditions to 2% of pre-fire conditions. Removal of standing dead trees < 20” dbh will likely reduce shading along lower reaches of the Little Malheur River by 1% compared to Alternative 1. There is a very low likelihood of a measurable increase in water temperatures above post-fire levels by reducing shade from 40% of pre-fire conditions to 39% of pre-fire conditions. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 There are no activities proposed under these alternatives that will affect shading or water temperatures. Recovery of shade and water temperatures will be equivalent to Alternative 1. Water Quantity Affected Environment Water Yield: Water yield from forested areas tends to increase as the amount of non-forested area increases. Non-forested areas can result from both natural events such as fires or windstorms, or from management activities such as timber harvest or road construction. Typically, increases in water yields will decline to background levels after about 30 years. At this point, water use by young stands tends to equal pre-disturbance levels. Generally, about 20 to 30% of a subwatershed needs to be in stands less than 30 years old before there is measurable increase in water yield (Troendle & Leaf, 1980). 153 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS The Monument Fire burned in two subwatersheds where regeneration harvest activities have taken place over the last 30 years. Several other large fires have also occurred in these subwatersheds during this period. Harvest activities and burns rarely overlap due to the remoteness of fires in these subwatersheds. The 2002 Monument fire burned in several of the regeneration cuts and acreages have been adjusted accordingly. To determine the area of hydrologic openings in formerly forested stands due to harvest activities, harvest prescriptions were used to determine hydrologic openings. In general, units that were partially cut or commercially or pre-commercially thinned were not considered hydrologic openings. In burned areas, where tree mortality was rated as moderate to high, areas were considered hydrologic openings. Tree mortality rating was based on fire severity rating and field verifications. Before the 2002 fire, hydrologic openings accounted for about 25% of the area of the Swamp Creek subwatershed, Upper North Fork Malheur River watershed (Table A-21). The area in hydrologic openings increased to about 28% of the subwatershed following the 2002 fire (Table A-21). Based on the ages of clearcuts in the subwatershed, the percentage of the subwatershed in hydrologic openings likely will drop below the 20 to 30% threshold by about 2020. Table A-21. Changes in Acres of Hydrologic Openings Following the 2002 Monument Fire.38 Subwatershed Name Total Acres in Subwatershed Acreage of Hydrologic Openings Prior to the 2002 Monument Fire (Percentage of SWS) Acreage of Hydrologic Openings After the 2002 Monument Fire (Percentage of SWS) Swamp Creek 25,600 6,418 (25) 7,230 (28) Upper Little Malheur River 31,474 3,615 (11) 19,269 (61) Before the 2002 fire, hydrologic openings accounted for about 11% of the area of the Upper Little Malheur subwatershed, Little Malheur River watershed (Table A-21). The area in hydrologic openings increased to about 61% of the subwatershed following the 2002 fire (Table A-22). With no further increase in non-forested areas, the subwatershed will likely drop below the 20 to 30% threshold by about 2033. Peak Flows: Runoff is expected to increase in the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek due to creation of hydrophobic soil conditions during the 2002 fire (Monument BAER Report). Peak flows are predicted to increase by 20% in Camp Creek and by 15% in the Little Malheur River (Table A-22). These increases in peak flows are likely to decline to near pre- fire levels in the next year or so as hydrophobic soil conditions decline. However, peak flows are not likely to return to pre-fire levels until the percentage of the subwatershed in hydrologic openings drops below the 20 to 30% threshold until about 2033. 38 The Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed includes only the Forest Service portion. 154 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table A-22. Pre and Post-Fire Estimated 25-Year Peak Flows for Subwatersheds Most Influenced by the Monument Fire. Stream Estimated Pre- fire Peak Flow (25 yr event) Estimated Increase in Runoff (%) Estimated Post- fire Peak Flow (25 yr event) Camp Creek 237 cfs 20 296 cfs Upper Little Malheur River 716 cfs 15 842 cfs Note: Flows are expressed in cubic feet per second. Base Flows: Additional modifications to the hydrograph of the Little Malheur River below the Forest boundary have resulted from irrigation withdrawals and degradation of Squaw Creek. Gullying has occurred along Squaw Creek and its tributaries in response to past improper grazing management practices on the Forest and private lands, and in response to land management practices on private lands following the 1994 Ironside Fire. Low flows in the Little Malheur River downstream of Squaw Creek are likely to be below natural levels because of these factors. Direct / Indirect Effects Alternatives 1(No Action) and 5: Alternative 1 would allow water quantity elements to recover from the effects of the 2002 fire at natural rates. Effects to channel stability elements due to increases in peak flows are likely to occur (see Affected Environment and Environmental Effects - Channel Stability Elements). Alternatives 2, 3, and 4: Salvage activities proposed under these alternatives will not result in an increase in the amount of non-forested area in the project area because the material to be removed is already dead. Green tree thinning is also unlikely to result in an increase in the amount of non- forested area because stands will be thinned to a fully stocked condition. Changes in infiltration rates in the burned area in the upper Little Malheur subwatershed are also unlikely under these alternatives because this area will be logged with helicopters. Klock (1975) found little soil disturbance in burned areas where helicopters were used for yarding. In his helicopter study area, 88% of the area had no soil disturbance, 11.3% was slightly disturbed, and 0.7% was severely disturbed (Klock 1975). Cumulative Effects to Physical Elements, Channel Stability Elements, and Water Quality Elements Large Woody Debris and Replacement Large Woody Debris Alternative 1: Alternative 1 will not result in direct or indirect adverse effects to LWD or replacement LWD. Therefore, there will not be cumulative effects with past management, ongoing, or future foreseeable activities listed in Appendix C. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5: Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would not result in cumulative effects to LWD or replacement LWD with activities listed in Appendix C except where discussed below: 155 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS • Alternative 2: In 1977, timber was harvested along the Little Malheur River as part of the Bug Butte Sale. The sale area was primarily located along the Little Malheur River from the FSR 16 to the confluence with Hunter Creek. This sale likely resulted in reduced levels of LWD in Reaches 1 and 2 of the Little Malheur River due to the salvage of trees from along the river. Salvage of standing dead trees <20” dbh as proposed under Alternative 2 will not result in a cumulative reduction in LWD below Forest Plan standards along the lower reaches of the Little Malheur River because standing dead trees large enough to serve as replacement LWD will not be salvaged. Pool Frequency Alternative 1: Alternative 1 will not result in direct or indirect adverse effects to pool habitat. Therefore, there will not be cumulative effects with past management, ongoing, or future foreseeable activities listed in Appendix C. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5: Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would not result in cumulative decreases in pool habitat with activities listed in Appendix C except where discussed below: • Alternative 2: Past timber-harvest activities adjacent to the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek may have resulted in a reduction in pool habitat due to salvage of trees in riparian areas. Reduction of the number of pools in the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek due salvaging of dead trees < 20” dbh will be cumulative with reductions from past harvest activities. Embeddedness / Fine Sediment Alternative 1: Alternative 1 will not result in direct or indirect adverse effects to aquatic habitat due to increasing fine sediment levels above current existing levels. Therefore, there will not be cumulative effects with past management, ongoing, or future foreseeable activities listed in Appendix C. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5: Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would not result in cumulative increases in embeddness or fine sediment with activities listed in Appendix C except where discussed below: Chapter 2 Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5: Two timber sales occurred in the Canteen Creek and Camp Creek area in 1967 and 1968. During these two sales, the current road system in the area was constructed. The logging systems for both sales were primarily ground based, using tractors to yard trees to landings. Skid trails were constructed up most Category 4 stream channels in the sale areas (see skid trail restoration discussion). The road system and skid trails have likely led to an increase in fine sediment levels in Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River. Obliterating old skid trails under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would eliminate continuing fine sediment impacts from timber harvest activities that occurred in the 1960’s. The result would be a reduction in fine sediment levels from the baseline condition. Roads Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5: These alternatives will reduce fine sediment levels in the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek by decommissioning 15 roads in the subwatershed that have been identifies as 156 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences contributing to elevated levels of fine sediment in The Little Malheur River and Camp Creek (Table A-15). Decommissioning these roads would reduce fine sediment levels in Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River below the baseline condition. Livestock Grazing Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5: Cumulative effects with the resumption of livestock grazing are unlikely if grazing occurs after hardwoods have reached a height above browse level, bank stability has reached 90%, and bank vegetation has recovered to mid to late seral conditions. Resuming grazing before the above conditions are met may result in cumulative effects. Banks are likely to be damaged thus resulting in increased W/D ratios, increases in fine sediment, and increases in water temperature. Recovery of stream channels will be delayed and full recovery may not occur. Increases in fine sediment resulting from too early resumption of grazing activities would likely be cumulative with short-term increases resulting from decommissioning FSR 1672479 adjacent to Camp Creek and obliteration of old skid trails. Bank Stability Alternative 1: Alternative 1 will not have direct or indirect adverse effects to bank stability. Therefore, there will not be cumulative effects with past management, ongoing, or future foreseeable activities listed in Appendix C. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5: Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 will not result in direct or indirect adverse effects to bank stability. Therefore, there will be no cumulative effects with past management, ongoing, or future foreseeable activities listed in Appendix C. Width to Depth Ratio Alternative 1: Alternative 1 will not have direct or indirect adverse effects to width to depth ratios. Therefore, there will be no cumulative effects with past management, ongoing, or future foreseeable activities listed in Appendix C. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5: Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 will not result in direct or indirect adverse effects to water quantity. Therefore, there will be no cumulative effects with past management, ongoing, future foreseeable activities listed in Appendix C. Shading and Water Temperature Alternative 1: Alternative 1 will not have direct or indirect adverse effects to shading and stream temperatures. Therefore, there will not be cumulative effects with past management, ongoing, or future foreseeable activities listed in Appendix C. Alternative 2: Alternative 2 will result in a slight decrease in shading due to salvaging standing dead trees <20” dbh. However, the decrease in shading will is unlikely to result in a measurable increase in water temperatures. Therefore, there will be no cumulative effects with past management, ongoing, future foreseeable activities listed in Appendix C. 157 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Alternatives 3, 4, and 5: Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 will not result in direct or indirect adverse effects to shading and stream temperatures. Therefore, there will not be cumulative effects with past management, ongoing, or future foreseeable activities listed in Appendix C. Water Quantity Alternative 1: Alternative 1 will not result in adverse direct or indirect effects to water quantity. Therefore, there will not be cumulative effects with past management, ongoing, or future foreseeable activities listed in Appendix C. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5: Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 will not result in direct or indirect adverse effects to water quantity. Therefore, there will not be cumulative effects with past management, ongoing, or future foreseeable activities listed in Appendix C. Affected Environment and Environmental Effects - Aquatic Species Introduction Management Indicator Species (MIS) are species of vertebrates and invertebrates whose population changes are believed to best indicate effects of land management activities. Through the MIS concept, the total number of species found within a project area is reduced to a subset of species that collectively represent habitats, species and associated management concerns. The MIS are used to assess the maintenance of populations (the ability of a population to sustain itself naturally) and biological diversity (which includes genetic diversity, species diversity, and habitat diversity), and to assess effects on species in public demand. The Malheur Forest Plan directs analyses to focus on MIS. Aquatic MIS in the analysis area for the Monument Fire Recovery project are: redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri), and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) (Table A-23). An endangered species is an animal or plant species listed under the Endangered Species Act that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is an animal or plant species listed under the Endangered Species Act likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A sensitive species is an animal or plant species identified by the Regional Forester for which species viability is a concern either a) because of current or predicted downward trend in population numbers or density, or b) because of current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution. Aquatic threatened, endangered, and sensitive species in the analysis area for the Monument Fire Recovery project are: bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) - threatened; redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri) - sensitive; Malheur mottled sculpin (Cottus bendirei) - sensitive; and Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) – sensitive (Table A-23). Proposed critical habitat for bull trout is also present in the analysis area (Table A-23). Effects to aquatic threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; and proposed critical habitat are analyzed in the Monument Fire Recovery Project Biological Evaluation for aquatic species (Appendix C) and a summary of that analysis is included in this EIS. 158 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table A-23. Aquatic Species with Special Management Status Present or Suspected in the Project Area. Aquatic Species Management tatus Stream Distribution Habitat Little Malheur R. P P Camp Creek P P Hunter Creek P P Redband trout Oncorhynchus mykiss MIS, R6S Spring Creek NP NP Little Malheur R. NP-H PCH Camp Creek NP NP Hunter Creek NP NP Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus MIS, ESA-T Spring Creek NP NP Little Malheur R. S P Camp Creek S P Hunter Creek NP NP Malheur mottled sculpin Cottus bendirei R6S Spring Creek NP NP Little Malheur R. S P Camp Creek S P Hunter Creek S P Columbia spotted frog Rana luteiventris R6S Spring Creek S P *Management Status: MIS = Forest Plan management indicator species, R6S = Region 6 sensitive species, ESA-T = Threatened. Distribution: P=present, NP=not present, H=historical occurrence, S=suspected. Habitat: P=present, NP=not present, PCH=proposed critical habitat. Redband Trout (Management Indicator Species, Region 6 Sensitive Species) Summary of Effects and Determination Alternative 1 (No Action): Adverse effects to aquatic species are likely to occur in the Little Malheur and Camp Creek drainages of the Little Malheur River watershed because of current and foreseeable conditions. Fine sediment levels are above threshold for effects to redband trout and will likely reduce spawning success and survival. Fine sediment levels are high enough to fill interstitial spaces thus eliminating winter habitat for juvenile redband trout. Filling of interstitial spaces with fine sediment will also eliminate habitat for many macroinvertebrates thus reducing food supplies for fish. Pool habitat will also decline in the short-term due to filling of pools by fine sediment reducing habitat for adult redband trout. High levels of fine sediment will also impact spawning habitat and spawning success will be lowered. Fine sediment levels are likely to start declining in three to five years when groundcover recovers to pre-fire conditions. As this occurs, habitat for the redband trout population will begin to recover to pre-fire levels. Redband populations in the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek will likely rebound from adverse effects from the 2002 fire relatively quickly due to their mobility and lack of migration barriers. Alternative 1 will result in elevated fine sediment levels compared to natural levels because old skid trails will not be obliterated and FSR 1672479 will not be decommissioned. The old 159 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS skid trails and FSR 1672479 are chronic sources of fine sediment that have contributed to elevated levels of fine sediment in Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River. • Determination: Alternative 1 may impact individual redband trout or their habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH). Alternative 1 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements in the Spring Creek drainage of the Upper North Fork Malheur River watershed. Therefore, affects to redband trout in the North Fork watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 1 will not impact individual redband trout or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed (NI). Alternative 2: Removing standing dead trees < 20” dbh from RHCAs will result in a reduction in the amount of woody debris levels in the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek in the Little Malheur River watershed. An estimated 2 pools in the Little Malheur River will reduce pool habitat and 18 pools in Camp Creek compared to Alternative 1. This would result in a reduction of 0.7 pools per mile in the Little Malheur River and 5.6 pools per mile in Camp Creek. However, since Forest Plan standard for LWD will be met for the next 100 years in both the Little Malheur River (Figure 21, Map Section) and Camp Creek (Figure 21, Map Section) it is likely that the Forest Plan standard for pools will also be met. Salvaging standing dead trees < 20” dbh from RHCAs will also reduce cover and habitat complexity compared to Alternative 1. Reducing the amount of woody debris would also reduce the amount of woody debris available to buffer increases in fine sediment from future large erosion events. Predicted erosion rates will be decreased by an estimated 10% as a result of increases in ground cover resulting from salvage activities compared to Alternative 1. This will result in a reduction of adverse impacts in 2004 to 0.7 miles of aquatic habitat in the Little Malheur River downstream from the confluence of Camp Creek based on our sediment impact model compared to Alternative 1. Long-term reductions in fine sediment in the lower portion of the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek are likely to result from obliterating old skid trails and decommissioning FSR 1672479 compared to Alternative 1. The old skid trails and FSR 1672479 are chronic sources of fine sediment and have likely resulted in elevation of fine sediment levels above background levels. However, there is potential for increases in fine sediment for 2 to 3 years following obliteration of the old skid trails because soil disturbance on about 5 acres will occur adjacent to Category 4 stream channels in unstable soils. Alternative 2 will result in reducing existing shade levels along Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River by about 1% compared to Alternative 1 due to the removal of standing dead trees < 20” dbh. It is unlikely that recovery of water temperatures to pre-fire levels will differ between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. • Determination: Alternative 2 may impact individual redband trout or their habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH/BI). 160 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Alternative 2 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements in the Spring Creek drainage of the Upper North Fork Malheur River watershed. Therefore affects to redband trout in the North Fork watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 2 will have no impact to individual redband trout or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed (NI). Alternative 3: Predicted erosion rates will be decreased by an estimated 10% as a result of increases in ground cover resulting from salvage activities compared to Alternative 1. This will result in a reduction of adverse impacts in 2004 to 0.5 miles of aquatic habitat compared to Alternative 1 in the Little Malheur River downstream from the confluence of Camp Creek based on our sediment impact model. Long-term reductions in fine sediment in the lower portion of the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek are likely to result from obliterating old skid trails and decommissioning FSR 1672479 compared to Alternative 1. Old skid trails and FSR 1672479 have been chronic sources of fine sediment and have likely resulted in elevation of fine sediments levels above background levels. However, there is potential for increases in fine sediment for 2 to 3 years because soil disturbance on about 5 acres will occur adjacent to Category 4 stream channels in unstable soils. Pools and habitat complexity under Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 1 because removal of standing dead trees < 20” dbh in RHCAs would not occur. Alternative 3 will not adversely impact channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements. • Determination: Alternative 3 may impact redband trout in the short-term. Alternative 3 will have a beneficial impact on redband trout and their habitat in the long-term in the Little Malheur River Watershed (MIIH/BI). Alternative 3 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements in the Spring Creek drainage of the Upper North Fork Malheur River watershed. Therefore affects to redband trout in the North Fork watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 3 will have no impact to individual redband trout or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed (NI). Alternative 4: Predicted erosion rates will be decreased by an estimated 10% as a result of increases in ground cover ensuing from salvage activities compared to Alternative 1. This will result in a reduction of adverse impacts in 2004 to 0.5 miles of aquatic habitat in the Little Malheur River downstream from the confluence of Camp Creek based on our sediment impact model compared to Alternative 1. Long-term reductions in fine sediment in the lower portion of the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek are likely to result from obliterating old skid trails and decommissioning FSR 1672479 compared to Alternative 1. Old skid trails and FSR 1672479 have been chronic sources of fine sediment and have likely resulted in elevation of fine sediment levels above background levels. However, there is potential for increases in fine sediment for 2 to 3 years because soil disturbance on about 5 acres will occur adjacent to Category 4 stream channels in unstable soils. Pools and habitat complexity under Alternative 4 would be similar to Alternative 1 because removal of standing dead trees < 20” dbh in RHCAs would not occur. Alternative 4 will not adversely impact channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements. 161 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS • Determination: Alternative 4 may impact redband trout in the short-term. Alternative 4 will have a beneficial impact on redband trout and their habitat in the long-term in the Little Malheur River Watershed (MIIH/BI). Alternative 4 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements in the Spring Creek drainage of the Upper North Fork Malheur River watershed. Therefore effects to redband trout in the North Fork watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 4 will not impact individual redband trout or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed (NI). Alternative 5: Long-term reductions in fine sediment in the lower portion of the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek are likely to result from obliterating old skid trails and decommissioning FSR 1672479 compared to Alternative 1. Old skid trails and FSR 1672479 have been chronic sources of fine sediment and have likely resulted in elevation of fine sediments levels above background levels. However, there is potential for increases in fine sediment for 2 to 3 years because soil disturbance on about 5 acres will occur adjacent to Category 4 stream channels in unstable soils. • Determination: Alternative 5 may impact redband trout in the short-term. Alternative 5 will have a beneficial impact on redband trout and their habitat in the long-term in the Little Malheur River Watershed (MIIH/BI). Alternative 5 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements in the Spring Creek drainage of the Upper North Fork Malheur River watershed. Therefore, affects to redband trout in the North Fork watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 5 will have no impact to individual redband trout or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed (NI). Malheur Mottled Sculpin (Region 6 Sensitive Species) Summary of Effects and Determination Alternative 1: Of the two fish species with special management status currently present in the analysis area in the Little Malheur River watershed, Malheur mottled sculpin will probably be most impacted by current post-fire conditions due to large increases in fine sediment resulting from the 2002 fire. Cobble substrate serves as spawning habitat, and rearing habitat for juvenile and adult sculpins. Habitat for sculpin will be eliminated where interstitial spaces between cobble substrate are filled. Based on our sediment impact model, adverse effects to mottled sculpins are likely due to the amount of fine sediment that will be present in Camp Creek, and the Little Malheur River. In 2003, interstitial spaces between cobble substrate are likely be filled by fine sediment in Camp Creek and the Little Malheur above Camp Creek. Interstitial spaces between cobble substrate may be filled by fine sediment for up to 27.8 miles in the Little Malheur River below Camp Creek. Effects from fine sediment will begin to decline in 2004. Enough fine sediment could be eroded from the burned area to fill interstitial spaces between cobble substrate in Camp Creek and the Little Malheur above Camp Creek. Mottled sculpin habitat in the Little Malheur River below Camp Creek may be impacted for up to 5.2 miles. Erosion rates will likely return to pre-fire levels sometime in 2005 through 2007. It will likely take an 162 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences additional two years (from 2007 to 2009) for fine sediment levels in the Little Malheur River to return to pre-fire levels. While mottled sculpins are relatively long lived (sculpin live about 5 years), the timeframe for impacts to mottled sculpin habitat in Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River above Camp Creek are potentially longer than 1 generation. Therefore, there is potential for the sculpin population to experience a major decline in these areas due to lack of successful reproduction, and lack of habitat for juveniles and adults. Failure or delaying for another environmental analysis, the decommissioning of FSR 1672479 will impact aquatic habitat due to elevated levels of fine sediment in Camp Creek. This road has essentially been abandoned and is contributing fine sediment to Camp Creek in its present condition. By not obliterating old skid trails in the Camp Creek drainage, an opportunity to reduce chronic inputs of fine sediment into Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River will be missed. These old skid trails show evidence of continual erosion since their construction and use in the late 1960s. These skid trails are located adjacent to and in some places within Category 4 stream channels. Failure to obliterate these skid trails will lengthen the recovery process of Camp Creek and to a lesser extent the Little Malheur River due to elevated levels of fine sediment. • Determination: Alternative 1 may impact individual Malheur mottled sculpin or their habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed due to elevated levels of fine sediment resulting from the 2002 fire. However, impacts would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species at the watershed scale (MIIH). Alternative 1 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements. Therefore, affects to Malheur mottled sculpin in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 1 will have no impact to individual Malheur mottled sculpin or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed (NI). Alternative 2: Compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 will reduce impacts to sculpin from increases in fine sediment resulting from the 2002 fire. Based on our sediment impact model, in 2004 an estimated 4.5 miles of the Little Malheur River below Camp Creek will be adversely impacted under Alternative 2 from erosion from the fire area compared to 5.2 miles under Alternative 1. Impacts to sculpin habitat from fire related sediment would be the same as Alternative 1 after 2004 due to recovery of herbaceous ground cover. Alternative 2 will result in fine sediment levels lower than Alternative 1 once effects from the 2002 fire have subsided because old skid trails will be restored and FSR 1672479 will be decommissioned. The old skid trails and FSR 1672479 are chronic sources of fine sediment and have likely resulted in elevation of fine sediment levels above background levels. Reductions in woody debris, pool habitat, cover, and habitat complexity due to the proposal to salvage dead trees < 20” dbh in RHCAs, will have less of an effect to sculpin than redband trout. These features of aquatic habitat are relatively less important to sculpin compared to the availability of cobble substrate with low levels of embeddness. 163 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS • Determination: Alternative 2 may impact individual Malheur mottled sculpin or their habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species in the short-term. Alternative 2 will have a beneficial impact on Malheur Mottled sculpin and their habitat in the long-term (MIIH/BI). Alternative 2 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements. Therefore, affects to Malheur Mottled sculpin in the North Fork watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 2 will have no impact to individual Malheur Mottled sculpin or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed (NI). Alternative 3: Compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 3 will reduce impacts to sculpin from increases in fine sediment resulting from the 2002 fire. Based on our sediment impact model, in 2004 an estimated 4.7 miles of the Little Malheur River will be adversely impacted under Alternative 3 from erosion from the fire area compared to 5.2 miles under Alternative 1. Impacts to sculpin habitat from fire related sediment would be the same as Alternative 1 after 2004 due to recovery of herbaceous ground cover. Alternative 3 will result in fine sediment levels lower than Alternative 1 once effects from the 2002 fire have subsided. Lower levels of sediment will ensue because old skid trails will be restored and FSR 1672479 will be decommissioned. Old skid trails and FSR 1672479 are chronic sources of fine sediment and have likely resulted in elevation of fine sediments levels above background levels. Alternative 3 will result in similar levels of woody debris, pool habitat, cover, and habitat complexity as Alternative 1 because dead trees < 20” dbh would not be salvaged from RHCAs. • Determination: Alternative 3 may impact individual Malheur mottled sculpin, or their habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed. Alternative 3 will have a beneficial impact on Malheur Mottled sculpin and their habitat in the long-term (MIIH/BI). Alternative 3 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements. Therefore, affects to Malheur mottled sculpin in the North Fork watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 3 will not impact individual Malheur mottled sculpin or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed (NI). Alternative 4: Compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 4 will reduce impacts to sculpin from increases in fine sediment resulting from the 2002 fire. Based on our sediment impact model, in 2004 an estimated 4.7 miles of the Little Malheur River will be adversely impacted under Alternative 4 from erosion resulting from the fire area compared to 5.2 miles under Alternative 1. Impacts to sculpin habitat from fire related sediment would be the same as Alternative 1 after 2004 due to recovery of herbaceous ground cover. Alternative 4 will result in fine sediment levels lower than Alternative 1 once effects from the 2002 fire have subsided because old skid trails will be restored and FSR 1672479 will be decommissioned. Old skid trails and FSR 1672479 are chronic sources of fine sediment and have likely resulted in elevation of fine sediments levels above background levels. 164 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Alternative 4 will result in the similar levels of woody debris, pool habitat, cover, and habitat complexity as Alternative 1 because dead trees < 20” dbh would not be salvaged from RHCAs. • Determination: Alternative 4 may impact individual Malheur mottled sculpin or their habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed. Alternative 4 will have a beneficial impact on Malheur Mottled sculpin and their habitat in the long-term (MIIH/BI). Alternative 4 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements. Therefore, affects to Malheur mottled sculpin in the North Fork watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 4 will have no impact to individual Malheur mottled sculpin or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed (NI). Alternative 5: Alternative 5 will result in fine sediment levels lower than Alternative 1 once effects from the 2002 fire have subsided. Old skid trails and FSR 1672479 have been chronic sources of fine sediment and have likely resulted in elevation of fine sediment levels above background levels. Long-term reductions in fine sediment in the lower portion of the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek are likely to result from obliterating old skid trails and decommissioning FSR 1672479 compared to Alternative 1. However, there is potential for increases in fine sediment for 2 to 3 years because soil disturbance on about 5 acres will occur adjacent to Category 4 stream channels in unstable soils. Alternative 5 will result in the similar levels of woody debris, pool habitat, cover, and habitat complexity as Alternative 1 because dead trees < 20” dbh would not be salvaged from RHCAs. • Determination: Alternative 5 may impact individual Malheur mottled sculpin or their habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed. Alternative 5 will have a beneficial impact on Malheur Mottled sculpin and their habitat in the long-term (MIIH/BI). Alternative 5 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements. Therefore, affects to redband trout in the North Fork watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 5 will have no impact to individual Malheur mottled sculpin or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed (NI). Bull Trout (Management Indicator Species, Threatened Species) Summary of Effects and Determination Alternative 1 (No Action): Bull trout are not currently present in the upper Little Malheur River watershed. Migratory habitat for fluvial bull trout is present in the lower portion of the Little Malheur River and bull trout have been documented in the lower mile of the Little Malheur River. Alternative 1 will result in elevated fine sediment levels above natural levels because old skid trails will not be obliterated and FSR 1672479 will not be decommissioned. The old skid trails and FSR 1672479 are chronic sources of fine sediment. However, pre-fire levels of fine sediment were generally below the 20% threshold level and would not likely preclude reestablishment of a reproducing bull trout population in the upper Little Malheur River. Fine sediment from these sources would also not likely affect habitat for migrating bull trout in the lower Little Malheur River due to the distances involved. 165 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS • Determination: Alternative 1 will have no effect on bull trout or their current habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed (NE). Alternative 1 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements. Therefore affects to bull trout in the upper North Fork watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 1 will have no effect on bull trout or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed (NE). Alternative 2: Bull trout are not currently present in the upper Little Malheur River watershed. Reestablishment of a resident population of bull trout depends on lowering of water temperatures by about 20°F below pre-fire levels. Water temperatures in the project area are likely to begin declining in about 10 to 15 years when recovery of hardwoods from effects of the 2002 fire is likely to occur. Activities proposed under Alternative 2 will result in a slight reduction in existing shading due to the removal of standing dead trees, but will not impact recovery of shading provided by future streamside vegetation. Therefore, Alternative 2 will not preclude the reestablishment of bull trout. There will likely be two fewer pools in the lower reaches of the Little Malheur River compared to Alternative 1 due to the salvage of trees < 20” dbh from the adjacent RHCA. However, sufficient levels of LWD will be present to create enough pools to meet the Forest Plan standard. Alternative 2 will result in fine sediment levels lower than Alternative 1 once the effects from the 2002 fire have subsided because old skid trails will be obliterated and FSR 1672479 will be decommissioned. Old skid trails and FSR 1672479 are chronic sources of fine sediment. Reducing levels of fine sediment in Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River would improve spawning success of a reestablished bull trout population. • Determination: Alternative 2 will have no effect on bull trout or their current habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed (NE). Alternative 2 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements. Therefore affects to bull trout in the upper North Fork watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 2 will have no effect on bull trout, or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed (NE). Alternatives 3, 4, and 5: Bull trout are not currently present in the upper Little Malheur River watershed. Reestablishment of a resident population of bull trout depends on lowering of water temperatures by about 20°F below baseline levels. Water temperatures in the project area are likely to begin declining in about 10 to 15 years when recovery of hardwoods from the effects of the 2002 fire is likely to occur. Activities proposed under Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 will not adversely impact channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements. Therefore, Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 will not preclude reestablishment of bull trout. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 will result in fine sediment levels lower than Alternative 1 once effects from the 2002 fire have subsided. This will occur because old skid trails will be obliterated and FSR 1672479 will be decommissioned. Old skid trails and FSR 1672479 are chronic sources of fine sediment. Reducing levels of fine sediment in Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River would improve the spawning success of a reestablished bull trout population. 166 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences • Determination: Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 will have no effect on bull trout or their current habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements. Therefore effects to bull trout in the upper North Fork watershed are unlikely (NE). • Determination: Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 will have no effect on bull trout or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed (NE). Columbia Spotted Frog (Region 6 Sensitive Species) Summary of Effects and Determination Alternative 1 (No Action): Habitat for Columbia spotted frogs in the project area would recover from effects of the 2002 fire at natural rates. Habitat would recover relatively quickly along lower reaches of the Little Malheur River due to low effects of fire on streamside vegetation. Recovery of habitat along the lower reaches of Camp Creek will take longer due to the severe effects of the 2002 fire on streamside vegetation. Spotted frog populations will rebound to pre-fire conditions as habitat recovers. • Determination: Alternative 1 will not impact individual Columbia spotted frogs or their habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed and will not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (NI). Spotted frogs were unlikely to have been impacted by the 2002 fire in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed because the fire occurred outside of potential habitat areas. • Determination: Alternative 1 will not impact individual Columbia spotted frogs or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed and will not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (NI). Alternative 2: Generally, proposed activities will not occur in habitat for spotted frogs (streams, stream margins, ponds, and springs). However, adverse impacts to individual Columbia spotted frogs may occur during felling and yarding activities in RHCAs. Directional falling of trees away from stream channels and use of helicopters to yard trees will mitigate potential impacts to habitat adjacent streams. Potential impacts to habitat associated with ponds, springs, and seeps will be protected with no-cut areas. Ponds and large springs in salvage activity areas will be protected from disturbance with 100 ft no cut buffers. Smaller springs and seeps in salvage activity areas will be protected with 50 ft no cut buffers. • Determination: Alternative 2 may impact individual Columbia spotted frogs or their habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed and will not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH). Habitat for Columbia spotted frogs is not present in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed portion of the project area. Salvage activities are not planned for RHCAs in the Swamp Creek subwatershed under Alternative 2. Adverse effects to spotted frog habitat in Spring Creek outside of the project area is not expected to occur due to low erosion potential on these units and the current condition of RHCAs. • Determination: Alternative 2 will not impact individual Columbia spotted frogs or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed and will not 167 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (NI). Alternatives 3 and 4: Potential impacts to habitat associated with riparian areas and stream channels will be protected from disturbance by foregoing salvage activities in RHCAs. Potential impacts to habitat associated with ponds, springs, and seeps will be protected with no-cut areas. Ponds and large springs in salvage activity areas will be protected from disturbance with 100 ft no cut buffers. Smaller springs and seeps in salvage activity areas will be protected with 50 ft no cut buffers. • Determination: Alternatives 3 and 4 will not impact individual Columbia spotted frogs or their habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed and will not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (NI). Habitat for Columbia spotted frogs is not present in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed portion of the project area. Salvage activities are not planned for RHCAs in the Swamp Creek subwatershed under Alternatives 3 and 4. Adverse effects to spotted frog habitat in Spring Creek outside of the project area is not expected to occur due to the low erosion potential on these units and current condition of RHCAs. Therefore, effects from activities proposed in this portion of the project area will not extend beyond the project area. • Determination: Alternatives 3 and 4 will not impact individual Columbia spotted frogs or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed and will not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to population or species (NI). Alternative 5: Activities proposed will not occur in spotted frog habitat therefore adverse impacts to spotted frogs will not occur in the Little Malheur River Watershed. • Determination: Alternative 5 will not impact individual Columbia spotted frogs or their habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed and will not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (NI). Activities proposed will not occur in spotted frog habitat therefore adverse impacts to spotted frogs will not occur in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed. • Determination: Alternative 5 will not impact individual Columbia spotted frogs or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed and will not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (NI). Proposed Critical Habitat for Bull Trout Summary of Effects and Determination Alternative 1(No Action): Little Malheur River Watershed: Alternative 1 will slow the recovery of proposed critical habitat for bull trout in the Little Malheur River. Fine sediment levels in the Little Malheur River will remain elevated due chronic inputs of fine sediment from old skid trails and FSR 1672479 in the Camp Creek drainage. Prior to the 2002 fire fine sediment levels in the Little Malheur River were between 13 and 21% and would be rated as functioning at risk. 168 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences • Determination: Alternative 1 would not result in adverse modification (NAM) to proposed critical habitat for bull trout for the Columbia distinct population segment (DPS). Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed: Alternative 1 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements. Therefore, affects to proposed critical habitat for bull trout in the North Fork Malheur River watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 1 would not result in adverse modification (NAM) to proposed critical habitat for bull trout for the Columbia DPS. Alternative 2: Little Malheur River Watershed: Salvaging standing dead trees < 20” dbh from RHCAs will result in a reduction in the amount of woody debris levels in the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek. Pool habitat will be reduced by an estimated two pools in the Little Malheur River and 18 pools in Camp Creek compared to Alternative 1. This will result in a reduction of 0.7 pools per mile in the Little Malheur River and 5.6 pools per mile in Camp Creek. However, since Forest Plan standard for LWD will be met for the next 100 years in both the Little Malheur River (Figure 21, Map Section) and Camp Creek (Figure 21, Map Section) it is likely that the Forest Plan standard for pools will also be met. Salvaging standing dead trees < 20” dbh from RHCAs will also reduce cover and habitat complexity compared to Alternative 1. Reducing the amount of woody debris would also reduce the amount of fine sediment trapped and incorporated into stream banks. Alternative 2 will result in fine sediment levels lower than Alternative 1 once effects from the 2002 fire have Summary of Effects and Determination Alternative 1 (No Action): Adverse effects to aquatic species are likely to occur in the Little Malheur and Camp Creek drainages of the Little Malheur River watershed because of current and foreseeable conditions. Fine sediment levels are above threshold for effects to redband trout and will likely reduce spawning success and survival. Fine sediment levels are high enough to fill interstitial spaces thus eliminating winter habitat for juvenile redband trout. Filling of interstitial spaces with fine sediment will also eliminate habitat for many macroinvertebrates thus reducing food supplies for fish. Pool habitat will also decline in the short-term due to filling of pools by fine sediment reducing habitat for adult redband trout. High levels of fine sediment will also impact spawning habitat and spawning success will be lowered. Fine sediment levels are likely to start declining in three to five years when groundcover recovers to pre-fire conditions. As this occurs, habitat for the redband trout population will begin to recover to pre-fire levels. Redband populations in the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek will likely rebound from adverse effects from the 2002 fire relatively quickly due to their mobility and lack of migration barriers. Alternative 1 will result in elevated fine sediment levels compared to natural levels because old skid trails will not be obliterated and FSR 1672479 will not be decommissioned. The old skid trails and FSR 1672479 are chronic sources of fine sediment that have contributed to elevated levels of fine sediment in Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River. • Determination: Alternative 1 may impact individual redband trout or their habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH). 169 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Alternative 1 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements in the Spring Creek drainage of the Upper North Fork Malheur River watershed. Therefore, affects to redband trout in the North Fork watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 1 will have no impact on individual redband trout or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed (NI). Alternative 2: Removing standing dead trees < 20” dbh from RHCAs will result in a reduction in the amount of woody debris levels in the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek in the Little Malheur River watershed. An estimated 2 pools in the Little Malheur River will reduce pool habitat and 18 pools in Camp Creek compared to Alternative 1. This would result in a reduction of 0.7 pools per mile in the Little Malheur River and 5.6 pools per mile in Camp Creek. However, since Forest Plan standard for LWD will be met for the next 100 years in both the Little Malheur River (Figure 21, Map Section) and Camp Creek (Figure 21, Map Section) it is likely that the Forest Plan standard for pools will also be met. Salvaging standing dead trees < 20” dbh from RHCAs will also reduce cover and habitat complexity compared to Alternative 1. Reducing the amount of woody debris would also reduce the amount of woody debris available to buffer increases in fine sediment from future large erosion events. Predicted erosion rates will be decreased by an estimated 10% as a result of increases in ground cover resulting from salvage activities compared to Alternative 1. This will result in a reduction of adverse impacts in 2004 to 0.7 miles of aquatic habitat in the Little Malheur River downstream from the confluence of Camp Creek based on our sediment impact model compared to Alternative 1. Long-term reductions in fine sediment in the lower portion of the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek are likely to result from obliterating old skid trails and decommissioning FSR 1672479 compared to Alternative 1. The old skid trails and FSR 1672479 are chronic sources of fine sediment and have likely resulted in elevation of fine sediment levels above background levels. However, there is potential for increases in fine sediment for 2 to 3 years following obliteration of the old skid trails because soil disturbance on about 5 acres will occur adjacent to Category 4 stream channels in unstable soils. Alternative 2 will result in reducing existing shade levels along Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River by about 1% compared to Alternative 1 due to the removal of standing dead trees < 20” dbh. It is unlikely that recovery of water temperatures to pre-fire levels will differ between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. • Determination: Alternative 2 may impact individual redband trout or their habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species in the short-term. Alternative 2 will have a beneficial impact on redband trout and their habitat in the long-term (MIIH/BI). Alternative 2 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements in the Spring Creek drainage of the Upper North Fork Malheur River watershed. Therefore, affects to redband trout in the North Fork watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 2 will have no impact on individual redband trout or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed (NI). 170 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Alternative 3: Predicted erosion rates will be decreased by an estimated 10% as a result of increases in ground cover resulting from salvage activities compared to Alternative 1. This will result in a reduction of adverse impacts in 2004 to 0.5 miles of aquatic habitat compared to Alternative 1 in the Little Malheur River downstream from the confluence of Camp Creek based on our sediment impact model. Long-term reductions in fine sediment in the lower portion of the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek are likely to result from obliterating old skid trails and decommissioning FSR 1672479 compared to Alternative 1. Old skid trails and FSR 1672479 have been chronic sources of fine sediment and have likely resulted in elevation of fine sediments levels above background levels. However, there is potential for increases in fine sediment for 2 to 3 years because soil disturbance on about 5 acres will occur adjacent to Category 4 stream channels in unstable soils. Pools and habitat complexity under Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 1 because removal of standing dead trees < 20” dbh in RHCAs would not occur. Alternative 3 will not adversely impact channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements. • Determination: Alternative 3 may impact individual redband trout or their habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species in the short-term. Alternative 3 will have a beneficial impact on redband trout and their habitat in the long-term (MIIH/BI). Alternative 3 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements in the Spring Creek drainage of the Upper North Fork Malheur River watershed. Therefore, affects to redband trout in the North Fork watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 3 will have no impact on individual redband trout or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed (NI). Alternative 4: Predicted erosion rates will be decreased by an estimated 10% as a result of increases in ground cover ensuing from salvage activities compared to Alternative 1. This will result in a reduction of adverse impacts in 2004 to 0.5 miles of aquatic habitat in the Little Malheur River downstream from the confluence of Camp Creek based on our sediment impact model compared to Alternative 1. Long-term reductions in fine sediment in the lower portion of the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek are likely to result from obliterating old skid trails and decommissioning FSR 1672479 compared to Alternative 1. Old skid trails and FSR 1672479 have been chronic sources of fine sediment and have likely resulted in elevation of fine sediment levels above background levels. However, there is potential for increases in fine sediment for 2 to 3 years because soil disturbance on about 5 acres will occur adjacent to Category 4 stream channels in unstable soils. Pools and habitat complexity under Alternative 4 would be similar to Alternative 1 because removal of standing dead trees < 20” dbh in RHCAs would not occur. Alternative 4 will not adversely impact channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements. • Determination: Alternative 4 may impact individual redband trout or their habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species in 171 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS the short-term. Alternative 4 will have a beneficial impact on redband trout and their habitat in the long-term (MIIH/BI). Alternative 4 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements in the Spring Creek drainage of the Upper North Fork Malheur River watershed. Therefore, effects to redband trout in the North Fork watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 4 will have no impact on individual redband trout or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed (NI). Alternative 5: Long-term reductions in fine sediment in the lower portion of the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek are likely to result from obliterating old skid trails and decommissioning FSR 1672479 compared to Alternative 1. Old skid trails and FSR 1672479 have been chronic sources of fine sediment and have likely resulted in elevation of fine sediments levels above background levels. However, there is potential for increases in fine sediment for 2 to 3 years because soil disturbance on about 5 acres will occur adjacent to Category 4 stream channels in unstable soils. • Determination: Alternative 5 may impact individual redband trout or their habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species in the short-term. Alternative 5 will have a beneficial impact on redband trout and their habitat in the long-term (MIIH/BI). Alternative 5 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements in the Spring Creek drainage of the Upper North Fork Malheur River watershed. Therefore, affects to redband trout in the North Fork watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 5 will have no impact on individual redband trout or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed (NI). Malheur Mottled Sculpin (Region 6 Sensitive Species) Summary of Effects and Determination Alternative 1: Of the two fish species with special management status currently present in the analysis area in the Little Malheur River watershed, Malheur mottled sculpin will probably be most impacted by current post-fire conditions due to large increases in fine sediment resulting from the 2002 fire. Cobble substrate serves as spawning habitat, and rearing habitat for juvenile and adult sculpins. Habitat for sculpin will be eliminated where interstitial spaces between cobble substrate are filled. Based on our sediment impact model, adverse effects to mottled sculpins are likely due to the amount of fine sediment that will be present in Camp Creek, and the Little Malheur River. In 2003, interstitial spaces between cobble substrate are likely be filled by fine sediment in Camp Creek and the Little Malheur above Camp Creek. Interstitial spaces between cobble substrate may be filled by fine sediment for up to 27.8 miles in the Little Malheur River below Camp Creek. Effects from fine sediment will begin to decline in 2004. Enough fine sediment could be eroded from the burned area to fill interstitial spaces between cobble substrate in Camp Creek and the Little Malheur above Camp Creek. Mottled sculpin habitat in the Little Malheur River below Camp Creek may be impacted for up to 5.2 miles. Erosion rates will likely return to pre-fire levels sometime in 2005 through 2007. It will likely take an 172 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences additional two years (from 2007 to 2009) for fine sediment levels in the Little Malheur River to return to pre-fire levels. While mottled sculpins are relatively long lived (sculpin live about 5 years), the timeframe for impacts to mottled sculpin habitat in Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River above Camp Creek are potentially longer than 1 generation. Therefore, there is potential for the sculpin population to experience a major decline in these areas due to lack of successful reproduction, and lack of habitat for juveniles and adults. Failure or delaying for another environmental analysis, the decommissioning of FSR 1672479 will impact aquatic habitat due to elevated levels of fine sediment in Camp Creek. This road has essentially been abandoned and is contributing fine sediment to Camp Creek in its present condition. By not obliterating old skid trails in the Camp Creek drainage, an opportunity to reduce chronic inputs of fine sediment into Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River will be missed. These old skid trails show evidence of continual erosion since their construction and use in the late 1960s. These skid trails are located adjacent to and in some places within Category 4 stream channels. Failure to obliterate these skid trails will lengthen the recovery process of Camp Creek and to a lesser extent the Little Malheur River due to elevated levels of fine sediment. • Determination: Alternative 1 may impact individual Malheur mottled sculpin or their habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed due to elevated levels of fine sediment resulting from the 2002 fire. However, impacts would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species at the watershed scale (MIIH). Alternative 1 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements. Therefore, affects to Malheur mottled sculpin in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 1 will have no impact to individual Malheur mottled sculpin or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed (NI). Alternative 2: Compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 will reduce impacts to sculpin from increases in fine sediment resulting from the 2002 fire. Based on our sediment impact model, in 2004 an estimated 4.5 miles of the Little Malheur River below Camp Creek will be adversely impacted under Alternative 2 from erosion from the fire area compared to 5.2 miles under Alternative 1. Impacts to sculpin habitat from fire related sediment would be the same as Alternative 1 after 2004 due to recovery of herbaceous ground cover. Alternative 2 will result in fine sediment levels lower than Alternative 1 once effects from the 2002 fire have subsided because old skid trails will be restored and FSR 1672479 will be decommissioned. The old skid trails and FSR 1672479 are chronic sources of fine sediment and have likely resulted in elevation of fine sediment levels above background levels. Reductions in woody debris, pool habitat, cover, and habitat complexity due to the proposal to salvage dead trees < 20” dbh in RHCAs, will have less of an effect to sculpin than redband trout. These features of aquatic habitat are relatively less important to sculpin compared to the availability of cobble substrate with low levels of embeddness. 173 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS • Determination: Alternative 2 may impact individual Malheur mottled sculpin or their habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species in the short-term. Alternative 2 will have a beneficial impact on Malheur Mottled sculpin and their habitat in the long-term (MIIH/BI). Alternative 2 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements. Therefore, affects to Malheur Mottled sculpin in the North Fork watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 2 will have no impact to individual Malheur Mottled sculpin or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed (NI). Alternative 3: Compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 3 will reduce impacts to sculpin from increases in fine sediment resulting from the 2002 fire. Based on our sediment impact model, in 2004 an estimated 4.7 miles of the Little Malheur River will be adversely impacted under Alternative 3 from erosion from the fire area compared to 5.2 miles under Alternative 1. Impacts to sculpin habitat from fire related sediment would be the same as Alternative 1 after 2004 due to recovery of herbaceous ground cover. Alternative 3 will result in fine sediment levels lower than Alternative 1 once effects from the 2002 fire have subsided. Lower levels of sediment will ensue because old skid trails will be restored and FSR 1672479 will be decommissioned. Old skid trails and FSR 1672479 are chronic sources of fine sediment and have likely resulted in elevation of fine sediments levels above background levels. Alternative 3 will result in similar levels of woody debris, pool habitat, cover, and habitat complexity as Alternative 1 because dead trees < 20” dbh would not be salvaged from RHCAs. • Determination: Alternative 3 may impact individual Malheur mottled sculpin or their habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species in the short-term. Alternative 3 will have a beneficial impact on Malheur Mottled sculpin and their habitat in the long-term (MIIH/BI). Alternative 3 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements. Therefore, affects to Malheur mottled sculpin in the North Fork watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 3 will have no impact to individual Malheur Mottled sculpin or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed (NI). Alternative 4: Compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 4 will reduce impacts to sculpin from increases in fine sediment resulting from the 2002 fire. Based on our sediment impact model, in 2004 an estimated 4.7 miles of the Little Malheur River will be adversely impacted under Alternative 4 from erosion resulting from the fire area compared to 5.2 miles under Alternative 1. Impacts to sculpin habitat from fire related sediment would be the same as Alternative 1 after 2004 due to recovery of herbaceous ground cover. Alternative 4 will result in fine sediment levels lower than Alternative 1 once effects from the 2002 fire have subsided because old skid trails will be restored and FSR 1672479 will be decommissioned. Old skid trails and FSR 1672479 are chronic sources of fine sediment and have likely resulted in elevation of fine sediments levels above background levels. 174 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Alternative 4 will result in the similar levels of woody debris, pool habitat, cover, and habitat complexity as Alternative 1 because dead trees < 20” dbh would not be salvaged from RHCAs. • Determination: Alternative 4 may impact individual Malheur mottled sculpin or their habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species in the short-term. Alternative 4 will have a beneficial impact on Malheur Mottled sculpin and their habitat in the long-term (MIIH/BI). Alternative 4 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements. Therefore, affects to Malheur mottled sculpin in the North Fork watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 4 will have no impact to individual Malheur mottled sculpin or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed (NI). Alternative 5: Alternative 5 will result in fine sediment levels lower than Alternative 1 once effects from the 2002 fire have subsided. Old skid trails and FSR 1672479 have been chronic sources of fine sediment and have likely resulted in elevation of fine sediment levels above background levels. Long-term reductions in fine sediment in the lower portion of the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek are likely to result from obliterating old skid trails and decommissioning FSR 1672479 compared to Alternative 1. However, there is potential for increases in fine sediment for 2 to 3 years because soil disturbance on about 5 acres will occur adjacent to Category 4 stream channels in unstable soils. Alternative 5 will result in the similar levels of woody debris, pool habitat, cover, and habitat complexity as Alternative 1 because dead trees < 20” dbh would not be salvaged from RHCAs. • Determination: Alternative 5 may impact individual Malheur mottled sculpin or their habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species in the short-term. Alternative 5 will have a beneficial impact on Malheur Mottled sculpin and their habitat in the long-term (MIIH/BI). Alternative 5 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements. Therefore, affects to redband trout in the North Fork watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 5 will have no impact to individual Malheur mottled sculpin or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed (NI). Bull Trout (Management Indicator Species, Threatened Species) Summary of Effects and Determination Alternative 1 (No Action): Bull trout are not currently present in the upper Little Malheur River watershed. Migratory habitat for fluvial bull trout is present in the lower portion of the Little Malheur River and bull trout have been documented in the lower mile of the Little Malheur River. Alternative 1 will result in elevated fine sediment levels above natural levels because old skid trails will not be obliterated and FSR 1672479 will not be decommissioned. The old skid trails and FSR 1672479 are chronic sources of fine sediment. However, pre-fire levels of fine sediment were generally below the 20% threshold level and would not likely preclude reestablishment of a reproducing bull trout population in the upper Little Malheur River. Fine sediment from 175 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS these sources would also not likely affect habitat for migrating bull trout in the lower Little Malheur River due to the distances involved. • Determination: Alternative 1 will have no effect on bull trout or their current habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed (NE). Alternative 1 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements. Therefore, affects to bull trout in the upper North Fork watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 1 will have no effect on bull trout or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed (NE). Alternative 2: Bull trout are not currently present in the upper Little Malheur River watershed. Reestablishment of a resident population of bull trout depends on lowering of water temperatures by about 20°F below pre-fire levels. Water temperatures in the project area are likely to begin declining in about 10 to 15 years when recovery of hardwoods from effects of the 2002 fire is likely to occur. Activities proposed under Alternative 2 will result in a slight reduction in existing shading due to the removal of standing dead trees, but will not impact recovery of shading provided by future streamside vegetation. Therefore, Alternative 2 will not preclude the reestablishment of bull trout. There will likely be two fewer pools in the lower reaches of the Little Malheur River compared to Alternative 1 due to the salvage of trees < 20” dbh from the adjacent RHCA. However, sufficient levels of LWD will be present to create enough pools to meet the Forest Plan standard. Alternative 2 will result in fine sediment levels lower than Alternative 1 once the effects from the 2002 fire have subsided because old skid trails will be obliterated and FSR 1672479 will be decommissioned. Old skid trails and FSR 1672479 are chronic sources of fine sediment. Reducing levels of fine sediment in Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River would improve spawning success of a reestablished bull trout population. • Determination: Alternative 2 will have no effect on bull trout or their current habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed (NE). Alternative 2 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements. Therefore, affects to bull trout in the upper North Fork watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 2 will have no effect on bull trout, or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed (NE). Alternatives 3, 4, and 5: Bull trout are not currently present in the upper Little Malheur River watershed. Reestablishment of a resident population of bull trout depends on lowering of water temperatures by about 20°F below baseline levels. Water temperatures in the project area are likely to begin declining in about 10 to 15 years when recovery of hardwoods from the effects of the 2002 fire is likely to occur. Activities proposed under Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 will not adversely impact channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements. Therefore, Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 will not preclude reestablishment of bull trout. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 will result in fine sediment levels lower than Alternative 1 once effects from the 2002 fire have subsided. This will occur because old skid trails will be obliterated and FSR 1672479 will be decommissioned. Old skid trails and FSR 1672479 are chronic sources of fine sediment. Reducing levels of fine sediment in Camp Creek and the 176 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Little Malheur River would improve the spawning success of a reestablished bull trout population. • Determination: Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 will have no effect on bull trout or their current habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements. Therefore, effects to bull trout in the upper North Fork watershed are unlikely (NE). • Determination: Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 will have no effect on bull trout or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed (NE). Columbia Spotted Frog (Region 6 Sensitive Species) Summary of Effects and Determination Alternative 1 (No Action): Habitat for Columbia spotted frogs in the project area would recover from effects of the 2002 fire at natural rates. Habitat would recover relatively quickly along lower reaches of the Little Malheur River due to low effects of fire on streamside vegetation. Recovery of habitat along the lower reaches of Camp Creek will take longer due to the severe effects of the 2002 fire on streamside vegetation. Spotted frog populations will rebound to pre-fire conditions as habitat recovers. • Determination: Alternative 1 will have no impact on individual Columbia spotted frogs or their habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed and will not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (NI). Spotted frogs were unlikely to have been impacted by the 2002 fire in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed because the fire occurred outside of potential habitat areas. • Determination: Alternative 1 will have no impact on individual Columbia spotted frogs or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed and will not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (NI). Alternative 2: Generally, proposed activities will not occur in habitat for spotted frogs (streams, stream margins, ponds, and springs). However, adverse impacts to individual Columbia spotted frogs may occur during felling and yarding activities in RHCAs. Directional falling of trees away from stream channels and use of helicopters to yard trees will mitigate potential impacts to habitat adjacent streams. Potential impacts to habitat associated with ponds, springs, and seeps will be protected with no-cut areas. Ponds and large springs in salvage activity areas will be protected from disturbance with 100 ft no cut buffers. Smaller springs and seeps in salvage activity areas will be protected with 50 ft no cut buffers. • Determination: Alternative 2 may impact individual Columbia spotted frogs or their habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed and will not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH). Habitat for Columbia spotted frogs is not present in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed portion of the project area. Salvage activities are not planned for RHCAs in the Swamp Creek subwatershed under Alternative 2. Adverse effects to spotted frog habitat in 177 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Spring Creek outside of the project area is not expected to occur due to low erosion potential on these units and the current condition of RHCAs. • Determination: Alternative 2 will have no impact on individual Columbia spotted frogs or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed and will not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (NI). Alternatives 3 and 4: Potential impacts to habitat associated with riparian areas and stream channels will be protected from disturbance by foregoing salvage activities in RHCAs. Potential impacts to habitat associated with ponds, springs, and seeps will be protected with no-cut areas. Ponds and large springs in salvage activity areas will be protected from disturbance with 100 ft no cut buffers. Smaller springs and seeps in salvage activity areas will be protected with 50 ft no cut buffers. • Determination: Alternatives 3 and 4 will have no impact on individual Columbia spotted frogs or their habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed and will not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (NI). Habitat for Columbia spotted frogs is not present in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed portion of the project area. Salvage activities are not planned for RHCAs in the Swamp Creek subwatershed under Alternatives 3 and 4. Adverse effects to spotted frog habitat in Spring Creek outside of the project area is not expected to occur due to the low erosion potential on these units and current condition of RHCAs. Therefore, effects from activities proposed in this portion of the project area will not extend beyond the project area. • Determination: Alternatives 3 and 4 will have no impact on individual Columbia spotted frogs or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed and will not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to population or species (NI). Alternative 5: Activities proposed will not occur in spotted frog habitat therefore adverse impacts to spotted frogs will not occur in the Little Malheur River Watershed. • Determination: Alternative 5 will have no impact on individual Columbia spotted frogs or their habitat in the Little Malheur River Watershed and will not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (NI). Activities proposed will not occur in spotted frog habitat therefore adverse impacts to spotted frogs will not occur in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed. • Determination: Alternative 5 will have no impact on individual Columbia spotted frogs or their habitat in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed and will not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (NI). 178 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Proposed Critical Habitat for Bull Trout Summary of Effects and Determination Alternative 1(No Action): Little Malheur River Watershed: Alternative 1 will slow the recovery of proposed critical habitat for bull trout in the Little Malheur River. Fine sediment levels in the Little Malheur River will remain elevated due chronic inputs of fine sediment from old skid trails and FSR 1672479 in the Camp Creek drainage. Prior to the 2002 fire fine sediment levels in the Little Malheur River were between 13 and 21% and would be rated as functioning at risk. • Determination: Alternative 1 would not result in adverse modification (NAM) to proposed critical habitat for bull trout in the Little Malheur River Watershed. Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed: Alternative 1 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements. Therefore, affects to proposed critical habitat for bull trout in the North Fork Malheur River watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 1 would not result in adverse modification (NAM) to proposed critical habitat for bull trout in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed. Alternative 2: Little Malheur River Watershed: Salvaging standing dead trees < 20” dbh from RHCAs will result in a reduction in the amount of woody debris levels in the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek. Pool habitat will be reduced by an estimated two pools in the Little Malheur River and 18 pools in Camp Creek compared to Alternative 1. This will result in a reduction of 0.7 pools per mile in the Little Malheur River and 5.6 pools per mile in Camp Creek. However, since Forest Plan standard for LWD will be met for the next 100 years in both the Little Malheur River (Figure 21, Map Section) and Camp Creek (Figure 21, Map Section) it is likely that the Forest Plan standard for pools will also be met. Salvaging standing dead trees < 20” dbh from RHCAs will also reduce cover and habitat complexity compared to Alternative 1. Reducing the amount of woody debris would also reduce the amount of fine sediment trapped and incorporated into stream banks. Alternative 2 will result in fine sediment levels lower than Alternative 1 once effects from the 2002 fire have subsided. The old skid trails and FSR 1672479 are chronic sources of fine sediment and have likely resulted in elevation of fine sediments levels above background levels. Long-term reductions in fine sediment in the lower portion of the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek are likely to result from obliterating old skid trails and decommissioning FSR 1672479 compared to Alternative 1. However, there is potential for increases in fine sediment for 2 to 3 years because soil disturbance on about 5 acres will occur adjacent to Category 4 stream channels in unstable soils. Alternative 2 will result in reducing existing shade levels along Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River by about 1% compared to Alternative 1 due to the salvage of standing dead trees < 20” dbh. It is unlikely that the recovery of water temperatures to pre-fire levels will differ between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. • Determination: Alternative 2 would not result in adverse modification (NAM) to proposed critical habitat for bull trout in the Little Malheur River Watershed. Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed: Activities are not proposed in RHCAs in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed under Alternative 2. Therefore, Alternative 2 179 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements and affects to proposed critical habitat for bull trout in the North Fork watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 2 would not result in adverse modification (NAM) to proposed critical habitat for bull trout in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed. Alternative 3: Little Malheur River Watershed: Alternative 3 will result in fine sediment levels lower than Alternative 1 once the effects from the 2002 fire have subsided. Old skid trails and FSR 1672479 have been chronic sources of fine sediment and have likely resulted in elevation of fine sediments levels above background levels. Long-term reductions in fine sediment in the lower portion of the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek are likely to result from obliterating old skid trails and decommissioning FSR 1672479 compared to Alternative 1. However, there is potential for increases in fine sediment for 2 to 3 years because soil disturbance on about 5 acres will occur adjacent to Category 4 stream channels in unstable soils. Pools and habitat complexity under Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 1 because removal of standing dead trees < 20” dbh in RHCAs would not occur. Alternative 3 will not adversely impact channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements. • Determination: Alternative 3 would not result in adverse modification (NAM) to proposed critical habitat for bull trout in the Little Malheur River Watershed. Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed: Activities are not proposed in RHCAs in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed under Alternative 3. Therefore, Alternative 3 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements and affects to proposed critical habitat for bull trout in the North Fork watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 3 would not result in adverse modification (NAM) to proposed critical habitat for bull trout in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed. Alternative 4: Little Malheur River Watershed: Once effects from the 2002 fire have subsided, Alternative 4 will result in fine sediment levels lower than Alternative 1. Old skid trails and FSR 1672479 have been chronic sources of fine sediment and have likely resulted in elevation of fine sediments levels above background levels. Long-term reductions in fine sediment in the lower portion of the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek are likely to result from obliterating old skid trails and decommissioning FSR 1672479 compared to Alternative 1. However, there is potential for increases in fine sediment for 2 to 3 years because soil disturbance on about 5 acres will occur adjacent to Category 4 stream channels in unstable soils. Pools and habitat complexity under Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 1 because removal of standing dead trees < 20” dbh in RHCAs would not occur. Alternative 3 will not adversely impact channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements. • Determination: Alternative 4 would not result in adverse modification (NAM) to proposed critical habitat for bull trout in the Little Malheur River Watershed. Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed: Activities are not proposed in RHCAs in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed under Alternative 4. Therefore, Alternative 4 180 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements and affects to proposed critical habitat for bull trout in the North Fork watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 4 would not result in adverse modification (NAM) to proposed critical habitat for bull trout in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed. Alternative 5: Little Malheur River Watershed: Once the effects from the 2002 fire have subsided, Alternative 5 will result in fine sediment levels lower than Alternative 1. Old skid trails and FSR 1672479 have been chronic sources of fine sediment and have likely resulted in elevation of fine sediments levels above background levels. Long-term reductions in fine sediment in the lower portion of the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek are likely to result from obliterating old skid trails and decommissioning FSR 1672479 compared to Alternative 1. However, there is potential for increases in fine sediment for 2 to 3 years because soil disturbance on about 5 acres will occur adjacent to Category 4 stream channels in unstable soils. • Determination: Alternative 5 would not result in adverse modification (NAM) to proposed critical habitat for bull trout in the Little Malheur River Watershed. Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed: Activities are not proposed in RHCAs in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed under Alternative 5. Therefore, Alternative 5 will not affect channel stability, physical habitat, or water quality elements and affects to proposed critical habitat for bull trout in the North Fork watershed are unlikely. • Determination: Alternative 5 would not result in adverse modification (NAM) to proposed critical habitat for bull trout in the Upper North Fork Malheur River Watershed. Consistency With Direction and Regulations Forest Plan Alternative 1: Alternative 1 would be consistent with: Forest-wide standards for fish, MA 3A standards, and INFISH standards and guidelines. Alternative 2: Alternative 2 would be consistent with: Forest-wide standards for fish and MA 3A standards. Alternative 2 would also be consistent with the following INFISH standards and guidelines: • TM-1a. Proposed salvage activities in RHCAs would be consistent because woody debris needs are expected to be met for the next 100 years in the lower reaches of the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek. Slight reductions in shading resulting from salvage activities proposed under Alternative 2 along the lower reaches of the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek in the project area will not lead to a further degradation in water temperatures. Under Alternative 2, Forest standards for pools will likely be might because sufficient quantities of LWD will be present for the next 100 years. • RF-2b. Proposed temporary roads and helicopter landings are located outside of RHCAs. • RF-3a & b. Roads that will be used for proposed salvage activities will have drainage problems repaired and will be brought up to standards prior to haul. 181 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS • RF-3c. Roads not need for future management activities and old skid trails that have been identified as sources of fine sediment will be closed, decommissioned, or obliterated. • RA-2. Hazard trees felled in RHCAs will be left on site where woody debris objectives are not being met. • Forest Plan RMOs. Activities proposed under Alternative 2 would not retard the attainment of Forest Plan RMOs for aquatic habitat (LWD, replacement LWD, pool frequency, bank stability, width to depth ratio, sediment/substrate, shading, and water temperature). Alternative 2 would result in short-term increases in fine sediment in Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River due to road decommissioning and old skid- trail obliteration activities. However, these activities will result in long-term decreases in fine sediment in Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River compared to Alternative 1. Alternatives 3 and 4: Alternatives 3 and 4 would be consistent with: Forest-wide standards for fish and MA 3A standards. Alternatives 3 and 4 would also be consistent with the following INFISH standards and guidelines: • TM-1a. Proposed salvage activities would not occur in RHCAs. • RF-2b. Proposed temporary roads and helicopter landings are located outside of RHCAs. • RF-3a & b. Roads that will be used for proposed salvage activities will have drainage problems repaired and will be brought up to standards prior to haul. • RF-3c. Roads not needed for future management activities and old skid trails that have been identified as sources of fine sediment will be closed, decommissioned, or obliterated. • RA-2. Hazard trees felled in RHCAs will be left on site where woody debris objectives are not being met. • Forest Plan RMOs. Activities proposed under Alternatives 3 and 4 would not retard the attainment of Forest Plan RMOs for aquatic habitat (LWD, replacement LWD, pool frequency, bank stability, width to depth ratio, sediment/substrate, shading, and water temperature). Alternatives 3 and 4 would result in short-term increases in fine sediment in Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River due to road decommissioning and old skid-trail obliteration activities. However, these activities will result in long- term decreases in fine sediment in Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River compared to Alternative 1. Alternative 5: Alternative 5 would be consistent with: Forest-wide standards for fish and MA 3A standards. Alternative 5 would also be consistent with the following INFISH standards and guidelines: • RF-3a & b. Roads with drainage problems will be repaired and brought up to standards. • RF-3c. Roads not need for future management activities and old skid trails that have been identified as sources of fine sediment will be closed, decommissioned, or obliterated. • RA-2. Hazard trees felled in RHCAs will be left on site where woody debris objectives are not being met. • Forest Plan RMOs. Activities proposed under Alternative 5 would not retard the attainment of Forest Plan RMOs for aquatic habitat (LWD, replacement LWD, pool 182 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences frequency, bank stability, width to depth ratio, sediment/substrate, shading, and water temperature). Alternative 5 would result in short-term increases in fine sediment in Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River due to road decommissioning and old skid- trail obliteration activities. However, these activities will result in long-term decreases in fine sediment in Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River compared to Alternative 1. Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Alternatives 1 (No Action), 3, 4, and 5 There are two streams currently on the 303(d) list. The Little Malheur River is currently listed for summer rearing temperature for salmonids. The N.F. Malheur River is currently listed for not meeting water quality standards for bull trout spawning and rearing in reaches above Crane Creek and summer rearing for salmonids below Crane Creek. No changes in the Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Impaired water bodies would be made as a result of alternatives 1, 3, and 4. There would be no effects on 303(d) listed streams because streamside shading will not be altered under the proposed activities for alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 because activities that could reduce shading along stream are not proposed. Felling roadside hazard trees along streams for safety concerns may be necessary. However, it is unlikely this activity will affect shading to the point of causing a measurable change in water temperatures. Therefore, these alternatives would not increase water temperature and would be consistent with the Clean Water Act and the Forest Plan as amended. Alternative 2 Activities proposed under Alternative 2 include removal of standing dead trees <20” dbh in the RHCAs adjacent to the lower reaches of the Little Malheur River and Camp Creek in the project area. Felling roadside hazard trees for safety concerns may also be necessary. Currently, boles of standing dead trees provide 3% or less of the shade provided by a live forest stand. A reduction in shade of 1% to 3% would not result in a measurable increase in stream temperature. Removal of standing dead trees <20” dbh in RHCAs would not affect the rate of natural recovery of shade. Based on the above effects, this alternative would not increase temperature and would be consistent with the Clean Water Act and the Forest Plan as amended. Endangered Species Act All alternatives are consistent with the Endangered Species Act (see Appendix D, Aquatic Species Biological Evaluation). All alternatives will have no effect on bull trout or and will not result in adverse modification proposed critical habitat for bull trout. Based on these effect calls, consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service was not necessary. The Monument ID Team followed the streamlining process to address ESA issues related to the Monument Fire Recovery Project. The Monument ID Team met with the Malheur NF Level 1 Team seven times over a two-year period to discuss the Monument Fire Recovery Project. Of those seven meetings, ESA issues concerning aquatic species were discussed during five meetings: • 11/14/2002: The ID Team met with the Level 1 Team for a general discussion of potential activities for the recovery project and potential ESA issues. 183 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS • 01/21/2003: The ID Team met with the Level 1 Team to discuss the draft proposed action for the Monument Fire Recovery Project. • 04/16/2003: The Fisheries Biologist on the ID Team met with the Level 1 Team to discuss issues concerning aquatic species. • 05/13/2003: The Fisheries Biologist on the ID Team met with the Level 1 Team to discuss issues concerning bull trout and proposed designated critical habitat for bull trout. • 06/17/2003: The ID Team and the Level 1 Team visited the Monument Fire Recovery project area and the Monument Fire area to discuss proposed activities for the Monument Fire Recovery Project, design criteria, and potential effects to threatened and endangered species. Based on USFWS’ review of the biological evaluation and supporting information provided in Level 1 team meetings, and field trips to the fire and project areas, USFWS did not object to the Forests' no effect determinations for bull trout or proposed critical habitat for bull trout. Recreational Fisheries All Alternatives: Recreational fishing opportunities have been reduced in the Monument burn area by water quality and habitat degradation resulting from the 2002 fire and prior management activities. Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 include decommissioning roads and old skid trails. These aquatic conservation and restoration actions will improve quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of recreational fisheries by reducing impacts from elevated levels of fine sediment as directed under Executive Order 12962, Recreational Fisheries. Irreversible/ Irretrievable Effects Irreversible effects are not expected. Reduced fish population viability for redband trout could be an irretrievable commitment of resources, but the possibility is not expected. INFISH established explicit goals and objectives for inland fish habitat condition and function. By following INFISH standards and guidelines as well as design criteria specific to this project, it is believed that irretrievable commitment of this resource can be avoided. The goal is to achieve a high level of habitat diversity and complexity through a combination of habitat features. Wildlife _________________________________________ Regulatory Framework Two principle laws relevant to wildlife management are the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. Regulations promulgated subsequent to passing NFMA have presented various procedures for species management. The Forest Service is directed to manage fish and wildlife habitat sufficiently to maintain viable populations of all native and desirable non-native wildlife species and conserve listed Threatened or Endangered species populations (36CFR219.19). Additional guidance found in Forest Service Manual Direction advises that critical habitat and other habitats essential 184 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences for conservation of endangered, threatened, and proposed species be identified and preventive measures employed. Prescriptions must be tailored to avoid adverse modifications or destruction of said habitats (FSM 2670.31 (6)). ESA requires Forests to manage for recovery of threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Forests are required to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service if agency proposed activities may affect populations or habitats of listed species. The Forest Service Manual also directs the Regional Forester to identify sensitive species for each National Forest where species viability may be a concern. Forests are then required to monitor sensitive species populations and prevent declines that might require listing under ESA (FSM 2670.32 (4)). The principle policy document relevant to wildlife management is the Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan of 1990 (Malheur Forest Plan). This document provides standards and guidelines for management of wildlife species and habitats on the Forest. These standards and guidelines apply to such habitat features as big game cover, road densities, primary cavity excavator habitat, snag and down log habitat, blue grouse winter roost habitat, unique and sensitive species habitat, raptor habitat, and Endangered Species Act listed species (USDA Forest Service, 1990). Regional Forester Eastside Forest Plans Amendment 2 (1995) was a non-significant Malheur Forest Plan amendment that provided additional standards for late and old successional (LOS), LOS connectivity, snags, down logs, and northern goshawks. Analysis Method Species included in this section are those identified by the regulatory framework described above. In addition, species have been included as identified through public comment where concerns or issues were expressed relative to potential effects to species and/or habitats from alternatives proposed. Where possible, as with the management indicator species, representative species were selected to describe effects to a wider cohort of species sharing similar habitat needs. Species lacking habitat within the project area, or species that are present but would not be affected by activities proposed, were not included in this analysis. Effects analysis for all species and habitats is based on expected tree mortality from the fire. Some dead trees currently retain green needles, but are expected to lose them in the short term. A variety of sources of information were used to determine presence of individuals, populations and/or habitat for the different wildlife species. These information sources include wildlife and other resource habitat surveys, Geographic Information System databases, district and forest species databases, field observations, and past professional experience in dealing with species and their habitats. Population surveys were not done for any species analyzed in this document. Rather, assessments of relative populations were made based upon availability of suitable habitat, and changes to those habitats given activities proposed. This is based upon science demonstrating connections between species populations/viability and the quantity and condition of habitat at appropriate scales of analysis (USDA Forest Service 2001). Incomplete and Unavailable Information Species population densities and diversity information for species reviewed in this analysis were not obtainable due to lack of survey data availability. Inferences regarding species 185 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS diversity and relative population levels were made based upon habitat quality, condition, and quantity. The ability to classify and describe habitat within wilderness areas is often limited. Specifically, the lack of site-specific survey data available from wilderness areas within the project boundary resulted in data gaps. Inferences were made based upon field walk throughs, aerial photo interpretation from post fire flights, digital ortho-quad data and review of limited GIS habitat data to determine habitat quality and condition. Habitat information outside the fire area was also limited to satellite imagery data containing inconsistencies at the site-specific stand scale. This lack of information created complications in describing habitat outside the fire area. Again, field walk-throughs, aerial photo interpretation, digital ortho-quad data and review of limited GIS habitat data were used to characterize and describe habitat features outside the fire area. Site-specific snag data was lacking in certain portions of the fire. Where available, snag survey information was utilized in this analysis. In other areas, stand data were employed to determine general levels of snag densities and distribution across different diameter classes. Walk throughs, post fire aerial photo interpretation and limited GIS data were also used to make inferences on snag density, distribution and size classification for the fire area. Likewise, down wood information was also limited. Similar inferences were made to analyze effects to down wood habitats. Where applicable, professional judgment, supported by limited available information was used to assess habitat conditions. Species Assessed • Management Indicator Species (MIS): The Forest Plan identifies numerous species as MIS. These species represent certain habitat features or values of federal lands and associated habitats. These species also function to represent a cohort of other species sharing similar habitat requirements and thus become an indicator of effects and changes to habitat and populations of that larger cohort of species. Selected primary cavity excavators, the Rocky Mountain elk, and the pine marten are analyzed in this analysis. • Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species: Species listed under the Endangered Species Act as Threatened or Endangered and species identified on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List were considered in this analysis per Forest Service regulations and direction. These species are specifically addressed in the Biological Evaluation that accompanies the FEIS and the Wildlife Report. Summaries of the findings are included in this section of the FEIS. • Other Species of Concern: Northern Goshawk - Through the amended Forest Plan, the northern goshawk was identified as a specific species of concern in eastside forests (USDA Forest Service 1990, amended 1996). Specific direction for identified nesting and fledgling habitat are provided in the amendment. Landbirds including Neotropical Migrants – An Executive Order (January 10, 2001) directs the Forest Service to consider the conservation of landbird species in the design, analysis and implementation of activities on federal lands administered by the USDA Forest Service. Several management frameworks are available, in addition to direction from agencies such as the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and were considered in this analysis. Birds of Concern 2002 – Potential effects to bird species that are listed as “Birds of Conservation Concern” (USFWS 2002) that are suspected or known to be in the project area were analyzed. • Dedicated Old Growth Habitat: Dedicated old growth habitat is another habitat feature assessed in the FEIS based upon effects to existing habitats and issues expressed internally and externally. 186 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Analysis Tools DecAID An advisory tool, “DecAID”, was recently developed in Region 6 to address deadwood habitats (snags and down logs) in the Pacific Northwest. This was in large part a response to the understanding that previous methods of addressing snags and down logs relative to species needs was inadequate and may not have accurately described habitat relationships (Rose et al. 2001). DecAID serves as an information database and as described, serves as an advisory tool to help managers evaluate effects, of forest conditions and existing or proposed management activities on organisms that use snags and down wood. DecAID also can help managers decide on snag and down wood sizes and levels needed to help meet wildlife management objectives. It can help managers articulate those objectives in specific, quantitative terms that can be tested in the field (Mellen et al. 2003). A complete overview of DecAID is available at: wwwnotes.fs.fed.us: 81/pnw/DecAID/DecAID.nsf. DecAID’s usefulness is dependent upon the specificity and magnitude of the data upon which it draws conclusions. In this analysis, limitations in terms of scale as well as habitat and structure specific limitations related to available science should be recognized. However, DecAID still provides the most comprehensive description of deadwood habitats in the states of Oregon and Washington. DecAID also supplies a good reference for habitat conditions and the level that species needs are met in the project area. DecAID was used to describe habitat conditions for a variety of primary cavity excavator species and provided a course scale of comparison for effects of activities proposed. It should be noted that DecAID does not model biological potential or population viability. There is no direct relationship between tolerances, snag densities and sizes in DecAID data; and snag densities and sizes measuring potential population levels, as discussed in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, 1990). Habitat Effectiveness Index The Forest Plan identifies the habitat effectiveness index (HEI) as a tool to describe elk and other big game habitat conditions and to display changes in habitat effectiveness through implementation of habitat altering projects. HEI was utilized in this analysis. Analysis Parameters Temporal Established time frames are useful in describing effects of activities proposed upon different species and habitat features. Timeframes provide a temporal framework for tracking those effects and help identify duration. Effects and description of habitat are defined by three time frames: short-, mid-, and long-term time periods. These periods are defined as follows. Short-Term 0-10 Years Mid-Term 10-30 Years Long-Term 30+ Years These periods represent general benchmarks for habitat conditions. It also represents general benchmarks of habitat utilization by different species within those habitats and snag habitats in severely burned areas in particular. 187 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Spatial Three scales of analysis will occur in discussions of the Affected Environment and the Environmental Effects in this section. These scales of analysis were selected based upon the species and types of habitats discussed and spatial scale of measurable effects from alternatives proposed. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are addressed at each of these scales as appropriate for the species and habitat types considered. They are described below. Project Area This area is defined as the primary area within the Monument Fire perimeter considered for possible management actions. Figure 4 (Map Section) provides a map showing the general location and extent of the project area. The project area consists of management areas (MA): General Forest and Range (MA-1, 2), Non-Anadromous Riparian Area (MA-3A), Big Game Winter Range (MA-4A) and Old Growth Habitat (MA-13). Figure 4 (Map Section) displays the location and general layout of the different management areas in the project area. Chapters 1 and 2 provide specific information about the location and the Management Areas included in this area designation. The Project area is about 8,600 acres in size. Fire Area Also described as the “burn area” or Monument Fire Area, this area is defined by the portion of the Monument Fire that burned in 2002 residing within the Prairie City Ranger District. This area includes the project area as well as the burned portion of the Monument Rock Wilderness (Management Area 6B). Figure 3 (Map Section) provides a map of the extent of the fire area and fire severity within the Prairie City Ranger District boundary. The fire area is about 20,186 acres in size. Analysis Area The analysis area describes the largest area considered for analysis purposes and serves as the outer limits of measurable effects for actions and activities proposed. This area includes the two subwatersheds affected by the Monument Fire including the project area. These two subwatersheds are the Swamp Creek and Upper Little Malheur River subwatersheds (Figure 2, Map Section). The two subwatersheds cover about 57,000 acres of habitat, with the Swamp Creek subwatershed covering about 25,577 acres and the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed covering about 31,444 acres. Nearly all Management Area designations are represented in the Analysis Area. The project area covers about 7,686 acres in the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed, and 896 acres of the Swamp Creek subwatershed. The analysis area also includes the Wallowa-Whitman’s portion of the Monument Fire. This area is included in order to discuss the cumulative effects of activities proposed by the Whitman Unit of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. A salvage/restoration project is proposed in that portion of the fire. Details of this action are described in Chapter 1. Affected Environment & Environmental Effects - Management Indicator Species Primary Cavity Excavator Species (PCE) Introduction The Forest Plan (Chapter IV, Forest Wide Standards, Standard 61) identifies 11 primary cavity excavators as management indicator species (MIS) for the availability and quality of 188 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences dead and defective wood habitat: black-backed woodpecker, three-toed woodpecker, Lewis’ woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, pileated woodpecker, downy woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, northern flicker, Williamson’s sapsucker, red-breasted sapsucker, and yellow- bellied sapsucker. The red-breasted and yellow-bellied sapsuckers were formerly classified with the red-naped sapsucker. Neither the red-breasted nor the yellow-bellied sapsucker is known to occur in eastern Oregon (Gilligan et al. 1994). The red-naped sapsucker does occur throughout the area and will be used as a substitute MIS in this discussion. By providing habitat for these primary cavity excavators, habitat is provided for many other dead wood dependent species as well. Primary cavity excavators’ use burned forest habitats and green forest habitats differently. Tree canopy cover, understory shrub and grass cover, and snag numbers and qualities are all different. This analysis assesses two different habitat conditions, those created by high- moderate to severe fire severities resulting in complete or near complete mortality in the forested vegetation, and those affected by light to low-moderate fire severity that resulted in relatively lower levels of mortality in the forest canopy. Areas of high fire severity are no longer functioning as they did prior to the fire. Post-fire, they have an abundance of snags, and little green canopy or large down logs. Structurally, these stands are classified primarily as stand initiation (SI) and understory reinitiation (UR). The black-backed, three-toed, hairy and Lewis’ woodpeckers, and the northern flicker are analyzed for their response to severely burned forests (Kotliar et al. 2002, Saab et al. 2002). Areas of light fire severity generally maintained the pre-fire stand structures, although snag levels were somewhat increased and canopy closure and canopy structure complexity were somewhat reduced. The lightly burned stands will likely continue to function as they did prior to the fire. The pileated woodpecker and white-headed woodpecker are analyzed for their selection of light severity burn areas, particularly stands that still classify as late and old (LOS) structure (Csuti et al. 1997). The downy woodpecker, Williamson’s sapsucker, and red-naped sapsucker are primarily analyzed for their selection of light severity burn habitats and their use of hardwood habitats (Kotliar et al. 2002, Csuti et al. 1997). The DecAID Advisor tool will be used to assess effects of alternatives on PCE habitats. DecAID provides two sets of data with which to analyze snag habitats: 1) snag inventory data and 2) wildlife use data. The following discussions use snag inventory data from the Prairie City Ranger District portion of the Monument Fire area, and compares it to inventory and woodpecker use data described in DecAID. The DecAID analysis area is the portion of the fire area on Prairie City RD. Comparison of Inventory Data: Table W-1 displays post-fire snag distributions in the Monument fire area as compared to inventory distributions derived from DecAID. The DecAID snag distributions were derived from un-harvested inventory plots in Oregon and Washington Eastside Forests. Snag distributions are displayed for two wildlife habitat types: ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir and mixed conifer. The top half of the table displays snag distribution for snags greater than 10 inches DBH. The bottom half of the table displays snags distribution for snags greater than 20 inches DBH. The table displays snag distribution by density groups (e.g., 0 to 4 snags per acre). Note that ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir habitat types displays density groups in increments of four (0 to 4, 4 to 8, etc) versus the mixed conifer habitat type which displays density groups in increments of six (0 to 6, 6 to 12, etc); this parallels the way inventory data is displayed in DecAID. 189 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Table W-1. Post-fire snag densities by density group (Snags/Acre) for Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir and Blue Mountain Mixed Conifer wildlife habitat types. Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-Fir Mixed Conifer Density Group (Alpha/Numeric Code) Snags/Acre * DecAID Snag Distribution Monument Existing Condition Snags /Acre ** DecAID Snag Distribution Monument Existing Condition Snags equal to or greater than 10” dbh (24cm) 1 0-4 52% 1% 0-6 41% 4% 2 4-8 15% 4% 6-12 19% 5% 3 8-12 22% 6% 12-18 15% 9% 4 12-16 7% 9% 18-24 6% 14% 5 16-20 0% 7% 24-30 8% 8% 6 20-24 0% 13% 30-36 6% 4% 7 24-28 0% 10% 36-42 3% 1% 8 28-32 0% 3% 42-28 0% 4% 9 32-36 2% 2% 48-54 0% 6% 10 > 36 0% 45% >54 0% 45% 99.5% 100% 100% 100% Snags equal to or greater than 20” dbh (50 cm) A 0-2 47% 20% 0-2 12% 18% B 2-4 39% 24% 2-4 28% 19% C 4-6 8% 24% 4-6 21% 28% D 6-8 0% 8% 6-8 15% 10% E 8-10 3% 10% 8-10 10% 14% F 10-12 0% 6% 10-12 7% 2% G 12-14 0% 0% 12-14 1% 4% H 14-16 0% 3% 14-16 1% 2% I 16 –18 0% 5% 16 –18 0% 1% J >18 0% 0% >18 3% 2% 100% 100% 100% 100% DecAID Inventory Data: * Wildlife Habitat Type = Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir; Structural Condition = Larger Trees; ** Wildlife Habitat Type = Blue Mountain Mixed Conifer; Structural Condition = Larger Trees 190 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences The fire created an abundance of new snags. Snag density, size and distribution are a result of several factors: fire severity, past harvest, stand age, tree species composition, fire suppression, and the effects of past disturbances such as wind, fire, pathogens, and insects. Habitats in the project area are generally dry ponderosa pine or Douglas fir sites. Stand densities are generally lower than in moister, mixed conifer sites due to lower site productivities, southerly aspect slope conditions, and dryer habitat conditions. Even in severe burn conditions, these vegetation types would not be expected to produce high snag densities under historic stand conditions and fire regimes (Table W-1). Table W-1 indicates that 45% of the ponderosa pine/Douglas fir types currently support snag densities in the highest snag density group (Group #10). Outside the project area, in the Monument Rock Wilderness, snag densities are generally higher in severe burn severity areas because these areas are generally cooler, moister mixed conifer types that support much higher tree densities. Table W-1 indicates that 56% of the mixed conifer types currently have snag densities greater than 36 snags per acre (Groups 7 through 10), compared to 45% of the ponderosa pine/Douglas fir types (Group 10). Recall that snag density group increments are different for the mixed conifer (increments of 6 snags/acre) versus the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir habitat types (increments of 4 snags/acre). Little of the fire area has received intensive timber harvest. What harvest has occurred primarily took place in the 1960’s, and was generally selective tree removals that harvested only a portion of the large diameter trees and few of the smaller diameter trees. These sales were primarily in the Camp Creek drainage. Fire suppression activities, and livestock grazing, have generally resulted in higher tree densities than occurred historically. These management activities did have some effects on live tree densities before the fire, and therefore, have contributed to snag densities post-fire. It is useful to compare existing snag distributions in the Monument Fire area to those in the DecAID inventory data. Table W-1 indicates that total snag levels (snags 10” DBH and greater) in the fire area are different than snag levels displayed in DecAID. This disparity is particularly obvious when comparing density groups 1 through 4 and density groups 7 through 10. This comparison suggests that the Monument Fire area may currently support snags at a much higher level than would be expected under historic fire regimes. When analyzing the larger snags (snags 20” dbh and greater), the disparity in snag densities between Monument and DecAID is still observed, but noticeably reduced. Therefore, the fire area may be providing for PCE species at a much higher level than would be typically expected. Comparison of Wildlife Use data: DecAID presents information on wildlife use based on snag density and snag diameter. This information is presented at three statistical levels: low (30% tolerance level), moderate (50% tolerance level), and high (80% tolerance level). A tolerance level can also be defined as an “assurance of use” or the likelihood that individuals in a population of a selected species will use an area given a specified snag size and density. For instance, at the 30 percent tolerance level for any given species, it would be expected that only 30 percent of a population would find suitable or usable habitat at a specified snag density. Consequently, 70 percent of a population would not find suitable habitat conditions in habitats at that snag density. Snag density, size, and distribution influence use levels and vary by individual species. For example, post-fire data in DecAID suggests that Lewis’ woodpecker would need 10 191 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS snags/acre to meet the 30% tolerance level, whereas black-backed woodpeckers would need 62 snags/acre. Table W-2 displays the percentage of total suitable habitat in the Monument Fire area by cavity nesting species and tolerance level. Values are displayed for the five species that the Forest Plan identifies as management indicator species (MIS). For the remaining MIS in the Forest Plan, DecAID does not provide wildlife use information for post-fire habitats; effects discussions will be more qualitative than quantitative. Table W-2. Existing tolerance level for cavity nesting species within the fire area Percentage of total suitable habitat in Monument Fire area by Tolerance Level* Species <30% Tolerance Level 30% Tolerance Level 50% Tolerance Level 80% Tolerance Level Black-backed Woodpecker 78% 18% 4% 0% Hairy Woodpecker 11% 42% 41% 6% Lewis’ Woodpecker 7% 69% 21% 3% Northern Flicker 19% 80% 1% 0% White-headed Woodpecker 24% 38% 36% 2% Severe Fire-Affected Habitats The black-backed, three-toed, hairy and Lewis’s woodpecker, and the northern flicker are highly associated with severe fire-affected habitats and will be discussed in this section. The red-naped sapsucker, Williamson sapsucker and downy woodpecker will be discussed relative to changes in riparian habitat. The acres displayed in this section for severe fire affected habitats are summarized in Chapter 2, Table 2.8. Affected Environment About 16,942 acres of habitat within the Prairie City Ranger District portion of the Monument Fire burned at a high-moderate to severe fire severity. The majority of the high- moderate to severely burned area has mortality levels exceeding 80% based upon post-fire surveys. Mortality levels likely will rise because of secondary fire effects. Most of severe fire-affected habitat type is at or near 100% mortality, as about 11,870 acres (70%) of the total 16,942 acres burned at the severe fire severity level. These high snag density groups are displayed in Table W-1, most notably in density groups 6-10. Structurally, these stands are primarily classified as understory reinitiation (UR) or stand initiation (SI), see figure 3, Fire Severity and figure 16 of Map Section, Forest Structure. Research (Hutto 1995, Sallabanks 1995, Saab and Dudley 1997, Saab et al. 2002) indicates that several PCE species will benefit from severely burned habitat created by the Monument Fire. The black-backed, three-toed, hairy and Lewis’s woodpeckers, and the northern flicker are highly associated with these habitats. The species expected to respond to light to 192 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences moderate-low fire severity habitats include the pileated and the white-headed woodpeckers. These species generally have habitat requirements that are not available in severely burned habitats. While use of severely burned areas can occur, this often occurs in close proximity to unburned or lightly burned habitats that retain green-forested canopy cover. Pileated woodpecker and white-headed woodpecker will be discussed in the light fire-affected habitats section. Generally, post-fire habitat conditions are considered ideal for PCE species, but Table W-2 suggests that even under the present conditions, snag densities in Monument will provide very little habitat for species at the 80% tolerance level. As stated previously, much of this condition can be attributed to lower site productivities, southerly aspect slope conditions, and drier habitat conditions in the Monument Fire area. The Lewis woodpecker and hairy woodpecker have the highest levels of habitat available to them because of the 2002 fire (see Table W-2). Suitable habitat for the northern flicker is somewhat lower. The black-backed and three-toed woodpeckers tend to use areas with much higher snag densities than the other three species; therefore, these species have benefited from the fire, but at relatively low levels compared to the other PCE species. For the black- backed woodpecker, 22% of the Monument Fire area provides for this species at the 30% tolerance level or better. Even though DecAID suggests that snag densities in Monument will only provide 22% of the area for black-backed woodpecker at the 30% tolerance level or better, populations are expected to respond favorably compared to pre-fire conditions, which provided poor habitat. The black-backed, three-toed and hairy woodpeckers begin to use burned habitat shortly after the fire; they are strong excavators and can drill into the newly created, hard snags. Approximately 1,400 RHCA acres burned at a moderate to severe fire severity level. These moister riparian sites tend to support a higher density of trees and because of the fire now support a higher level of snags. Hardwood species in the major riparian areas such as Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River were also killed in the fire. The combined loss of conifers and hardwoods reduced habitat for the red-naped sapsucker, Williamson’s sapsucker, and downy woodpecker. Environmental Effects The effects of all activities within the action alternatives were reviewed. Only those activities with direct, indirect, or cumulative effects were addressed. Direct and Indirect Effects Tables W-3 through W-9 will be used to discuss effects of the alternatives on snag densities and PCE tolerance levels. Tables W-3 and W-4 display snag distribution by alternative, as compared to the inventory distribution derived from DecAID. The DecAID snag distributions were derived from un- harvested inventory plots in Oregon and Washington Eastside Forests. This distribution is assumed to best reflect expected snag levels. The majority of stand treatments are proposed in the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir habitat types; snag densities vary dramatically between alternatives (see Table W-3). Because so little harvest is proposed in the mixed conifer habitat types, snag densities in this habitat type vary little between alternatives (see Table W- 4). Therefore, the remainder of effects discussions for woodpecker species will focus on the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir habitat types. 193 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Table W-3. Wildlife habitat type = Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir; Structural condition = larger trees Density Group (Alpha/Numeric Code) Snags/Acre DecAID Snag Distribution* Alternatives 1 and 5 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Snags equal to or greater than 10” dbh (24cm) 1 0-4 52% 1% 41% 1% 32% 2 4-8 15% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3 8-12 22% 6% 4% 5% 4% 4 12-16 7% 9% 5% 33% 6% 5 16-20 0% 7% 4% 6% 5% 6 20-24 0% 13% 11% 12% 11% 7 24-28 0% 10% 7% 8% 8% 8 28-32 0% 3% 2% 2% 2% 9 32-36 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 10 > 36 0% 45% 22% 28% 28% 99.5% 100% 100% 100% 100% Snags equal to or greater than 20” dbh (50 cm) A 0-2 47% 20% 16% 18% 49% B 2-4 39% 24% 54% 42% 15% C 4-6 8% 24% 10% 13% 12% D 6-8 0% 8% 4% 7% 5% E 8-10 3% 10% 4% 7% 7% F 10-12 0% 6% 5% 5% 5% G 12-14 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% H 14-16 0% 3% 2% 2% 2% I 16 –18 0% 5% 5% 5% 5% J >18 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 194 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table W-4. Wildlife habitat type = Blue Mountain mixed conifer; structural condition = larger trees Density Group (Alpha/Numeric Code) Snags/Acre DecAID Snag Distribution* Alternatives 1 and 5 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Snags equal to or greater than 10” dbh (24cm) 1 0-4 3% 4% 8% 4% 7% 2 4-8 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 3 8-12 7% 9% 8% 11% 8% 4 12-16 5% 14% 13% 13% 13% 5 16-20 11% 8% 7% 8% 7% 6 20-24 7% 4% 4% 4% 4% 7 24-28 10% 1% 2% 2% 2% 8 28-32 7% 4% 3% 4% 4% 9 32-36 10% 6% 6% 4% 6% 10 > 36 34% 45% 44% 44% 44% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Snags equal to or greater than 20” dbh (50 cm) A 0-2 22% 18% 18% 18% 21% B 2-4 18% 20% 22% 22% 19% C 4-6 28% 28% 27% 27% 27% D 6-8 16% 10% 9% 9% 9% E 8-10 7% 14% 14% 14% 14% F 10-12 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% G 12-14 0% 4% 4% 4% 4% H 14-16 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% I 16 –18 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% J >18 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Tables W-5 through W-9 display tolerance levels for each PCE species as a percentage of the Monument Fire area. Calculations exclude acres unsuitable for forestlands, i.e., acres that would never support trees or snags (about 400 acres or 2% of the fire area). Reductions in tolerance levels due to salvage harvest is buffered to an extent by the large area of snags in the Monument Rock Wilderness Area that will go untreated; the wilderness comprises 58% of the area that burned on the Prairie City Ranger District. 195 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Table W-5. Black-Backed Woodpecker. – Wildlife tolerance levels Wildlife Tolerance Levels (% fire area) Alternative 0-29% 30-49% 50-79% 80% + 1 and 5 78% 18% 4% 0% 2 80% 16% 4% 0% 3 80% 16% 4% 0% 4 80% 16% 4% 0% Table W-6. Hairy Woodpecker – Wildlife tolerance levels Wildlife Tolerance Levels (% fire area) Alternative 0-29% 30-49% 50-79% 80% + 1 and 5 11% 42% 41% 6% 2 31% 32% 32% 5% 3 11% 50% 34% 5% 4 26% 35% 34% 5% Table W-7. Lewis’ Woodpecker – Wildlife tolerance levels Wildlife Tolerance Levels (% fire area) Alternative 0-29% 30-49% 50-79% 80% + 1 and 5 7% 69% 21% 3% 2 27% 53% 17% 3% 3 7% 72% 19% 2% 4 23% 56% 19% 2% Table W-8. Northern Flicker – Wildlife tolerance levels Wildlife Tolerance Levels (% fire area) Alternative 0-29% 30-49% 50-79% 80% + 1 and 5 19% 80% 1% 0% 2 39% 60% 1% 0% 3 19% 80% 1% 0% 4 39% 60% 1% 0% 196 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table W-9. White-Headed Woodpecker – Wildlife tolerance levels Wildlife Tolerance Levels (% fire area) Alternative 0-29% 30-49% 50-79% 80% + 1 and 5 24% 38% 36% 2% 2 40% 28% 30% 2% 3 36% 31% 31% 2% 4 36% 30% 32% 2% Alternative 1 There would be no direct or indirect effects to species such as the black-backed, three-toed, and hairy woodpeckers with selection of Alternative 1. The current condition of habitat for these species would be as described in the affected environment section and as summarized in tables W-3 through W-9. Over the short- to mid-term period, habitat for all three species would be present. Black-backed, three-toed and hairy woodpeckers have been shown to be significantly more abundant in burned habitat, compared to unburned sites, up to four years following a fire (Kreisel and Stein 1998). Nesting increases, possibly due to a lack of habitat for red squirrels and other mammal predators. Bird abundance appears to be due to differences in foraging opportunities (Caton 1998). Over time, suitable habitat would decline for these species as number of snags and dead wood insects such as bark and cambium beetles decline. Bird populations would decrease as food sources decrease (Kreisel and Stein 1998). Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on Lewis’ woodpecker or northern flicker. Over the short- to mid-term period, these species would benefit from this alternative, as a maximum number of large snags would be available for nesting habitat. Maximum use may be delayed for several years until fire-killed trees begin to fall, stands become more open, snags are well decayed and shrub densities have increased. Foraging habits of Lewis’ woodpecker, which are less reliant upon insects associated with dead wood, allow this species to persist much longer in the burned habitats. Flying insects, favored by Lewis’ woodpecker, are abundant in the more open post-fire habitats. Suitable habitat conditions would likely continue into the mid-term until most of the snags have fallen (approximately 30 years). A total of 1,400 acres of riparian habitat were severely burned and would not likely support Williamson’s or red-naped sapsuckers, or downy woodpeckers as described in the Affected Environment section. Therefore, no effects to these species are anticipated. Tables W-3 and W-4 display existing snag distribution. Values indicate total snag levels (snags 10” DBH and greater) in the fire area are much higher than snag levels displayed in DecAID. This comparison suggests that the Monument Fire area may currently support snags at a much higher level than would be expected under historic fire regimes. Therefore, PCE species are benefiting from the abundance of snags. In an unburned forest, enough snags are left to provide for 100% percent potential populations, and enough live trees, of various sizes, are left to become snags in the future, 197 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS ensuring that snag habitat is provided over time. In areas where fire burned severely and killed all or nearly all of the trees, there are few live, green trees left to become snags in the future. Once the snags created by the Monument Fire fall, few snags will be available again until a new forest develops, trees reach sizes useful for woodpeckers, and these trees begin to die. With planting, Knotts (1998) estimated it would take 70 to 110 years to grow trees with average tree diameters approaching 15” dbh, and 120 to over 160 years for stands averaging trees 21” dbh or greater. Moderately to severely burned areas not near a seed source, or left unplanted, would remain un-forested for decades more. Since planting would not occur in Alternative 1, this would result in a snag gap in available habitat for PCE species from year 30, the time most snags are expected to be on the ground, to year 90 or more. If larger, existing snags persist longer than expected – past the 30-year mark - then the snag gap would be reduced, particularly for Alternatives 1 and 5, which retain the most large diameter snags. Alternative 2 The direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2 is the habitat loss (snag removal) with the harvest of 3,477 acres out of a total of 16,942 acres of suitable forested habitat for the black- backed, three-toed, hairy, and Lewis’ woodpeckers; and the northern flicker. This is about 20% reduction of the total suitable habitat present within the Malheur National Forest portion of the Monument Fire. In salvage units, Alternative 2 would leave at least 2.4 large snags (>21” dbh) per acre, distributed in clumps over a 40-acre basis. Snags < 12” dbh in the helicopter units, and < 9” dbh in the tractor logged units would not be harvested. In salvage units, these densities and sizes of snags would not meet the 30 percent habitat tolerance for black-backed, three-toed, hairy, and Lewis’ woodpecker; and the northern flicker and would result in the reduction of suitable habitat for these species in the short to mid-term as displayed in tables W-3 through W-9. Note the shift from higher tolerance levels to lower tolerance levels. Alternative 2 would have the greatest effect upon the hairy and Lewis’ woodpeckers, and the northern flicker, compared to alternative 3 and 4 (see tables W-6 through W-8). The effects of habitat loss for the Lewis’ woodpecker would extend from the short term through the mid term periods because of their ability to use fire affected habitat over a longer period of time. Under the existing condition, 89 percent of the fire area meets or exceeds a 30 percent tolerance level for hairy woodpecker. After implementation, 69 percent will meet or exceed the 30 percent tolerance level (see table W-6). Under the existing condition, 93 percent of the fire area meets or exceeds a 30 percent tolerance level for Lewis’ woodpecker. After implementation, 73 percent will meet or exceed the 30 percent tolerance level (see table W-7). Under the existing condition, 81 percent of the fire area meets or exceeds a 30 percent tolerance level for northern flicker. After implementation, 61 percent will meet or exceed the 30 percent tolerance level (see W-8). The effects on the black-backed woodpecker would be less dramatic than effects to the other species. Currently, 22% of the fire area meets snag densities that would provide for these species at the 30% tolerance level or better (see Table W-5). After implementation of Alternative 2, 20% of the fire area would provide for these species at these levels. At the 30% tolerance level, habitat would be reduced 2% within the fire area. Few areas have the high snag densities (62 snags 10” dbh and greater) preferred by these species, so less habitat is affected. 198 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Alternative 2 proposes salvage activities in riparian habitats to reduce fuel levels in RHCAs adjacent to the lower reaches of Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River. A total of about 589 acres of moderate and severely burned riparian habitat would be affected. This amount of habitat amounts to around 29 percent of the total riparian acres burned at moderate to high severity in the fire area (see table A-20). Severely burned areas would not likely support Williamson’s or red-naped sapsuckers, or downy woodpeckers as described in the Affected Environment section. Salvage harvest in RHCAs would be removed by helicopter, so where live vegetation did survive the fire, little damage is expected. Effects would be minimal. Tables W-3 and W-4 display post-treatment snag distribution. In the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir habitat types, snag densities are aggressively shifted towards the lower snag density classes. Changes to the mixed conifer habitat types are minimal because most of the mixed conifer habitat type is in the wilderness and are not proposed for treatment. Alternative 2 comes closest to mimicking the inventory distributions described by DecAID for the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir habitat type. Even though we are reducing habitat for PCE species, remaining snag habitat still meets or exceeds snag levels expected under a more typical fire regime. The large bank of snags in the Monument Rock Wilderness helps reduce these effects; 79 percent of severely burned habitats across the fire area would go untreated. At the landscape scale, snag habitats would continue to provide for PCE species, even after implementation of this alternative. With planting, Knotts (1998) estimated it would take 70 to 110 years to grow trees with average tree diameters approaching 15” dbh, and 120 to over 160 years for stands averaging trees 21” dbh or greater. This would result in a snag gap in available habitat for PCE species from year 30, the time most snags are expected to be on the ground, to year 70. Because of planting, the snag gap would be reduced as compared to Alternative 1. Alternative 3 The direct and indirect effects of Alternative 3 relate to the habitat loss with the harvest of 1,760 acres out of a total of 16,947 acres of suitable forested habitat for the black-backed, three-toed, hairy, and Lewis’ woodpeckers; and the northern flicker. This is about 10% reduction of the total suitable habitat present within the Malheur NF portion of the Monument Fire. Values in tables W-5 through W-8 would change minimally when compared to Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) and Alternative 5. This alternative calls for the retention of 13 snags per acre in each harvest unit, distributed by size class as described in Chapter 2. The majority of these snags would be distributed in patches of two to six acres in size. Alternative 3 would result in little difference to the black-backed and three-toed woodpeckers compared to Alternatives 2 and 4 on the acres of habitat harvested (see table W-5). Currently, 22% of the fire area meets snag densities that would provide for these species at the 30% tolerance level or better (see Table W-5). After implementation of Alternative 3, 20% of the fire area would provide for these species at these levels. Even though more snags are left in salvage units in Alternative 3, these levels still don’t meet the 62 snags per acre needed to meet the 30% tolerance level. As in Alternatives 2 and 4, the relatively low level of effect is indicative of the lack of suitable habitat for the species. Of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, species like the Lewis’ and hairy woodpeckers and the northern flicker would be least affected by the implementation of Alternative 3. Habitat quality would be reduced within harvest units, but would be maintained at or above snag densities 199 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS correspondent with the 30% tolerance level. Snag prescriptions were specifically designed to provide snag densities and sizes to provide for these species at the 30% tolerance level (DecAID 2003). Although retention of 13 snags per acre is about half of the number of snags (25 to 37 snags per acre) that previous research has found as a strong selective factor for these species (Saab et al. 2002), this snag level would still provide for these species better than Alternatives 2 or 4. Under the existing condition, 89 percent of the fire area meets or exceeds a 30 percent tolerance level for hairy woodpecker. After implementation, 89 percent will still meet or exceed the 30 percent tolerance level, although habitat will be shifted from the 50% and 80% tolerance levels to the 30% tolerance level (see table W-6). Under the existing condition, 93 percent of the fire area meets or exceeds a 30 percent tolerance level for Lewis’ woodpecker. After implementation, 93 percent will meet or exceed the 30 percent tolerance level, although habitat will be shifted from the 50% and 80% tolerance levels to the 30% tolerance level (see table W-7). Under the existing condition, 81 percent of the fire area meets or exceeds a 30 percent tolerance level for northern flicker. After implementation, 81 percent will continue to meet or exceed the 30 percent tolerance level (see W-8). Snag requirements for northern flicker are relatively low; by retaining 13 snags per acre, all salvage acres would still provide habitat at the 30% tolerance level or better. Severely burned areas would not likely support Williamson’s or red-naped sapsuckers, or downy woodpeckers as described in the Affected Environment section. No harvest in RHCAs would occur under Alternative 3. Environmental effects for these species would be minimal. Tables W-3 and W-4 display the post-treatment snag distribution. In the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir habitat types, snag densities are shifted towards the medium-size snag density class 4 (12” to 16”dbh). Size class 4 changes from 4% (existing condition shown by Alternatives 1 and 5) to 31% of the fire area under Alternative 3 (Table W-3). This reflects the snag strategy of leaving 13 snags per acre in the harvest units. Alternative 3 leaves slightly more snags in the high densities (group 6 and above) than Alternatives 2 and 4, to the benefit of PCE species. Changes to the mixed conifer habitat types are minimal because most of the mixed conifer habitat type is in the wilderness. Even though we are reducing habitat for PCE species, remaining snag habitat still meets or exceeds snag levels expected under a more typical fire regime. The large bank of snags in the Monument Rock Wilderness helps reduce these effects; 85 percent of severely burned habitats across the fire area would go untreated. At the landscape scale, snag habitats would continue to provide for PCE species, even after implementation of this alternative. With planting, Knotts (1998) estimated it would take 70 to 110 years to grow trees with average tree diameters approaching 15” dbh, and 120 to over 160 years for stands averaging trees 21” dbh or greater. This would result in a snag gap in available habitat for PCE species from year 30, the time most snags are expected to be on the ground, to year 70. Because of planting, the snag gap would be reduced as compared to Alternative 1. Alternative 4 The direct and indirect effects of Alternative 4 are the disturbance of salvage harvest activities and habitat loss with the harvest of 2,742 acres out of a total of 16,947 acres of 200 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences suitable forested habitat for the black-backed, three-toed, hairy, and Lewis’ woodpeckers; and the northern flicker. This is about 16% reduction of the total suitable habitat present within the Malheur NF portion of the Monument Fire. One purpose of this alternative is to maintain better distribution of undisturbed moderate and severely burned snag habitat for primary cavity excavators and other species associated with snag habitat. Eleven un-harvested blocks (about 338 acres) ranging from 4 acres to 90 acres of upland moderate and severe burned trees would be left for snag habitat. These leave blocks would provide additional foraging for species such as the black-backed and three-toed woodpeckers, which require higher snag densities. Patches of snags were left in order to better meet the needs of primary cavity excavator species because cavity nesters as a group prefer patches as opposed to single snags retained in uniform, evenly spaced distribution (Rose et al. 2001, Saab et al. 2002, Kotliar 2002). The upland leave patches and riparian areas will help distribute foraging habitat and may reduce competition within a species (Rose et al. 2001). A non-significant Forest Plan amendment would be required because snags would not be left in salvage harvest units on a 40-acre basis. Bird abundance and nest densities would be lower in the logged stands and fewer sites in logged stands would be suitable for nesting (Caton 1998). Implementation of Alternative 4 would have a similar affect upon the woodpeckers as found in Alternative 2. The primary difference would be a slightly smaller percentage of habitat affected due to unharvested blocks described in the previous paragraph (see tables W-5 through W-8). Under the existing condition, 89 percent of the fire area meets or exceeds a 30 percent tolerance level for hairy woodpecker. After implementation, 74 percent will meet or exceed the 30 percent tolerance level (see table W-6). Under the existing condition, 93 percent of the fire area meets or exceeds a 30 percent tolerance level for Lewis’ woodpecker. After implementation, 77 percent will meet or exceed the 30 percent tolerance level (see table W-7). Under the existing condition, 81 percent of the fire area meets or exceeds a 30 percent tolerance level for northern flicker. After implementation, 61 percent will meet or exceed the 30 percent tolerance level (see W-8). Effects of this alternative on the black-backed and three-toed woodpecker are less dramatic, with effects similar to those described in Alternative 2 and 3. Currently, 22% of the fire area meets snag densities that would provide for these species at the 30% tolerance level or better (see Table W-5). After implementation of Alternative 4, 20% of the fire area would provide for these species at these levels. As in Alternatives 2 and 3, the relatively low level of effect is indicative of the lack of suitable habitat for the species. Unharvested blocks would help provide additional habitat for these species. However, the DecAID model was not sensitive enough to reflect the benefit of leaving 338 acres of snag patches. Severely burned areas would not likely support Williamson’s or red-naped sapsuckers, or downy woodpeckers as described in the Affected Environment section. No harvest in RHCAs would occur under Alternative 3. Environmental effects for these species would be minimal. 201 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Tables W-3 and W-4 display the post-treatment snag distribution. In the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir habitat types, snag densities are aggressively shifted towards the lower snag density classes, although not as aggressively as Alternative 2. Changes to the mixed conifer habitat types are minimal because most of the mixed conifer habitat type is in the wilderness. In the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir habitat type, snags levels fall between levels projected under Alternatives 2 and 3. Even though we are reducing habitat for PCE species, remaining snag habitat still meets or exceeds snag levels expected under a more typical fire regime. The large bank of snags in the Monument Rock Wilderness helps reduce these effects; 85 percent of severely burned habitats across the fire area would go untreated. At the landscape scale, snag habitats would continue to provide for PCE species, even after implementation of this alternative. With planting, Knotts (1998) estimated it would take 70 to 110 years to grow trees with average tree diameters approaching 15” dbh, and 120 to over 160 years for stands averaging trees 21” dbh or greater. This would result in a snag gap in available habitat for PCE species from year 30, the time most snags are expected to be on the ground, to year 70. Because of planting, the snag gap would be reduced as compared to Alternative 1. Alternative 5 Alternative 5 does not salvage any trees. Implementation of this alternative would result in similar effects as those shown in Alternative 1, except for effects from planting proposed by this alternative. See Alternative 1 for a discussion of expected woodpecker use levels and a comparison of snag distributions in the Monument Fire area relative to snag distributions displayed in DecAID. With planting, Knotts (1998) estimated it would take 70 to 110 years to grow trees with average tree diameters approaching 15” dbh, and 120 to over 160 years for stands averaging trees 21” dbh or greater. This would result in a snag gap in available habitat for PCE species from year 30, the time most snags are expected to be on the ground, to year 70. Because of planting, the snag gap would be reduced as compared to Alternative 1. Light Severity Fire-Affected Habitats The pileated and white-headed woodpecker are highly associated with these habitats and will be discussed in this section. The red-naped sapsucker, Williamson sapsucker and downy woodpecker will be discussed relative to changes in riparian habitat. The acres displayed in this section for light severity affected habitats are summarized in Chapter 2, Table 2.8. Affected Environment About 2,847 acres of forested habitat within the Prairie City Ranger District portion of the Monument Fire burned at a light to moderate-low fire severity. These habitats changed little in the diversity of forested vegetation and the structure of the forested canopy. The most significant changes are seen in the reduction in canopy closures and reductions in the lower vegetation strata. Stands are more open, particularly in the lower stratum levels of the canopy. These habitats, however, generally continue to function as they did prior to the fires, for the species that utilize those habitats. The species expected to respond to light to moderate-low fire severity habitats include the pileated and the white-headed woodpeckers. These species generally have habitat 202 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences requirements that are not available in severely burned habitats. While use of severely burned areas can occur, this often occurs in close proximity to unburned or lightly burned habitats that retain green-forested canopy cover. Habitat requirements for pileated and the white-headed woodpeckers differ. The pileated woodpecker is dependent upon dense, multistoried mixed conifer habitats with an abundance of large live trees and large snags. Snag densities in high quality habitat are high, often exceeding 4 large snags per acre (Bull and Holthausen 1992). Soft snags and an abundance of large down logs provide the primary forage source, i.e., carpenter ants (Bull and Holthausen 1992). Earlier research indicates that blocks of suitable habitat should be at least 300 acres (Thomas 1979), while later research indicates blocks of suitable habitat should exceed 800 acres (Bull and Holthausen 1992). Prior to the fire, the old growth area south of the Little Malheur River provided habitat for pileated woodpeckers. Pileated woodpecker surveys are limited to one area, the old growth unit just south of the Little Malheur River. The survey was conducted in 1992 and a pileated woodpecker was seen flying away from one of the calling stations in the unit. The Monument Fire eliminated cover that provided habitat in that old growth unit. In the two subwatersheds about 14,400 acres of mature and old-growth forest (YFMS and OFMS) remain, primarily outside the fire area. In the fire area, about 852 acres of mature and old growth forest still remains that would provide habitat for pileated woodpeckers and other interior forest cavity nesting species. In these stands, the fire did not significantly alter stand structure conditions, although canopy closures may have been reduced by as much as 5% to 20%. Snags created by the fire were mostly in the smaller diameter ranges. The one limiting factor restricting the ability of these stands to function as habitat, is their fragmented condition based upon past harvest activities and the mosaic burn patterns of the Monument Fire. Only one 250-acre block of habitat near Hunter Creek in the Camp Creek drainage remains intact; the remainder of the suitable habitat is fragmented into smaller patches, often less than 100 acres. In limited examples, some of these habitats are connected to similar suitable habitat outside the fire area. The quality of habitat for the pileated woodpecker has declined incrementally in the earlier successional habitats. Many of the more heavily decayed snags and down logs were consumed, even in these lower intensity fires. These snags provided primary foraging habitat. Also, with mortality in portions of the canopy, the decline in canopy closure has made these habitats less suitable for the pileated woodpecker. Conversely, the mortality in these stands created new snags in almost all size classes, offering alternative foraging opportunities as well as future soft snags. While overall habitat suitability has declined, existing structures and created snag habitats still allow these habitats to be utilized by pileated woodpeckers. In contrast, white-headed woodpeckers require habitats composed of ponderosa pine- dominated stands in a more open, park-like habitat condition. Silviculture structures used to identify white-headed woodpecker habitat include the multi-canopy stands with large diameter trees (OFMS and YFMS) and single-canopy stands with large diameter trees (OFSS). The fire area does not contain OFSS. White-headed woodpeckers were foraging in the YFMS and those stand conditions may provide adequate foraging and nesting structure because of more open conditions created by the fire. Typically, stand densities in white- headed woodpecker habitat are relatively low, and composed primarily of large, mature ponderosa pine, although other conifer species are often present (Garrett et al. 1996). The 203 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS quality of habitat for the white-headed woodpecker has improved because of the thinning effect from the fire and opening up the canopy. The level of expected secondary fire related mortality varies in these lower fire severity stands. Additional snags were created, providing abundant nesting habitat. Some large snags were created; snag surveys indicate densities of roughly 2.0 to 3.0 snags (>21” dbh) per acre. In live, green stands, DecAID suggests that white-headed woodpeckers need densities of snags ranging from 0.3 to 8 snags per acre greater than 10 inches DBH with 0.5 to 4 of these snags greater than 20 inches DBH (Mellen et al. 2003). White-headed woodpeckers are less reliant upon snags for foraging habitat and focuses more upon airborne insects and pinecone seeds, which are generally more abundant in the more open mature pine habitat conditions (Garrett et al. 1996). DecAID provides post-fire data for white-headed woodpeckers, suggesting that the fire area could support use primarily at the 30% to 50% tolerance level (see table W-9). Several studies on white-headed woodpeckers, however, suggest the species is not closely associated with burned habitats (Hutto 1995, Sallabanks 1995, Raphael and White 1984, Saab and Dudley 1997), primarily because of the lack of many live trees. The species primarily forages on live, mature and old growth ponderosa pine, feeding on seeds from cones and scaling tree bark for insects. The species may use large, well-decayed snags in the burned area for nesting, if the burned area is within a potential home range that includes large, live ponderosa pine. The sapsucker species and downy woodpecker are often associated with hardwood habitats in riparian areas; favored hardwood habitats include willow, alder, aspen, and cottonwood, particularly for the red-naped sapsucker and downy woodpecker (Csuti et al. 1997). However, all three species will utilize conifer forest habitat. The red-naped sapsucker will use conifer forests associated with aspen habitat (Csuti et al. 1997), while the Williamson’s sapsucker will utilize a wide variety of conifer habitat types from upper elevation sub-alpine types, lodgepole pine types, Douglas and grand fir habitats, and ponderosa pine types (Csuti et al. 1997). Open ponderosa pine types are often selected for, particularly in Oregon (Csuti et al. 1997). Aspen and cottonwood habitats are limited within the project area. Riparian habitat degradation, conifer encroachment, livestock grazing, and other forces have resulting in declines and limited distribution of existing habitats. Kotliar et al. (2002) describe the Williamson’s and red-naped sapsucker, and downy woodpecker as species with either mixed response to burned habitats versus unburned habitats or they showed similar abundance levels in burned and unburned forests. DecAID and other recent research have not addressed habitat needs for these species within fire- affected habitats. Sections of upper Camp Creek and lower reaches of the Little Malheur River burned at light fire severities. Post-fire, these areas are classified as earlier successional stands, generally stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) and stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC). Therefore, in the lighter fire severity areas, habitat conditions likely remain suitable for species such as the red-naped and Williamson’s sapsuckers, depending upon existing green vegetation cover. The abundance of smaller trees killed by the fire has likely increased insect populations, providing improved foraging habitat for the downy woodpecker. Conditions in the riparian areas are less suitable for the pileated woodpecker and the white-headed woodpecker, due to the lack of YFMS and OFMS. 204 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Effects The following analysis focuses on lightly burned habitat (2,847 acres). Effects discussion focuses on the thinning of live trees and reduction in snags. Discussion will focus primarily on the 852 acres of OFMS/YFMS, which provide nesting habitat for pileated and white- headed woodpeckers and to a lesser degree on younger structural stages - SEOC, SECC, UR and SI – which are primarily limited to foraging habitat. Effects to riparian areas will also be discussed, focusing on effects to the sapsuckers and downy woodpecker. The effects of all activities within the action alternatives were reviewed. Only those activities with direct, indirect, or cumulative effects were addressed. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 and 5 Implementation of Alternative 1 and 5 would not result in direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to snag-associated species or habitat. Habitats would be maintained, as they currently exist. See the Affected Environment section for discussion. The larger diameter trees will provide additional large snags in the short-term and in the future would provide down wood, a critical habitat component for pileated woodpeckers (Bull and Holthausen 1993) as well as pine martens (Ruggiero et al. 1994). In the long-term, stand densities, and structure complexity would re-develop and return to similar pre-fire conditions. For the white-headed woodpecker, improved habitat conditions over 852 acres of habitat would be maintained through the short and mid-term. Fire-induced mortality would result in more open habitat conditions favored by the species. Habitat for the white-headed woodpecker would be maintained based on the expected survival of the large diameter ponderosa pine trees (about 5 per acre). Based on the tree mortality guidelines, about half or more of the large diameter trees will be snags within a few years and will provide nesting habitat as well. For white-headed woodpecker, 76% of the fire area would provide snag habitat at the 30% tolerance level and above (Table W-9). In addition, structure complexity and diversity in the lightly burned areas is expected to provide suitable habitat for management indicator species such as Williamson’s and red- naped sapsuckers, downy and hairy woodpeckers, as well as other landbirds such as mountain chickadees, brown creepers, flammulated owls, and pygmy nuthatches. Alternative 2 The direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2 are related to habitat loss from commercial thinning and salvage harvest. There are 76 acres of commercial thinning and 674 acres of salvage harvest out of the 2,847 acres, i.e., about 25% of the light severity burned forest. Snags and green tree replacement habitats would be managed through the retention of large tree structure and management of snag densities at Forest Plan standards. Commercial Thinning Commercial thinning would have direct and indirect effects upon both the pileated and white-headed woodpecker through changes to habitat. Removal of live trees does not change the structural stage on any stand, but it does reduce canopy cover. Both pileated woodpecker and white-headed woodpeckers are associated primarily with OFMS and YFMS. Reduction in canopy cover could negatively affect pileated woodpeckers, but is likely to improve habitat for white-headed woodpeckers, which prefer more open stand conditions. The 205 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS number of OFMS/YFMS acres affected is 7 acres and is considered incidental for either species. In the long term, commercial thinning would increase growth of the residual trees and develop a more single story old growth condition, the preferred habitat for white-headed woodpeckers. Salvage Harvest Alternative 2 proposes salvage harvest on about 172 acres of the 852 OFMS/YFMS acres, reducing potential nesting and foraging habitat for the pileated woodpecker and nesting habitat for the white-headed woodpecker in the fire area; roughly 20% of the total existing habitat present in the fire area. The remaining salvage acres are in younger structural stages that are not considered quality habitat for nesting, although they can provide foraging habitat. DecAID displays suggested snag densities in live, green stands for these two species. Alternative 2 would retain the Forest Plan standard of 2.4 snags per acre, meeting the suggested snag levels in DecAID for white-headed woodpecker, but being lower than levels suggested for pileated woodpeckers. DecAID also provides woodpecker use data for white-headed woodpecker in post-fire habitats. Under the existing condition, 76 percent of the fire area meets or exceeds a 30 percent tolerance level for white-headed woodpecker. After implementation, 60 percent will meet or exceed the 30 percent tolerance level (see table W-9). These values may overstate changes in habitat; as stated previously, current research indicates that white-headed woodpeckers are not strongly associated with post-fire habitats. At the subwatershed level, about 14,400 acres of mature and old-growth forest (YFMS and OFMS) remain; therefore, although harvest degrades habitat in the fire area, the subwatersheds continue to provide habitat for these species. Effects would be considered minimal; far less than 1% of habitat would be affected. Harvesting snags in the riparian area of Camp Creek would remove nesting trees for red- naped and Williamson’s sapsuckers, although snags would be left at Forest Plan standards and provide some nest trees. All logging would be done by helicopter and would have little effect to any emerging hardwood trees or shrubs. Downy woodpeckers typically use hardwoods for nesting, so no effects to nesting would be expected. Removing snags can reduce foraging habitat for downy woodpeckers; post-fire habitats provide an increase in insect populations. Effects would be expected to be minimal, given the level of acres treated, approximately 68 acres. Alternative 3 The direct and indirect effects of Alternative 3 are related to habitat loss from salvage harvest. No commercial thinning is proposed. There are 324 acres of salvage harvest out of the total 2,847 acres, i.e., about 11% of the lightly burned forest. Snags and green tree replacement habitats would be managed through the retention of 13 snags per acre and an abundance of live trees, well above Forest Plan standards. Salvage Harvest Only Alternatives 3 proposes salvage harvest on about 55 acres of the 852 OFMS/YFMS acres, reducing potential nesting and foraging habitat for the pileated woodpecker and nesting habitat for the white-headed woodpecker in the fire area; roughly 6% of the total existing 206 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences habitat present in the fire area. The remaining salvage acres are in younger structural stages that are not considered quality habitat for nesting, although they can provide foraging habitat. The primary direct and indirect effects associated with the harvest activity proposed would be the reduction of snag densities in the 324 acres treated. This alternative would maintain 13 snags per acre. These snags would be distributed in size classes as described in Chapter 2. The primary indirect effect of this arrangement would be reduction of potential foraging and nesting snags. Of the 13 snags, at least 2.5 per acre would be greater than 21” dbh, or the maximum size available if snag diameters are less than that. This number of snags would likely result in an incremental reduction in habitat quality for both white-headed and pileated woodpeckers. These habitats would likely still provide suitable habitat. For pileated woodpeckers, habitat is also considered better than under Alternatives 2 and 4 given that no live, green trees expected to survive the fire would be removed; existing canopy levels would be maintained. DecAID displays suggested snag densities in live, green stands for these two species. At 13 snags per acre, Alternative 3 would retain snags at levels in excess of those suggested for white-headed woodpecker, but still less than the number of large snags recommended for pileated woodpecker. DecAID also provides woodpecker use data for white-headed woodpecker in post-fire habitats. Under the existing condition, 76 percent of the fire area meets or exceeds a 30 percent tolerance level for white-headed woodpecker. After implementation, 64 percent will meet or exceed the 30 percent tolerance level (see table W-9). These values may overstate changes in habitat; as stated previously, current research indicates that white-headed woodpeckers are not strongly associated with post-fire habitats. At the subwatershed level, about 14,400 acres of mature and old-growth forest (YFMS and OFMS) remain; therefore, although harvest degrades habitat in the fire area, the subwatersheds continue to provide habitat for these species. Effects would be considered minimal; far less than 1% of habitat would be affected. Habitat for red-naped and Williamson’s sapsuckers would be minimally affected because there would be no treatment in the riparian areas. Some nesting and foraging habitat would be reduced in areas adjacent to riparian areas. Foraging habitat for downy woodpeckers would also be reduced, but effects would also be low given the number of snags being retained. Alternative 4 The direct and indirect effects of Alternative 4 are related to habitat loss from commercial thinning and salvage harvest. There are 76 acres of commercial thinning and 616 acres of salvage harvest out of the 2,847 acres, i.e., about 24% of the light severity burned forest. Green tree replacement habitats would be managed through the retention of large tree structure. Commercial Thinning Commercial thinning would have direct and indirect effects upon both the pileated and white-headed woodpecker through changes to habitat. Removal of live trees does not change the structural stage on any stand, but it does reduce canopy cover. Both pileated woodpecker and white-headed woodpeckers are associated primarily with OFMS and YFMS. Reduction in canopy cover could negatively affect pileated woodpeckers, but is likely to improve habitat for white-headed woodpeckers, which prefer more open stand conditions. The number of OFMS/YFMS acres affected is 7 acres and is considered incidental for either 207 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS species. Foraging habitat would be provided in the commercial thinning units where there would be 1.5 to 2.5 snags per acre retained, with the objective of retaining snags at or near the 2.5 level. In the long term, commercial thinning would increase growth of the residual trees and develop a more single story old growth condition, the preferred habitat for white-headed woodpeckers. Salvage Harvest Alternative 4 proposes salvage harvest on about 155 acres of the 852 OFMS/YFMS acres, reducing potential nesting and foraging habitat for the pileated woodpecker and nesting habitat for the white-headed woodpecker in the fire area; roughly 18% of the total existing habitat present in the fire area. The remaining salvage acres are in younger structural stages that are not considered quality habitat for nesting, although they can provide foraging habitat. DecAID displays suggested snag densities in live, green stands for these two species. Alternative 4 would retain 1.5 to 2.5 snags per acre, meeting the suggested snag levels in DecAID for white-headed woodpecker, but being lower than levels suggested for pileated woodpeckers. DecAID also provides woodpecker use data for white-headed woodpecker in post-fire habitats. Under the existing condition, 76 percent of the fire area meets or exceeds a 30 percent tolerance level for white-headed woodpecker. After implementation, 64 percent will meet or exceed the 30 percent tolerance level (see table W-9). These values may overstate changes in habitat; as stated previously, current research indicates that white-headed woodpeckers are not strongly associated with post-fire habitats. At the subwatershed level, about 14,400 acres of mature and old-growth forest (YFMS and OFMS) remain; therefore, although harvest degrades habitat in the fire area, the subwatersheds continue to provide habitat for these species. Effects would be considered minimal; far less than 1% of habitat would be affected. In harvest units snags existing prior to the fire (soft snags) would be left except for those identified as hazard trees along open roads. Retaining approximately 11 leave patches (approximately 338 acres) ranging from 4 to 90 acres would provide a foraging source nearby salvage harvest units. There would be no additional trees left for snags, except for units 3 and 12 where an additional 1.5 to 2.5 snags per acre would retained. Salvage activities would have negative effects on pileated woodpeckers and white-headed woodpecker due to the decrease in existing and future habitat. For the pileated woodpecker, this would result in the decline in important habitat features, especially in the future when there is no or low recruitment of large diameter ponderosa pine snags and down logs. Habitat for the white-headed woodpecker would be reduced by harvest of large diameter snags. Although salvage treatments would eliminate nesting habitat, commercial thinning units and salvage units 3 and 12 would provide 1.5 to 2.5 snags per acre (with the objective of retaining snags at the upper end of the range), as suggested in literature for white-headed woodpeckers (Matz 1927, Mellen et al. 2003). Habitat for red-naped and Williamson’s sapsuckers would be minimally affected because there would be no treatment in the riparian areas. Some nesting and foraging habitat would be reduced in areas adjacent to riparian areas. Foraging habitat for downy woodpeckers 208 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences would also be reduced, but effects would also be low given the number of snags being retained. Hazard Trees Effects Common to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Harvest does raise the risk of blowdown of residual snags. Alternatives leave a varying mix of snag densities. Snags will be distributed in larger, non-harvested blocks, small patches or dispersed. Blowdown risk is reduced when snags are left in untreated patches. In the light severity burn areas, snags are interspersed with live trees, reducing the risk of blowdown as well. Estimated snag fall down rates incorporate losses expected from blowdown. In salvage units, snags may need to be felled for operational or safety needs during logging (i.e., landings, skyline corridors, safety). Forest Service personnel contacted the Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for their input on this issue (communication between J. Hensley, Malheur National Forest and L. Wenick, Oregon OSHA, January 2004). Based on discussions with OSHA, logging in fire salvage sales could require that an estimated 5 to 10% of protected snags be felled to meet operational/safety needs. The need to fell protected snags is reduced when salvage logging is conducted within 2 to 3 years post-fire; most snags are still in a hardened condition that makes them less of a risk of being danger trees. In the Monument Fire Recovery project, design and mitigation features have been included in the action alternatives to further reduce the potential for loss of protected snags. In salvage units, snags marked for retention would be clumped, where possible for Alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative 4 designated snag patches that would be left un-harvested in salvage units, separating workers from snag hazards. If a tree marked for snag retention is required to be felled for operational needs, a green snag of equal or larger size planned for harvest would be left as a replacement, where feasible. The fell tree would not be removed. The loss of protected snags would likely be less than 1 to 2%. This would be considered incidental given the level of snags being left. Downed Log Habitat Affected Environment The fire itself affected much of the down log habitats that existed prior to the Monument Fire. In most cases, down logs were completely consumed. Remaining logs were generally charred and burned beyond useable conditions for wildlife species. The result is a reduction in available down log habitat immediately post fire and Forest Plan standards for down wood were likely not met. However, not long after the fire was put out, fire killed trees began replacing these burned log habitats. DecAID identifies various percent cover levels for three different tolerance limits. Percent cover describes that actual level of ground coverage of a piece of down log, based upon its size and mass. A large piece of wood with greater diameter and/or length would cover a larger percentage of a ground area than a smaller piece of wood. This data is based upon CVS and other forest inventory information. Limited levels of down logs are typically present in ponderosa pine-Douglas fir stands with open canopies. The 30 and 50 percent tolerance levels indicated percent ground cover of 0 to 1.7% for logs > 5” diameter at the small end, > 3.3 feet in length. Only 20 percent of the plot areas contained a percent 209 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS coverage of 1.7% or greater for all material > 5”. For material > 20” diameter and > 3.3 feet in length, no detections were identified, indicating very low densities and poor distribution of such habitats (Mellen et al. 2003). DecAID also describes the distribution of the limited down log cover across the landscape. For logs greater than 5” diameter, 31% of the area had 0 percent cover, and 66% of the area had < 1% log cover. For logs > 20” diameter, 78% of the area had no detections, while 91% had < 1% log cover. Not only is down log habitats in this habitat type low in density, they are poorly distributed, particularly in the larger size classes. The amended Forest Plan provides standards for down log habitats to be maintained for various habitats. In ponderosa pine habitat types, a total of 20 to 40 linear feet, made up of 3 to 6 pieces, each > 6 feet in length and 12” diameter at the small end are required. In mixed conifer habitat types, a total of 100 to 140 linear feet, made up of 15 to 20 pieces, each > 6 feet in length and 12” diameter at the small end are required. This direction refers to the average density per acre. Environmental Effects Direct and Indirect Effects All alternatives would meet or exceed Forest Plan standards for down log retention as described in the amended Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990, amended 1996). Alternatives 1 and 5 would exceed down log standards because all snags would be available to be recruited dead wood material. As time passes after the fire event, increasing levels of down logs will be available, far exceeding the Forest Plan, as well as levels identified in DecAID. Likewise, distribution patterns would exceed levels described in the same section, based upon DecAID. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would exceed Forest Plan standards through the design criteria identified in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. By the time of implementation, it is expected that additional snags will have fallen (and remain on site) exceeding the Forest Plan standard. Percentage cover of down log material would exceed the lowest levels identified in the DecAID (discussed in the Affected Environment section). Due to wilderness designations and other set-asides (depending upon alternative), a large percentage of the fire area will not be affected by the alternatives. Hence, such down log levels would be well within the distribution information provided by DecAID. Suitable down log habitat would be provided across the landscape, and at the site-specific level. Cumulative Effects - PCE and Down Wood All of the activities identified as past, ongoing, or foreseeable have been considered for their cumulative effects on primary cavity excavators. The following discussion focuses on those past, ongoing and reasonable foreseeable future activities that may contribute positive or negative effects to the species or its habitat. There are essentially no cumulative effects for Alternatives 1 and 5 because there would be no activities that would contribute negatively or beneficially to past, ongoing, or foreseeable future activities. The only difference between Alternatives 1 and 5 is the planting and replanting conifers proposed in Alternative 5. This would restore vegetation cover sooner than without planting conifers, potentially reducing the length of the snag gap expected once snags created by the Monument Fire fall down. 210 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Past timber harvest actions; the Awake prescribed fire project; the reduction in habitat from the fire itself; and firewood cutting can remove snags and down logs, complex ground structures, and snags would add cumulatively to the effects from proposed activities. Because logging is unique among the disturbances in removing boles, and because of the importance of boles in contributing structure to habitats, logging in the low and moderately burned areas is more likely to affect habitat quality than other disturbances (Ruggiero et al. 1994). Past regeneration harvest prescriptions, overstory removal treatments, understory thinning, and prescribed fire implementation actions have contributed to a loss of suitable habitat for the pileated woodpecker. Since 1993, the Forest Plan as amended, has directed the Malheur National Forest to conduct timber sales in a manner that moves stands towards OFMS and OFSS structural stages, and timber sales planned since that time should not have contributed to loss of mature and old growth forest. Alternative 2 and 4 could contribute cumulative effects to the pileated woodpecker through a reduction in available habitat resulting from thinning activities associated with commercial thinning treatments and removal of large diameter snags; however, reductions would be considered incidental. Alternative 3 would only remove snags, and the level of treatment in suitable habitat is also considered incidental. Road closure actions proposed in Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would reduce potential effects of firewood gathering on dead wood habitats through reduction in access. Alternative 5 would reduce the potential of snag removal by firewood cutting more than Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 because more miles of roads would be closed. Alternative 1 would not change current road management and would maintain existing access. It is not expected that firewood cutting would have the same level of effect to snags or down logs that the harvest alternatives would have, but there is more potential for snags to be cut along roads if the no action alternative was chosen. Firewood cutting would be delayed until 2008 to reduce effects to woodpecker species, particularly those that use post-fire habitats first, i.e., black-backed, three-toed, and hairy woodpeckers. After 4 years post-fire, use by these species tends to decline naturally. About 0.5 miles of temporary road construction would occur under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. The proposed temporary roads would be constructed in open areas to access helicopter landings. The level of effects on snags and deadwood habitats would be insignificant because of the small amount proposed to be constructed and the location of the proposed temporary roads. Those actions are not expected to add to the cumulative effects of other past road construction activities, especially considering the temporary roads would be closed and additional miles of road closures planned for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. The Whitman Unit of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is proposing harvest of fire- killed trees on its portion of the Monument fire. About 3,711 acres of the Monument Fire burned on the Wallowa-Whitman NF; a total of 779 acres of these burned habitats are proposed for salvage harvest on the Wallowa-Whitman NF’s portion of the burn or 20% of the burned acres. In addition, about 628 acres that burned on private land in holdings adjacent to the Wallowa-Whitman NF lands have been salvaged. Activities proposed by the Wallowa-Whitman NF are primarily salvage actions in higher fire severity areas. Their proposed action for that project is similar to this project’s proposed action. Mixes of helicopter, skyline, and tractor harvest methods are proposed. The Wallowa-Whitman NF proposes to maintain Forest Plan standards for snag and down log retention, similar to Alternative 2. Snags would be distributed on a 40-acre basis, as described in the Wallowa-Whitman’s Forest Plan (Joel Waldo, Fisheries/Wildlife Biologist, 211 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Wallowa-Whitman NF, personal comm., May 2003). The Wallowa-Whitman NF’s project and analysis are on similar timelines to this analysis, with expected implementation occurring in 2004. As with Monument, the Wallowa-Whitman NF would provide large areas of untreated snags. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 proposed in this project would add incremental cumulative effects with activities proposed by the Wallowa-Whitman NF across the fire area. Overall, about 11,475 acres of undisturbed down wood habitat is present in the Monument Rock Wilderness portion of the fire area on Prairie City RD in addition to what is present on the Unity RD portion of the Wilderness. Snag habitats would continue to provide for PCE species at the landscape level. Summary - PCE Tolerance levels have less to do with viability of species and populations, and more to do with the distribution of individuals across a project area. The alternatives represent different levels of snag retention, and thus would affect woodpecker presence and distribution. The Alternative 1 (the No Action Alternative) and Alternative 5 (no salvage or thinning activities) would maintain snag habitats across the entire fire area. Currently, about 8,319 acres of suitable habitat exists in the project area in addition to 11,475 acres of burned forested habitat in the Wilderness area. Species such as the black-backed and three-toed woodpeckers would rapidly colonize stand-replacement burns within 1 to 2 years of the fire; however, within 5 years they would decline, presumably due to declines in bark and wood-boring beetles (Kotliar et al. 2002). For other species, such as the Lewis’ woodpecker, northern flicker and hairy woodpecker, suitable habitat conditions will persist longer, upwards of 25 to 30 years. Once the majority of snags fall, cavity excavators would not likely occupy the area, or they would exist at greatly reduced levels. Tables W-5 through W-9 displays cavity excavator use or tolerance levels as an overall range for cavity excavator species. Values provide a relative difference between alternatives. Alternatives 1 and 5 support the highest tolerance levels for most primary cavity excavators. Of the alternatives with salvage and/or thinning activities, Alternative 3 (salvage activities only) supports the highest tolerance levels for most primary cavity excavators. Alternatives 2 and 4 (salvage and thinning activities) support essentially the same tolerance levels for primary cavity excavators. A further comparison of alternatives with salvage activities is to compare the amount of acres of suitable habitat protected, either in “reserve patches” specifically established for woodpecker species or non-salvage areas established for other reasons, e.g., wilderness protection, RHCA protection or low economic viability. These unlogged patches are particularly important to species such as the black-backed and three-toed woodpeckers that may use unlogged burn areas as source habitats to maintain populations across the landscape. Under Alternative 2, about 13,465 (79%) acres of burned forested habitat will not be treated in the project area. Under Alternative 3, about 14,475 (85%) acres of burned forested habitat will not be treated in the project area. Under Alternative 4, about 14, 341 (85%) acres of burned forested habitat will not be treated in the project area. Untreated acres for each alternative include the 11,475 acres of burned forested habitat in the Monument Rock Wilderness area. Effects to suitable habitat for woodpecker species are primarily in high severity fire-affected habitat where salvage activities are proposed under Alternative 2, 3, and 4. Alternatives 2 212 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences and 4 propose thinning in light severity fire-affected habitat, where about 7 acres of habitat for white- headed and pileated woodpeckers will be commercially thinned. Thinning activities would have inconsequential effects to woodpecker species. While snags are abundant after a fire, once they fall down, they will not be available again until a new forest develops, trees reach sizes useful for woodpeckers, and these trees begin to die. The period when snags are not available can be referred to as the “snag gap.” Although snag levels currently exceed Forest Plan standards, it is expected that most post-burn snags will be on the ground within 30 years. The time it takes to reforest burn areas differs between natural regeneration and planting. Natural regeneration can delay reforestation by 10 to 50 years depending on the availability of a live tree seed source. Alternative 1 relies on natural regeneration compared to the action alternatives that include planting. Regeneration of forested areas in the project area will be quicker under the action alternatives compared to Alternative 1. If larger snags persist longer than expected, the snag gap would be reduced further, particularly for Alternatives 1 and 5, which retain the most large diameter snags. Dead Wood Habitat Forest Plan standards and levels suggested by DecAID for down wood would be met under all alternatives. Alternatives 1 and 5 would provide the greatest amount of down wood compared to the Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 in the project area. Overall, about 11,475 acres of undisturbed down wood habitat is present in the Monument Rock Wilderness portion of the fire area on Prairie City RD. Rocky Mountain Elk Rocky Mountain elk is an MIS because of its importance as a commonly hunted species (Malheur Forest Plan). Elk are widely distributed across the District, Forest, and the Blue Mountain region. The Forest Plan identifies standards for attributes of elk habitat, including thermal cover, forage, winter range, road densities, and overall habitat effectiveness. Cover – Summer Range Affected Environment Based on individual tree mortality guidelines (Scott et al. 2002), many large diameter ponderosa pine trees that appear to be alive are dead or dying and will lose their green canopy. Those trees will not contribute to cover for analysis purposes. The existing forest structure created by this stand replacement fire further reflects the lack of either satisfactory or marginal cover in the project area. Generally, the Monument Fire caused the older structures such as OFMS to move to younger structural stages such as SI, UR, or SEOC (see tables V-4 and V-5, Forest Vegetation Section/ figure 16, Map Section). In summer range, the Forest Plan directs a total cover value of 20%, with satisfactory cover maintained at a minimum of 12%, and marginal cover minimum of 5% (Forest Plan, Chapter IV, Forest Wide Standards, Standard 28). Table W-2 identifies the existing cover condition for the two subwatersheds compared to the Forest Plan standards. 213 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Table W-10. Comparison of big game cover, winter and summer range. Winter range is not present in the Swamp Creek subwatershed. Cover Type Forest Plan Standards Summer Forest Plan Standards Winter Swamp Creek Subwatershed Percentage in Summer Range U. Little Malheur R. Subwatershed Percentage in Summer Range U. Little Malheur R. Subwatershed Percentage in Winter Range Satisfactory 12% 8% 27% 5% 17% Marginal 5% 10% 8% 9% 2% Forage N/A N/A 65% 86% 81% Total Cover 20% 20% 35% 14% 19% The Monument Fire is the single largest disturbance that has led to the current cover condition in the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed. In addition, past timber activities have also affected cover conditions. In summer range, the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed does not meet Forest Plan standards for satisfactory and total cover requirements. In the Swamp Creek subwatershed, primary effects to cover habitat have come from a combination of past harvest activities and fire disturbances. This subwatershed meets the Forest Plan standard for cover in summer range. There are no known areas of fawning or calving habitat in the project area. Hiding cover would provide fawning or calving habitat in the lower elevation riparian areas that retains adequate forest structure and where forage is nearby, and where no open roads exist to disturb deer or elk. Currently, there is very little of this habitat in the project area. Environmental Effects The effects of all activities within the action alternatives were reviewed. Only those activities with direct or indirect were addressed. Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct and Indirect Effects Cover habitat would not change with selection of the No Action Alternative. There would be no direct effects to big game habitat. Cover conditions in the short-term would remain the same as those identified in the Affected Environment description. There is risk of some level of mid-term effects upon cover habitat (remaining live trees) in the project area. Secondary mortality effects associated with elevated insect activities within the fire area may result in loss of cover habitat. Continued mortality in all canopy levels would result in declines in canopy closure and security habitat where it currently exists, reducing effectiveness of these habitats. Estimated levels of cover loss are unknown due to the unpredictable nature of such mortality effects. These effects would likely be measurable 3 to 5 years post fire. Over the long-term, depending upon the level of secondary mortality, areas currently in a cover condition would develop denser canopies and more complex structures, adding to the overall cover value of those habitats. These changes would result from the diversity of tree species present, coupled with the additional growing space and opening of the canopy resulting from low intensity fires that burned through these stands. These stands would likely develop similar stand densities, structures, and tree species diversities as existed before 214 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences the fire. The result would be similar big game cover conditions to what existed preceding the Monument Fire. Indirect effects would focus on delays to recovery of cover habitat over the mid- and long- term. Delays would occur due to lack of planting of conifers in the project area. Natural regeneration could be delayed for decades in all moderately and severely burned areas due to lack of seed sources, particularly in interior portions of the project area where few or no live conifers exist post fire. Alternatives 2 and 4 Direct and Indirect Effects Cover habitat would not change with the selection of Alternative 2 or 4. There would be no effects to big game cover from salvage activities. Cover conditions in the short-term would remain the same as those identified in the Affected Environment description. There is risk for some level of mid-term effects upon cover habitat in the project area. Secondary mortality effects associated with elevated insect activities within the fire area may result in loss of cover habitat. Continued mortality in all canopy levels would result in declines in canopy closure and security habitat where it currently exists, reducing effectiveness of these habitats. Estimated levels of cover loss are unknown due to the unpredictable nature of such mortality. These effects would likely be measurable 3 to 5 years post fire. There would be no cover harvested during thinning activities, therefore no short-term effects are expected and are similar to the effects of Alternative 1 and 5. Mid-term, the commercial thinning would decrease secondary mortality from insect and disease to the remaining live trees. The thinning would reduce inter-tree competition between residual live trees that will promote stand resiliency. Planting conifers would help reestablish cover in the project area. Cover will likely return to satisfactory levels in 70 to 110 years. The Swamp Creek subwatershed would continue to meet Forest Plan standards for satisfactory, marginal and total cover. For the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed, total cover and satisfactory cover would not meet Forest Plan standards in summer range. Road closures and planting would help reestablish calving and fawning habitat in the lower elevation riparian areas sooner than Alternative 1. Alternatives 3 Direct and Indirect Effects Cover habitat would not change with the selection of this alternative. There would be no effects to big game cover from salvage activities. Cover conditions in the short-term would remain the same as those identified in the Affected Environment description. There is risk for some level of mid-term effects upon cover habitat in the project area. Secondary mortality effects associated with elevated insect activities within the fire area may result in loss of cover habitat. Continued mortality in all canopy levels would result in declines in canopy closure and security habitat where it currently exists, reducing effectiveness of these habitats. Estimated levels of cover loss are unknown due to the unpredictable nature of such mortality. These effects would likely be measurable 3 to 5 years post fire. Over the long-term, depending upon the level of secondary mortality, areas currently in a cover condition would develop denser canopies and more complex structures, boosting overall cover value of those habitats. These changes would be the result of additional growing space created in moderately and severely burned pockets within lightly burned 215 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS stands. These stands would likely develop similar stand densities, structures, and tree species diversities to those existing before the fire. The mid-term and long-term result would be similar big game cover conditions that existed before the fire. The effects of planting to develop long term cover for Alternative 3 is the same as Alternatives 2 and 4. The Swamp Creek subwatershed would continue to meet Forest Plan standards for satisfactory, marginal and total cover. For the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed, total cover and satisfactory cover would not meet Forest Plan standards in summer range. Road closures and planting would help reestablish calving and fawning habitat in the lower elevation riparian areas sooner than Alternative 1. Alternative 5 Direct and Indirect Effects Cover habitat would not change with the selection of this alternative. There would be no effects to big game cover. Cover conditions in the short-term would remain the same as those identified in the Affected Environment description. There is risk for some level of mid-term effects upon cover habitat in the project area. Secondary mortality effects associated with elevated insect activities within the fire area may result in loss of cover habitat. Continued mortality in all canopy levels would result in declines in canopy closure and security habitat where it currently exists, reducing effectiveness of these habitats. Estimated levels of cover loss are unknown due to the unpredictable nature of such mortality. These effects would likely be measurable 3 to 5 years post fire. Over the long-term, depending upon the level of secondary mortality, areas currently in a cover condition would develop denser canopies and more complex structures, boosting overall cover value of those habitats. These changes would be the result of additional growing space created in moderately and severely burned pockets within lightly burned stands. These stands would likely develop similar stand densities, structures, and tree species diversities to those existing before the fire. The mid-term and long-term result would be similar big game cover conditions that existed before the fire. In Alternative 5, cover will be nonexistent in the moderately burned areas, where planting will not occur, for decades due to lack of seed sources, particularly in interior portions of the project area where few or no live conifers currently exist. In severely burned areas where planting is proposed, development of long term cover under Alternative 5 would be same as Alternatives 2 and 4. The Swamp Creek subwatershed would continue to meet Forest Plan standards for satisfactory, marginal and total cover. For the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed, total cover and satisfactory cover would not meet Forest Plan standards in summer range. Road closures would help reestablish calving and fawning habitat in the lower elevation riparian areas sooner than Alternative 1. Cover - Winter Range Affected Environment About 952 acres of winter-range habitat was burned in the Monument Fire. The winter range is in the southern part of the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed. It is in the northernmost portion of a larger winter range several miles wide that extends south along the entire boundary of the Prairie City and Emigrant Creek Ranger Districts. Most of the habitat 216 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences on the Forest was forested, however juniper woodlands, sagebrush steppe, and open scab habitats are also present, which provides foraging areas. Most of the forested habitat was intact, without previous harvest activities. In the forest habitat of the winter-range area, 677 acres burned in the moderate-high to severe fire-severity, eliminating all satisfactory and marginal cover habitats. Small pockets of unburned or lower-severity burn habitat exist, but are too small to map. In winter range the standard for marginal cover is 10%, satisfactory cover, and the total cover value is the same as summer range at 20% (Forest Plan, Management Area 4A, Standard 14). In winter range, the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed does not meet the Forest Plan standards for marginal cover and total cover (see Table W-10). Winter range is not present in the Swamp Creek subwatershed. About 258 acres burned in a light fire-severity condition, and 18 acres burned in a partial fire-severity condition. These fire severities occurred primarily in sagebrush steppe, juniper woodland, and ponderosa pine woodland habitats where canopy closures and tree densities were low. Damage in the low-intensity ground fires ranged from pockets of mortality in upper canopy trees to tree mortalities of 80%. The low mortality damage fires will cause minimal changes to cover condition (primarily ground-level security cover provided by shrubs and small trees that were killed by the fire) and stimulation of browse and herbaceous forage. Environmental Effects The effects of all activities within the action alternatives were reviewed. Only those activities with direct, or indirect effects were addressed. Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct and Indirect Effects Selection of the No Action Alternative would not result in direct effects to the condition of winter range habitat or the Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer that utilize those habitats. There would be no change to existing condition of habitat. Indirect effects associated with selection of this alternative would occur with delays in suitable hiding/security and thermal cover that would occur while waiting for natural regeneration to occur. The selection of this alternative would result in an opportunity lost to replant suitable forestlands on approximately 600 acres of habitat. Restoration of suitable habitat providing cover habitats could exceed 50 to 70 years, based upon the severity of the fire and lack of seed producing trees. This may change distribution and utilization of this habitat by wintering deer and elk. The Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed would not meet Forest Plan cover standards in winter range under Alternative 1. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Direct and Indirect Effects Implementation of these alternatives would result in planting of conifers in habitats formerly forested in winter range area. This would enhance the recovery period for development of cover habitats lost to the Monument Fire Alternative 3 and 4 would not enter riparian habitats and would result in the retention of all dead material within riparian buffer areas. This would result in an incremental difference in 217 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS short term hiding/security cover provided by dead boles of the fire-killed trees. The overall benefit of this retention is minimal, and not expected to influence habitat use. Direct effects to wintering deer and elk would be possible with Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Each of these alternatives involves some level of harvest activity, yarding with helicopter equipment, landing, and loading activity, and haul of logs off site. These activities represent disturbances that could affect habitat use. Several standards identified for MA-4A winter range habitat concern limiting or preventing such disturbances that would affect winter range habitat utilization (USDA Forest Service, 1990). These disturbances are of greatest concern between December 1 and April 1 when use of winter habitats is most likely. Winter logging operations are likely to occur due to urgency to remove the dead and dying trees in a timely manner to capture their economic value. While it would be possible for harvest related disturbances to adversely affect function of this winter range habitat, the likelihood of occupancy of these areas is low due to the effects of the fire and adverse effects to cover habitats and some browse forage habitats. This would reduce potential for affect to wintering deer and elk. Design criteria are established, (described in Chapter 2) that would initiate monitoring activities to determine habitat utilization and effects of harvest actions on any animals that may be using the affected winter range areas. Harvest activities would continue unless monitoring determines there are significant or prolonged effects on wintering deer and elk. The Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed would not meet Forest Plan cover standards in winter range under Alternatives 2 or 4. Alternative 5 Direct and Indirect Effects Selection of this alternative would not result in direct effects to the condition of winter range habitat c or the Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer that utilize those habitats. There would be no change to existing condition of the habitat. Long-term indirect effects would occur because of delays in the development of suitable hiding cover and thermal cover in moderately burned areas. The selection of this alternative would result in an opportunity lost to replant moderately burned areas. Restoration of suitable habitat providing cover habitat could exceed 70 years, based upon the severity of the fire and lack of seed-producing trees. This may affect distribution and utilization of this habitat by wintering deer and elk. The Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed would not meet Forest Plan cover standards in winter range under Alternative 5. Roads Affected Environment Impacts from roads on wildlife within the project area vary in different drainages. Influencing factors include the local density of those roads, impacts of past harvest activity, relative use by motorized vehicles and equipment, and effects of the Monument Fire on surrounding forested habitats. These factors affect the distribution, habitat selection, and use of habitats by big-game species such as the Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer, and influence distribution of other species such as large carnivores (Wisdom et al., 1999; Rowland et al., 2000). 218 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences The road density measurements were done at the subwatershed scale. However, road densities within the subwatersheds do not properly illustrate impacts of roads on big game animals and some forest carnivores. Road density should be considered relative to the large number of acres of roadless areas.39 These larger areas of unroaded areas (through wilderness and other management designations), while providing roadless habitat, also bias subwatershed level road densities causing densities to appear lower than what is reflected in general forest managed areas. The Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed is most affected by these unroaded areas. The Forest Plan standard for road densities is ≤ 3.2 miles/square mile in big-game summer range and ≤ 2.2 miles/square mile in big-game winter range. Currently, road density in the Swamp Creek subwatershed is meeting the Forest Plan standard (Table W-11). The current road density in the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed is meeting the Forest Plan standard for summer range, but exceeds standards for winter range (Table W-11). Table W-11. Road densities by subwatershed and Project Area based on range type, existing condition. Winter range is not present in the Swamp Creek subwatershed. Land Area Description Miles of Open Road Existing Road Density (miles/mile2) Forest Plan Standard (miles/mile2) Swamp Creek Subwatershed (Summer Range) 94.2 2.3 3.2 Upper Little Malheur River Subwatershed (Summer Range) 90.4 2.5 3.2 Upper Little Malheur River Subwatershed (Winter Range) 21.8 3.2 2.2 Changes in big game distribution due to road disturbance are likely to be magnified by effects of the fire upon security cover. Roughly, 5,000 acres (64%) of habitat in the project area burned at moderate-high to severe fire intensity. Hence, a significant portion of the project area no longer contains vegetation to buffer the effects of those open roads. Recent work at the Starkey Experimental Station has dealt with the effects of roads and impact upon distribution of elk and deer across a landscape. One of the key findings involved distribution of elk and how they selected habitat. Researchers found a strong correlation between road activity and habitat selection. Roads with as little use as less than one vehicle per 12-hour period average were affecting habitat selection out to 1,000 meters or more. A summation of detections over a number of years of tracking uncovered a strong selection for habitats beyond that 1,000 to 1,100 meter “buffer” around open, driven roads. Currently, there are no areas > 1,000 meters from open roads in the project area. 39 (e.g. Monument Rock Wilderness in the Upper Little Malheur River and Swamp Creek subwatersheds, and a semi-primitive motorized recreation area in the Spring Creek subwatershed) 219 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Conversely, mule deer responded to distribution of elk by avoiding areas of higher elk density. That avoidance put mule deer closer to roads, according to their radio collar detections. Their selection for cover habitat was also very strong, especially in the first few hundred meters of an open road. Road traffic in the project area in a typical year fluctuates. With exceptions of FSR 1370 leading to Table Rock Lookout, FSR 1672457 leading to the Little Malheur River trailhead, and FSR 16, the area receives inconsistent and limited level of vehicular traffic. Traffic is minimal particularly during the spring and early summer months. During big-game hunting seasons from late August through the end of November, vehicle traffic is very high. Environmental Effects The effects of all activities within the action alternatives were reviewed. Only those activities with direct, or indirect were addressed. Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct and Indirect Effects Implementation of Alternative 1 would maintain the existing conditions of road distribution and densities in the project area. This would maintain effects of road presence and use upon big game distribution as described in the affected environment. There would be no direct or indirect effects to that existing condition and effects those roads have on elk habitat utilization. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Direct, and Indirect Effects The same road management plan is proposed under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 (see Figure 12, Map Section). A total of about 7 miles of currently open roads would be closed in the project area. Additionally, about 4.8 miles of road would be closed or otherwise decommissioned. Open road density is currently meeting the Forest Plan standard in the Swamp Creek subwatershed. No currently open roads are proposed for closure in Swamp Creek subwatershed (W-12). Four-tenths of a mile of an existing closed road is proposed for decommission in this subwatershed. Table W-12. Miles of road per square mile by subwatershed in summer and winter range, Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Winter range is not present in the Swamp Creek subwatershed. Land Area Description Open Road Miles/Proposed Closures Road Density/FP Standard Swamp Creek Subwatershed (Summer Range) 94.2 miles open/ 0.0 miles proposed for closure 2.3 miles/mi2 / 3.2 mi/mi2 Upper Little Malheur River Subwatershed (Summer Range) 75.5 miles open/ 14.9 miles proposed for closure 1.8 miles/mi2 / 3.2 mi/mi2 Upper Little Malheur River Subwatershed (Winter Range) 20.6 miles open/ 1.3 miles proposed for closure 3.0 miles/mi2 / 2.2 mi/mi2 Note: Rounding road miles during calculations may result in minor (.1 mile) discrepancies between alternatives. 220 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Open road density in summer range in the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed is meeting the Forest Plan standard (W-12). However, because of the reduction in hiding following the fire, and watershed concerns (see Aquatics section) about 15 miles of currently open roads are proposed for closure. This will reduce the open road density in summer range from 2.1 to 1.8 miles per square mile (Table W-12). Open road density in winter range in the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed is not meeting the Forest Plan standard (W-12). About 1.3 miles of open road are proposed for closure. This will reduce the open road density in winter range changes from 3.2 to 3.0 miles per square mile (Table W-12). Changes in elk distribution may result from vehicle activity and salvage activities during implementation of the proposed activities. Following implementation of proposed road closures, 35 acres of habitat > 1000 meters from an open road would be created in the project area. Alternative 5 Direct and Indirect Effects Under Alternative 5, an additional 9 miles of road would be closed in addition to closures proposed under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, (see Figure 13, Map Section). The additional road closures were proposed in response to comments to the DEIS over concerns about noxious weeds and big game cover. About 16.2 miles of roads would be closed and about 4.8 miles of road would be decommissioned under Alternative 5. In Swamp Creek subwatershed, four miles of open road would be closed reducing the open road density from 2.3 to 2.2 miles per square mile (Table W-13). Open road density would be below the maximum standard of 3.2 miles per square mile. Table W-13. Miles of road per square mile by subwatershed in summer and winter range, Alternative 5. Winter range is not present in the Swamp Creek subwatershed. Land Area Description Open Road Miles/Proposed Closures Road Density/FP Standard Swamp Creek Subwatershed (Summer Range) 90.2 miles open/ 4.0 miles proposed for closure 2.2 miles/mi2 / 3.2 mi/mi2 Upper Little Malheur River Subwatershed (Summer Range) 70.1 miles open/ 20.3 miles proposed for closure 1.7 miles/mi2 / 3.2 mi/mi2 Upper Little Malheur River Subwatershed (Winter Range) 20.1 miles open/ 1.7 miles proposed for closure 2.9 miles/mi2 / 2.2 mi/mi2 In summer range in Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed, there would be 20.3 miles of road closures, reducing the open road density from 2.5 to 1.7 miles per square mile (Table W-13). Open road density is would below the maximum Forest Plan standard of 3.2 miles per square mile. In winter range of the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed, there would be 1.7 miles of closures, reducing the open road density from 3.2 to 2.9 miles per square mile (Table W-13). 221 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Winter range would continue to be above the maximum Forest Plan standard of 2.2 miles per square mile. Changes in elk distribution may result from vehicle activity and salvage activities during implementation of the proposed activities. Following implementation of proposed road closures, 37 acres of habitat > 1000 meters from an open road would be created in the project area. Forage Affected Environment Identified forage habitat in the analysis area totals about 43,644 acres (77% of the analyzed area). The extent of fire-damage to root crowns and root systems of herbaceous species and shrubs will determine the level of forest vegetation response to the 2002 fire. Where fire severities were high enough to kill existing vegetation, availability of seed sources will also be a factor in vegetation response. Much of the fire area burned at a severe fire-severity level (11,800 acres or 58%). In areas where down log and other forest floor fuel levels were high, response of forage vegetation may be less or non-existent due to mortality. In lower fire severity areas, impacts are less severe and site specific (i.e. associated with high down log concentrations, etc.). These low severity areas are expected to respond with a flush of growth over the next two years. Environmental Effects The effects of all activities within the action alternatives were reviewed. Only those activities with direct, indirect, or cumulative effects were addressed. Alternatives 1 (No Action) and 5 Direct and Indirect Effects Implementation of either of these no harvest alternatives would result in no direct effects to forage condition in the project area. Existing, post-fire development of forage habitats would occur and continue as described in the affected environment section of this discussion. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would not have measurable direct or indirect effects to forage habitat for big game. While harvest operations could potentially result in ground disturbances, the degree of disturbance would be so small that changes to forage availability would be immeasurable. There would be no effects based on expected tree mortality. Forage use is expected to increase in areas where road closures would occur due to the elimination of disturbance by vehicle traffic, therefore making existing foraging areas more available. Habitat Effectiveness Index (HEI) Affected Environment The Forest Plan identifies a model that calculates a Habitat Effectiveness Index (HEI), used to assess habitat quality and effectiveness, as well as display effects of activities that affect habitat features such as cover, road densities, forage, and the relationship of these different features. Both subwatersheds are meeting Forest Plan standards for HEI and HEI variables for summer range (Table W-14). For winter range, the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed is meeting the Forest Plan standard for HEI, and habitat effectiveness factors for cover (HEC), and size and spacing of cover (HES) (Table W-14). However, the Upper 222 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Little Malheur River subwatershed is not meeting the Forest Plan standard for the habitat effectiveness factor for roads (HER) in winter range (Table W-14). Table W-14. HEI Final and Variables. Winter range is not present in the Swamp Creek subwatershed. Habitat Effectiveness Index (HEI) Factor Forest Plan Standards Swamp Creek Subwatershed Upper Little Malheur River Subwatershed Summer Range ≥0.4 0.67 0.50 Habitat Effectiveness Index (HEI) Winter Range > 0.5 --- 0.55 Summer Range ≥0.3 0.89 0.69 Habitat Effectiveness Cover (HEc) Winter Range > 0.4 --- 0.94 Summer Range ≥0.3 0.67 0.39 Habitat Effectiveness Size and Spacing of Cover (HEs) Winter Range ≥0.3 --- 0.46 Summer Range ≥0.4 0.50 0.47 Habitat Effectiveness Roads (HEr) Winter Range ≥0.5 --- 0.38 All Alternatives Direct and Indirect Effects The changes to the existing HEI values by alternative are relatively small because the project area is a small fraction of the two subwatersheds. As a result, changes in HEI values generated by the model are too small to result in a change in the HE variables. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would maintain the current HEI and the other HE variables. Cumulative Effects All activities listed in the beginning of Chapter 3 have been considered for their cumulative effects on big game cover habitat. The following discussion focuses on the past, ongoing and reasonable foreseeable future activities that may contribute positive or adverse effects to big game habitat. Alternative 1 The existing condition of big game habitat would be maintained. Disturbance from vehicle traffic in areas where cover was reduced by the 2002 fire would continue. Return of cover to a satisfactory condition in severely burned areas would be delayed thus prolonging the disturbance from vehicle traffic. The conifer planting proposed within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest portion of the fire would re-establish cover in the long term in the adjacent subwatershed. Planting would accelerate recovery of vegetation and development of hiding and thermal cover. Livestock grazing would be delayed for at least two years post-burn to allow for recovery of ground cover (Post-fire grazing guidelines - Appendix G). When livestock grazing is re- 223 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS initiated, grazing would be managed to meet Forest Plan standards. Grazing standards have been established at levels to provide sufficient forage to support both wild and domestic ungulate use. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would provide benefits to big game by closing roads and therefore would reduce potential big game disturbance from vehicle traffic and improve big game distribution in the project area. Additional road closures on the Wallowa-Whitman N.F. portion of the fire area would reduce disturbance of big game by vehicle traffic further. The conifer planting proposed within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest portion of the fire would re-establish cover in the long term in the adjacent subwatershed. Planting would accelerate recovery of vegetation and development of hiding and thermal cover. Livestock grazing would be delayed for at least two years post-burn to allow for recovery of ground cover (Post-fire grazing guidelines - Appendix H). When livestock grazing is re- initiated, grazing would be managed to meet Forest Plan standards. Grazing standards have been established at levels to provide sufficient forage to support both wild and domestic ungulate use. Alternative 5 Alternative 5 would further reduce potential disturbance of big game compared to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 by closing more roads and therefore would reduce potential big game disturbance from vehicle traffic and improve big game distribution in the project area. Additional road closures on the Wallowa-Whitman N.F. portion of the fire would reduce disturbance of big game by vehicle traffic further. The conifer planting proposed within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest portion of the fire would re-establish cover in the long term in the adjacent subwatershed. Planting would accelerate recovery of vegetation and development of hiding and thermal cover. Livestock grazing would be delayed for at least two years post-burn to allow for recovery of ground cover (Post-fire grazing guidelines - Appendix H). When livestock grazing is re- initiated, grazing would be managed to meet Forest Plan standards. Grazing standards have been established at levels to provide sufficient forage to support both wild and domestic ungulate use. Summary – Rocky Mountain Elk Primary issues surrounding activities proposed and different elk habitat features focuses on effects to changes in road densities between the alternatives. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 reduce open road densities the most in the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed effects from vehicle on big game. The Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed is currently meeting the Forest Plan standard for summer range, but is above the standard for winter range. These conditions would persist under all the action alternatives. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 reduce open road density from 2.5 to 1.8 miles per square mile in summer range. Alternative 5 reduces road densities in summer range to 1.7 miles per square mile. Incremental reductions in road densities winter range are proposed for Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5. Road densities would be slightly reduced in the Swamp Creek subwatershed under Alternative 5. The Swamp Creek subwatershed is currently meeting the Forest Plan standard 224 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences for summer range. Alternative 5 reduces open road density from 2.3 to 2.2 miles per square mile. Pine Marten The Forest Plan identified the pine marten as an MIS for old-growth habitat. Pine marten are generally associated with dense mixed conifer habitats with abundant down logs and snags that meet denning and foraging needs. Affected Environment Before the 2002 fire, the majority of pine marten habitat in the fire area was located within the Monument Rock Wilderness, which was dramatically affected by the Monument Fire. In those areas that burned at a high moderate to severe fire severity, pine marten habitat will not be present through the long term. Where areas burned at light fire severity, development of pine marten habitat will take less time. These areas currently demonstrate a stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) stand structure, about 108 acres total in the fire area, with dense down log habitats and high canopy closures. Following the fire about 852 acres habitat for pine marten exists in mature and old growth forest (YFMS and OFMS stand types) in the fire area. In general, these stands are mixed conifer or ponderosa pine-dominated mature stands with multi-strata canopy structures. Fire effects and mortality have simplified the structure of these stands. Often, the lowest canopy layers suffered the largest mortality levels. Deadwood habitats vary by stand and effects of the fire. In some stands, much of the pre-existing down log material was consumed, as well as some of the soft snags. Generally, additional snags were created by the fire. These environments demonstrate a stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) stand structure with dense down log habitats and high canopy closures. About 222 acres of pine marten habitat is present in the fire area in the Swamp Creek subwatershed. Overall, about 8,451 acres of pine marten habitat is present in the Swamp Creek subwatershed; 25,585 total acres in size. Pine marten habitat on the west end of the fire is generally connected to unburned habitat in the Swamp Creek subwatershed. About 630 acres of pine marten habitat is present in the fire area in the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed. Overall, about 5,991 acres of pine marten habitat is present in the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed; 31,474 total acres in size. Pine marten habitat is isolated and lacks connections to suitable habitat outside the fire in the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed. There is little information available for pine marten populations in the project area. Remote sensing cameras were set up to survey for pine marten during the Awake timber sale analysis. In 1994, two cameras were placed along FSR 1672457 but pine marten were not detected. Pine marten may exist in the project area, even though the two camera stations did not detect one at the time of the survey. Environmental Effects The effects of all activities within the action alternatives were reviewed. Only those activities with direct, indirect, or cumulative effects were addressed. 225 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Alternatives 1(No Action) and 5 Direct and Indirect Effects No effects would result from implementation of these alternatives. No harvest activities, removal of potential occupied habitat, or other direct effects would occur in the available 852 acres of mature and old growth forested habitat or the 108 acres of stands with SECC structure within the fire area. All existing snags and future large down logs in these stands would be available to provide habitat features for pine marten. No planting is proposed in Alternative 1. Alternative 5 proposes to plant in the severely burned areas and would develop old growth habitat sooner than in Alternative 1. With planting or natural regeneration with an available seed source, it is estimated desired forested habitat conditions will become available beginning in 120 to 160 years with stands averaging 21”dbh or greater. This would result in a gap in available habitat. To further develop into Old Growth - YFMS or OFMS; suitable habitat could take an addition 50 to 100 years; without planting it can take decades more. In the light and low-moderately burned areas, natural declines in canopy closure, structure complexity, or loss of deadwood habitats would be replaced within the mid to long-term periods through natural regeneration and snag recruitment. It is expected in the mid-term that snags will fall and provide quality habitat in areas. Cumulative Effects All of the activities identified as past, ongoing, or foreseeable have been considered for their cumulative effects on pine marten. The following discussion focuses on those past, ongoing and reasonable foreseeable future activities that may contribute positive or negative effects to the species or its habitat. There will be an improved quality of pine marten habitat in the long term because of the additional conifer planting that has and is ongoing in old regeneration harvested areas and proposed planting within the Wallowa-Whitman portion of the fire. Firewood cutting, which includes snag removal, that has occurred and will continue, could decrease the quality of denning and foraging habitat. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Direct and Indirect Effects - Salvage Harvest Actions Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 proposed different levels of salvage harvest in severely burned areas. Alternative 2 would affect about 172 acres of mature and old growth forested habitat for pine marten in the fire area; roughly 20% of the total existing habitat in the fire area and two percent in the Swamp Creek subwatershed and less than 1 percent in the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed. Alternative 3 would affect about 54 acres in the fire area; roughly 6 percent of the existing total habitat in the fire area and 1 percent in the Swamp Creek subwatershed and less than 1 percent in the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed. Alternative 4 would affect 157 acres in the fire area; roughly 18 percent of total existing habitat in the fire area and 2 percent in the Swamp Creek subwatershed and less than 1 percent in the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed. Salvage activities on about 7 acres will also occur in the commercial thinning areas under Alternatives 2 and 4. Salvage activities would result in short and mid-term effects to pine marten habitat by removing snags that could have been used for foraging and resting habitat by pine marten. Alternative 3 would likely provide more habitat for pine marten in the long term compared to Alternatives 2 and 4. Fewer acres would be salvaged and more snags would be left in 226 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences salvage units compared to the Alternatives 2 and 4. Alternative 3 would retain 13 snags per acre (distribution of size classes are described in Chapter 2 of FEIS), scattered in clumps across all harvest units. Down logs would be provided to meet Forest Plan requirements during harvest activities and would provide habitat requirements into the future. Alternative 2 would provide 2.4 large snags (>21” dbh) per acre and has the highest number acres of salvaged of the three alternatives. Alternative 4 retains the fewest potential future down log habitats within the proposed salvage units, maintaining down logs during harvest activities to meet Forest Plan standards. However, about 338 acres in large blocks would not be salvaged under Alternative 4 that are proposed for salvaged under Alternative 2. These snag patches would remain intact and may provide some areas of denning habitat. Alternative 4 also proposes fewer acres of salvage compared to Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2 there would be 601 acres salvaged in RHCAs. These areas would not be salvaged under Alternatives 3 and 4. In the long-term, these areas would provide down logs for denning habitat as conifer forest conditions regenerate to suitable conditions under Alternatives 3 and 4. Effects to pine marten from these salvage harvest activities would also occur in the long term in areas outside of current habitat. Once conifer stands regenerate to suitable structures and canopy densities, habitat for pine marten would develop. With planting or natural regeneration with an available seed source, it is estimated desired forested habitat conditions will become available beginning in 120 to 160 years with stands averaging 21”dbh or greater. This would result in a gap in available habitat. To further develop into Old Growth - YFMS or OFMS; suitable habitat could take an addition 50 to 100 years. Direct and Indirect Effects - Commercial Thinning Actions associated with thinning activities (pre-commercial and commercial) in the thinning areas proposed under Alternatives 2 and 4 have potential for direct and short to mid-term indirect effects to pine marten habitat. Alternatives 2 and 4 propose thinning 7 acres in current habitat; roughly 1% of current habitat in the fire area and less than 1% of current habitat in the Swamp Creek and Upper Little Malheur River subwatersheds. Alternatives 2 and 4 propose thinning actions to enhance resiliency and manage for a more appropriate structure condition. Thinning in resiliency treatment areas is not proposed under Alternative 3. Direct and indirect effects of Alternatives 2 and 4 include disturbances associated with thinning activities as well as immediate changes to habitat associated with those activities. Thinning in these stands would make these areas less suitable for pine marten by reducing densities of the middle and understories. Cumulative Effects All activities identified as past, ongoing, or foreseeable activities have been considered for their cumulative effects on pine marten. The following discussion focuses on those past, ongoing and reasonable foreseeable future activities that may contribute positive or negative effects to the species or its habitat. There will be an improved quality of pine marten habitat in the long term because of the additional conifer planting that has and is ongoing in old regeneration harvested areas and proposed planting within the Wallowa-Whitman portion of the fire. 227 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Available pine marten habitat will be further reduced in the future by the salvage planned on the Wallowa-Whitman portion of the fire and firewood cutting. Firewood cutting, which includes snag removal, that has occurred and will continue, could decrease the quality of foraging and denning habitat. The proposed road closures will limit this impact due impact since access is restricted. Summary– Pine Marten Salvage activities proposed under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would affect 20%, 6%, and 18%, respectively, of existing pine marten habitat in the fire area. Salvage activities proposed under these alternatives would affect less than 1% of existing habitat for pine marten in the Swamp Creek and the Upper Little Malheur River subwatersheds. Salvage actions proposed in severe fire severity habitats outside of current habitat for pine marten would only result in long-term effects. Until forested vegetation has re-grown and matured such that cover and foraging conditions are again present, these burned areas will not provide suitable habitat. Once forested vegetation returns to a suitable habitat condition, effects of salvage proposals contained in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would result from the amount of down logs available as habitat features. Thinning activities proposed under Alternative 2 and 4 in resiliency treatment areas would alter structure complexity and canopy closure in the forested canopy. These areas would be less suitable for the pine marten because of these activities. Thinning activities proposed under these alternatives would affect less than 1% of existing habitat for pine marten in the Swamp Creek and the Upper Little Malheur River subwatersheds. Implementation of Alternative 1 or 5 would not have measurable direct or indirect effects to the species. Cumulative effects from additional salvage harvest on the Wallowa-Whitman portion of the fire. All existing and future snag and down log habitat would remain under Alternatives 1 and 5 in units identified for harvest in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Affected Environment and Environmental Effects - Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species Forest Service regulations direct the identification of sensitive species by the Regional Forester (FSM, 2670). Species identified are those whose population viabilities are of concern. Forest Service Manual Direction (FSM 2670.32(4)) states that measures be taken to ensure federal activities do not contribute to the loss of viability or a trend towards Federal listing of species identified on the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list. Ten species on the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list are documented or suspected to exist on the Malheur National Forest. Of the ten species, three have potential habitat or are suspected to be present in or adjacent to the project area: the gray flycatcher (potential habitat), the California wolverine (suspected), and the Pacific fisher (suspected). These effects on each these species are fully addressed in the Biological Evaluation accompanying this FEIS, Appendix D. The following analyses the affected environment, environmental effects, and determination for these species. Please consult that document for further information and detailed analysis of effects. 228 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Gray wolf (Threatened) Affected Environment The gray wolf historically occupied habitats within the state of Oregon and likely inhabited the Malheur National Forest (Wisdom et al. 2000). Currently, the State of Oregon considers gray wolves extirpated from the state. Suitable habitat exists in Oregon. Primary limiting factors include availability of secluded sites for denning, protection from disturbances and mortalities associated with man, and the availability and abundance of large ungulates as a primary prey source. In 1999, a collared gray wolf (B-45) was discovered on the Malheur National Forest by monitoring crews working with experimental, non-essential wolf populations located in Idaho. The individual (a younger female) remained on the forest until it was removed later that spring by USFWS and ODFW officials and returned to the population area in Idaho. Two additional wolves have occupied habitat in the Blue Mountains since that time. It is anticipated that population expansion in Idaho will result in continued dispersal of individual wolves into northeastern Oregon. The gray wolf was recently down-listed to Threatened in the winter of 2003. Environmental Effects Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Limiting factors for wolves involve availability of prey (primarily large ungulates) and adverse interactions with humans. Generally, habitat management actions are compatible with wolf presence, particularly those that enhance prey availability. Human interactions are a concern, particularly around denning and rendezvous sites. Potential habitat exists within the project area, however, it is considered unoccupied. Activities proposed would not preclude future wolf occupation of this habitat. Wild ungulate populations would be maintained and potentially enhanced with effects of fire and the other actions that may benefit wild ungulates. Road closures proposed would reduce potential wolf-human conflicts in portions of the project area. Adjacency to the Monument Rock wilderness enhances habitat suitability through the availability of remote, roadless areas that would further reduce potential for wolf-human interactions that may be detrimental. Following a review of the activities listed in the Past, Ongoing and Foreseeable Activities list for the Monument Project there will be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects anticipated with any of the alternatives proposed. Determination A No Effect determination is reached for activities proposed in the FEIS. Activities would have no effect upon the gray wolf for the following reasons: • No populations currently occupy the Malheur National Forest; • No denning or rendezvous sites are identified on the Malheur National Forest; • Prey availability is considered abundant and not a limiting factor for presence or habitat occupation and would not be reduced by the activities proposed. Canada Lynx (Threatened) Affected Environment Vegetation meeting the definition of lynx habitat is characterized by higher elevation mixed conifer forests that contain key elements that promote and maintain high populations of their 229 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS primary prey source, the snowshoe hare. Early seral lodgepole pine habitats provide the primary habitat for the snowshoe hare, and thus the lynx, during winter months (Ruggerio et al., 1999; Ruediger et al., 2000). Riparian and other hardwood producing habitats make up much of their summer habitat. In addition to quality foraging areas, isolated denning sites, which contain an abundance of down wood or other denning site substrate is also important (Ruggerio et al., 1999; Ruediger et al., 2000). Jack-strawed lodgepole pine and/or abundant large wood habitats provide excellent denning sites and protection from potential predators. Relatively dense canopy closures are also favored habitat components in denning areas (Ruggerio et al., 1999). Lynx territories can be relatively large and individuals will travel extensively in search of food or mating interactions (Ruediger et al., 2000). The Forest participated in the national lynx surveys from 1999 through 2001. No lynx were documented on the Forest during the survey. Areas surveyed included within and adjacent to the Monument Rock Wilderness. Unconfirmed lynx sightings have been reported on and adjacent to the Malheur National Forest. The nearest documented sighting to the project area occurred in October of 1992 when a lynx was reported just south of the project area along Anderson Creek. Following this sighting a lynx was trapped near Drewsey in January of 1993. These individuals are likely to have been dispersing from reproducing populations in Washington or Idaho. It is more likely that sightings on the district represent individuals traveling through the area rather than a reproducing population. Presence of lynx on the Malheur National Forest, and in or adjacent to the Monument Rock Wilderness, is suspected. The Forest participated in the national lynx surveys from 1999 through 2001. No lynx were documented on the Forest during the survey. Areas surveyed included within and adjacent to the Monument Rock Wilderness. Unconfirmed lynx sightings have been reported on and adjacent to the Malheur National Forest. The nearest documented sighting to the project area occurred in October of 1992 when a lynx was reported just south of the project area along Anderson Creek. Following this sighting a lynx was trapped near Drewsey in January of 1993. These individuals are likely to have been dispersing from reproducing populations in Washington or Idaho. Presence of lynx on the Malheur National Forest, and in or adjacent to the Monument Rock Wilderness, is suspected. Environmental Effects Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects There are no proposed activities under any of the action alternatives that would occur in stands with vegetation meeting the definition of lynx habitat. The closest suitable habitat is ¼ mile away from areas with proposed activities. The activities proposed in each of the alternatives would not affect vegetation meeting the definition of lynx habitat, individual lynx, populations, or dispersal habitat that would limit lynx movements. Activities are south and east of potential dispersal corridors. Harvest will not decrease potential denning, foraging or dispersal habitat. Regrowth in some units will provide foraging habitat for snowshoe hares. Harvest activities will not affect this future habitat or prey for lynx. There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the Canada lynx. Cumulatively, the actions as listed in the past, ongoing and foreseeable activities list for the Monument Project were considered and would not alter vegetation meeting the definition of lynx habitat. Harvest on the Wallowa-Whitman Forest within the Monument Fire area will not reduce total suitable habitat for lynx. Most of the habitat within the W-W portion was considered unsuitable/non-habitat before the fire (Wallowa-Whitman 230 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences DEIS, 2003). Road closures, both on the Prairie City RD and the Wallowa-Whitman N.F. portion of the fire area would reduce potential disturbance from vehicle traffic. Determination A No Effect determination is reached for the activities proposed in the FEIS. The activities would have no effect upon the Canada lynx for the following reasons: • Activities proposed do not occur within vegetation meeting the definition of lynx habitat • Activities proposed would not adversely affect potential dispersal habitats or corridors that would allow individual movements and dispersal between vegetation meeting the definition of habitat. Sage Grouse (Sensitive) Affected Environment The western sage grouse inhabits the sagebrush steppe habitat of the Interior Columbia Basin and Great Basin regions. All aspects of the species ecology, including breeding and nesting habitat, forage, and winter range/migration habitat are closely tied to sagebrush habitats. The species is documented on the Prairie City Ranger District. Limited sagebrush habitat exists within the project area, primarily near the Little Malheur River. Habitat is marginal at best, as the individual patches are small and intermixed with ponderosa pine and juniper stringers and patches. The species has not been sighted in the project area. Environmental Effects Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Habitat for this species may occur within the project area, though it is likely poorer quality habitat due to the small size of patches of desirable habitat in the project area. Activities proposed will not occur within suitable habitats for the species. The list of activities in the past, ongoing, and foreseeable activities list for the Monument Project will not alter sage grouse habitat. There would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects from actions proposed in the alternatives due to lack of occurrence of activities in suitable habitat. Following a review of the activities listed in the past, ongoing, and foreseeable activities list for the Monument Project there will be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects anticipated with any of the alternatives proposed. Determination A No Impact determination has been reached for this species based upon the lack of activities occurring within any suitable habitat in the project area for any of the alternatives proposed. Gray Flycatcher (Sensitive) Affected Environment Habitat for this species likely exists within the project area, particularly in the lower elevation woodlands and juniper habitats on the south end of the project area near the Little Malheur River. There are about 52 acres of juniper woodlands in the project area that could be considered potential habitat. Environmental Effects Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects No harvest activities would occur in Alternatives 1 and 5. As such, there would not be any direct, indirect, or cumulative effect from the activities proposed in any of the alternatives. 231 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS An estimate of less than 10 acres is within units in the harvest Alternatives, 2, 3, and 4. Juniper would not be cut in the units; therefore nesting trees would continue to exist after harvest. Due to the small amount of potential habitat, the few acres included in harvest units, and no cutting of juniper, there would be little impact if gray flycatchers exist in the area. If gray flycatchers do exist in units where there is potential habitat, individuals or pairs could be disturbed by harvest activities. There would not be the level of disturbance to enough habitat that would affect a population or gray flycatchers as a species. Following a review of the activities listed in the past, ongoing and foreseeable activities list for the Monument Project there will be no cumulative effects anticipated with any of the alternatives proposed. Determination A No Impact determination is reached for Alternatives 1 and 5 because no harvest activities or disturbance would occur. For Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, activities 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. California Wolverine (Sensitive) Affected Environment California wolverine has been confirmed on the forest in the Strawberry Mountain Wilderness, where a carcass of a juvenile was found in 1992. Sightings since then indicate continued presence. Habitat for the species is expected in the Monument Rock Wilderness, based on sighting reports. In the project area, forested areas are likely dispersal habitat for individuals. However, year-round use of habitat in the project area is possible, given the sizes of home ranges for individuals if they do occur within the Monument Rock Wilderness. The Monument Fire in 2002 and the previous Monument Rock Fire in 1994 affected most of the potential habitat. Environmental Effects Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects There would be no direct or indirect effects for Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, or for Alternative 5. Alternative 5, which has no harvest and reduces road density more than the other action alternatives (2, 3, or 4), is not expected to have an impact on wolverine. The road closures are in areas that would not provide habitat for wolverine. Duration of the closures would be short, probably several days to construct gates or earth berms, and intensity would be low, probably one piece of machinery working on one road closure at a time. The activities proposed in action Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would not adversely affect habitat condition and potential such that habitat would preclude use by the species. Primary activities of concern would involve commercial thinning proposed in Alternatives 2 and 4, where green tree treatments would reduce canopy closures and simplify stand structures with the treatments. These activities could lead to direct effects of habitat modification. However, due to the location of these areas that would be treated under Alternatives 2 and 4, level of effect would be minor and would not likely exclude use of those habitats by individuals that may occupy the area. The level of effects is not expected to be significant. The activities proposed in any of the five action alternatives are not likely to significantly contribute to the cumulative effects of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable federal actions. Activities would not significantly affect habitat availability or use over the larger 232 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences geographic area, over any significant period. Road closures, both on the Prairie City RD and the Wallowa-Whitman N.F. portion of the fire area would reduce potential disturbance from vehicle traffic. Planting under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 on the Prairie City portion of the fire and proposed planting on the Wallowa-Whitman N.F. portion of the fire area would shorten the period for reestablishment of forested cover. These alternatives would also not contribute to a negative trend in suitable habitat availability or the presence of the species across the District, Forest, or Region. Following a review of the activities listed in the past, ongoing and foreseeable activities list for the Monument Project, there will be no cumulative effects anticipated with any of the alternatives proposed. Determination A No Impact determination is reached for the No Action Alternative and alternative 5. The No Action Alternative would have no activities and Alternative 5 road closures would be short duration and low intensity. Actions proposed in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 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. Short-term disturbance related effects associated with harvest activities could result; however, they are short-term effects that would not affect long-term habitat use. Likewise, changes to vegetative structure conditions in alternatives two and four may result in limited short term effects, however, because they are not primary habitat types nor located in areas considered high quality habitat areas based upon elevation and location, the level of that affect is expected to be minor and immeasurable. Viability would not be affected, as suitable habitat would not be modified or changed, and prey sources would not be reduced. Pacific Fisher (Sensitive) Affected Environment Habitat may occur within the project area. Affects of the fire on conifer habitat likely reduced the quality of habitat in the project area. Areas where the fire severity was light may provide suitable habitat, though with the fire and past harvest activities, fragmentation maybe an issue with the suitability of that habitat. One unconfirmed sighting in 1996 was located about 21 miles west and south of the project area. Two remote cameras were set up in the project area for pine marten surveys in 1994 for the Awake Timber Sale. No fisher were recorded during that survey and no sightings have been reported in the area. Environmental Effects Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects The activities proposed in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 could result in cumulative effects to fisher habitat in the project area. Incremental modification of existing habitat would occur with the proposed activities, particularly in Alternatives 2 and 4, where green tree treatments would occur. This would be additive to other federal actions, primarily past timber harvest actions and other conifer treatments, that have reduced habitat quality across the project area and larger analysis area. On a spatial scale, the level of effect of this action cumulatively is low. About 1% of potential habitat in each subwatershed would be affected. In the Swamp Creek subwatershed, this would add incremental levels of effect to other activities that have affected habitat. The Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed would see a more significant 233 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS incremental effect, as more extensive timber harvest has occurred in much of the subwatershed, coupled with the habitat affected by the Monument Fire. On a temporal scale, the effect would be expressed in the short to mid-term. Over time, without further management actions, natural regeneration, and succession would develop dense higher quality habitat on the acres treated by the activities proposed. However, planting activities proposed under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 on the Prairie City portion of the fire and proposed planting on the Wallowa-Whitman N.F. portion of the fire area would shorten the period needed to develop dense forested stands favored by this species. Road closures, both on the Prairie City RD and the Wallowa-Whitman N.F. portion of the fire area would reduce potential disturbance from vehicle traffic. Relative to trends, activities would continue a trend of habitat reduction, cumulative to past harvest management actions. The level of effects would be tempered by the unlikely presence of this species in the project and analysis area. Lack of sighting data and other recorded presence information suggests that this species is unlikely to be present in the project area. Following a review of the activities listed in the past, ongoing and foreseeable activities list for the Monument Project there will be no cumulative effects anticipated with any of the alternatives proposed. Determination A No Impact determination is reached for the Alternative 1 and Alternative 5, as no harvest activities would occur. The actions proposed in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 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. Short-term disturbance related effects associated with harvest activities could result, however, they are short-term effects that would not affect long-term habitat use. Likewise, changes to vegetative structure conditions in alternatives two and four may result in limited short term effects, however, because they are not primary habitat types nor located in areas considered high quality habitat areas based upon elevation and location, the level of that affect is expected to be minor and immeasurable. Viability would not be affected, as suitable habitat would not be modified or changed, and prey sources would not be reduced. Affected Environment and Environmental Effects - Other Species of Concern Northern Goshawk Affected Environment The northern goshawk is an accipiter inhabiting mixed conifer and ponderosa pine environments on the Malheur National Forest (Daw 1996). Nesting habitat is often defined by canopy structure and closure. Daw (1996) found a strong correlation between higher canopy closure of multi-strata mixed conifer and ponderosa pine stands, and occupied nesting habitat. Habitat features providing for a stable prey base are important for the northern goshawk. Prey includes, but is not limited to, snowshoe hares, golden-mantled ground squirrels, pileated woodpeckers, northern flickers, and gray jays. Environments providing for these species usually result in suitable foraging habitat for goshawks. Approximately 852 acres of potential habitat remain within the fire area. This habitat consists of mature and old growth habitat (YFMS and OFMS stand structures). Patches of 234 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences potential habitat in the project area burned at light and low-moderate fire severities. Primary changes to habitat quality and condition consists of a reduction in canopy closure because of fire mortality. The majority of stands affected had relatively low canopy closures (about 35 to 50%) before the fire. Canopy closure estimates in these stands are likely in the 20 to 40% range now, based upon visual observations from field surveys. It is likely these habitats would continue to function as suitable foraging habitat for northern goshawks. Canopy closure in these stands will likely decrease in the future because of secondary fire effects. Patch size and distribution of goshawk habitat has been reduced by the Monument Fire and past timber harvest activities. Individual patch sizes currently range from less than 50 acres to a little over 250 acres. These patches are generally located along edges of the fire, in close proximity to, or directly connected to suitable habitat outside the fire area. There are four recorded goshawk nests adjacent to the fire area, two are about ¼ mile from the southern boundary, one is between ½ mile and 1 mile from the eastern boundary, and one is between ½ mile and 1 mile from the northwest edge of the project perimeter. One of the nests at the southern end of the project area is along a major road. Before the fire, there were no recorded goshawk nests in the fire area. After the fire, there was a goshawk sighting within the project area. A goshawk survey was done for a previous project, the Awake timber sale, in 1994. One of the nests at the southern end of this project was documented during this survey. Goshawk responses were not recorded during the survey. Just outside the fire perimeter, about 85 acres of the original territory remains old growth; this area currently provides suitable nesting habitat. It is uncertain whether goshawks will reoccupy these nests adjacent the fire. There has been a reduction in the quality of the nesting habitat but the habitat still does provide good foraging habitat. Environmental Effects The effects of all activities within the action alternatives were reviewed. Only those activities with direct, indirect, or cumulative effects were addressed. Alternatives 1 and 5 Direct and Indirect Effects Implementation of Alternative 1 or 5 would have no direct or indirect effects associated with changes to occupied habitat and features that influence habitat suitability. The difference between these two alternatives is that planting would occur in Alternative 5 in the severely burned areas and would develop habitat sooner. With planting or natural regeneration with an available seed source, it is estimated desired forested habitat conditions will become available beginning in 120 to 160 years with stands averaging 21”dbh or greater. This would result in a gap in available habitat. To further develop into Old Growth - YFMS or OFMS; suitable habitat could take an addition 50 to 100 years. Alternatives 2 and 4 Direct and Indirect Effects There would few differences in the reduction of current habitat (OFMS and YFMS) between Alternatives 2 and 4. In Alternative 2, activities would remove habitat used by woodpecker prey on about 180 acres (salvage and commercial thinning treatments removing snags). Alternative 4 activities would remove habitat used by goshawk prey on about 163 acres (salvage and commercial thinning). Down logs and patches of understory trees would likely still provide foraging habitat for rodent prey. Severely burned areas are not considered 235 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS suitable habitat for goshawks. However, they may forage in burned areas adjacent to suitable habitat. One difference between these alternatives is that Alternative 2 would provide snags in a more even distribution across the planning area while Alternative 4 would concentrate snags in blocks. Nesting habitat would remain the most limiting factor. Planting would restore nesting habitat sooner than Alternative 1, and generally the same as described for Alternative 5 except more acres are planned for planting.. However, it should be noted that nesting activity on the Malheur National Forest has been documented in much lower quality habitat (Daws 1996). These habitats would likely continue to provide foraging for a goshawk, providing habitat for rodent prey as well as some landbird prey species. Commercial thinning of green trees in the resiliency treatment areas would occur on only 7 acres and therefore is not expected to have an effect on nesting habitat. In commercial thinning treatment areas 1.5 to 2.5 snags per acre would be left following salvage activities within Alternative 4 and 2.4 for Alternative 2, which may help provide habitat for goshawk prey. There would be no direct disturbance to nesting goshawks during implementation. If any of the recorded nests are active or new nest sites are identified within or immediately adjacent to the project area, management activities would be restricted within ½ mile of the nest sites from April 1 to September 30 to avoid disturbing goshawks during the breeding season. There would be no direct or indirect effects to goshawk or their habitat from other activities proposed under Alternatives 2 and 4. Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 3 leaves the highest number of snags in the harvest units compared to Alternatives 2 and 4. The snag strategy of leaving 13 snags per acre in salvage harvest units would provide more abundant foraging habitat for goshawks compared to Alternatives 2 and 4. Salvage harvest would occur on 54 acres of habitat. There would be more foraging habitat available because more structure (snags and future down logs) would be left in the salvage units for goshawk prey species. Planting would restore nesting habitat sooner than Alternative 1, and generally the same as described for Alternative 5 except more acres are planned for planting. There would be no direct disturbance to nesting goshawks during implementation. If any of the recorded nests are active or new nest sites are identified within or immediately adjacent to the project area, management activities would be restricted within ½ mile of the nest sites from April 1 to September 30 to avoid disturbing goshawks during the breeding season. There would be no direct or indirect effects to goshawk or their habitat from other activities proposed under Alternative 3. Cumulative Effects - All Alternatives All of the past, ongoing and foreseeable activities identified in the beginning of Chapter 3 have been considered for their cumulative effects on northern goshawk. The following discussion focuses on those past, ongoing and reasonable foreseeable future activities that may contribute positive or negative effects to the species or its habitat. Nesting habitat is typically the limiting factor for goshawks. Past timber harvest reduced mature and old growth habitat preferred for nesting and fledging. Past timber harvest has 236 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences also reduced the amount of foraging habitat available. Since 1993, the Forest Plan as amended, has directed the Malheur National Forest to conduct timber sales in a manner that moves stands towards OFMS and OFSS structural stages, and timber sales planned since that time should not have contributed to loss of mature and old growth forest. Additional planting activities are being planned for old regeneration harvested areas in the burn area and include conifer planting. This additional planting proposed in the Wallowa- Whitman portion of the fire would also improve foraging habitat in the long-term. The cumulative effects from road use and general disturbance of goshawks can result from road use and ATV type vehicles. The planned closures within the Wallowa-Whitman portion of the fire would further reduce this disturbance. There would not be cumulative effects to goshawk or their habitat on the Wallowa-Whitman NF from activities proposed under the alternatives. Wallowa-Whitman personnel surveyed their portion of the Monument Fire and found no nests or individual goshawks in June 2003 need (DEIS, Monument Fire Recovery Project-Whitman Unit- Wallowa Whitman NF, Chapter 3). Summary Alternative 1 and 5 would not result in changes to goshawk habitat through the mid-term. Alternative 1 would delay the reestablishment of forested areas because of the lack of planting. Plant would occur in the severely burned areas under Alternative 5. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would result in reductions in foraging habitat because of salvage activities with the OFMS and YFMS forest structure stands. Alternative 3 would have the least affect to foraging habitat because it proposes the fewest acres of salvage activities and leaves the greatest number of snags. Nesting habitat would be slightly affected under Alternatives 2 and 4 because of commercial thinning activities on 7 acres in the commercial thinning areas. Overall, nesting habitat is still the most limiting factor due to effects of the fire itself and will be 150 or more years before mature structure is restored. Landbirds including Neotropical Migrants Landbird species relevant to the Monument Fire area include raptors, woodpeckers, neotropical migrants, and a host of other passerines that are year-round residents. Their habitat requirements are diverse and wide ranging. Nearly every habitat type from the highest and coldest alpine habitats, to hot and dry desert shrub steppe habitats of the Great Basin, are inhabited by species represented in these groups. Affected Environment Habitats for some species were greatly reduced due to high severity burns occurring throughout much of the fire area. Habitat for species that utilize fire affected habitats increased. Still other species will benefit over time from the disturbance as succession occurs over the fire area. Changes to population distributions, species diversity, and species distribution are also expected due to fire effects. Activities proposed would affect six habitat types within the project area and are the focus of this analysis of effects to landbird species (Table W-12). Species are identified as indicators for the condition and quality of habitat for each of the structure/habitat types identified in that table. Forest, structure and habitat types, and focal species are from Altman (2000). 237 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Table W-15. Forest and structure/habitat types and associated focal landbird species Forest Type Structure/Habitat Type Focal Species Dry Forest Old Forest-Large Patches White-Headed Woodpecker Dry Forest Grassy Openings-Dense Thickets Flammulated Owl Dry Forest Open Understory-Regeneration Chipping Sparrow Dry Forest Burned Old Forest Lewis’ Woodpecker Mesic Mixed Conifer Multi-Layered, Structural Diverse Varied Thrush Mesic Mixed Conifer Fire Edges and Openings Olive-Side Flycatcher Source: Altman 2000 The following analysis would look at these habitats and species, the existing condition of habitat in the project area, and the effects of activities proposed for each species. Dry Forest: Old Forest-Large Patches – White Headed Woodpecker This habitat type is described in the PCE section of this document. Please refer to that section for further discussion of effects. Other species that utilize this forest and habitat type are: flammulated owl, Lewis’ woodpecker, white-breasted and pygmy nuthatches, Williamson’s sapsucker, northern goshawk, Hammond’s flycatcher, hairy woodpecker, and brown creeper. Dry Forest: Old Forest Grassy Openings-Dense Thickets – Flammulated Owl The dry forest habitat type was present prior to the Monument Fire. In much of the fire, it was a rather abundant habitat condition. A significant portion of dry forest environment present was lost due to severe fire intensities in the Monument Rock wilderness. Much of the about 16,942 acres that burned at high-moderate to severe fire severity affected this habitat type. Along the edges of the fire, similar habitat was burned, however, at much lower fire severities. These lower fire severities often added to the diversity of openings created by fire and thickets of reproduction existing prior to the fire. The number of snags expected because of the fire will provide abundant nesting habitat and thickets of understory trees provides quality habitat for roosting and hiding from predators. Much of the about 672 acres in the project area now represent a mix of this habitat type and the dry forest-open understory/regeneration habitat condition. This acreage is based on field notes during walk- through exams and identifying areas where snags and pockets of dense understory thickets exist. Other species that utilize this forest and habitat type are: great-gray owl, white-breasted and pygmy nuthatches, white-headed and hairy woodpecker, brown creeper, chipping sparrow, Townsend’s solitaire, Hammond’s flycatcher Cassin’s finch, and western tanager. Dry Forest: Open Understory-Regeneration – Chipping Sparrow This forest type was developed in portions of the fire area that burned with light severity. On about 672 acres of the project area, light underburns opened up canopy conditions, particularly in lower canopy levels. This underburning created a more suitable, open understory condition for species utilizing these habitat types. The patchy mosaic effects of 238 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences fire in these stands also helped retain patches of regeneration important to this habitat condition. Other species that utilize this forest and habitat type are: Townsend’s solitaire, Cassin’s finch, American robin, dark-eyed junco, and the dusky and gray flycatchers. Dry Forest: Burned Old Forest – Lewis’ Woodpecker This dry forest habitat type is described in the PCE section of this document referring to the severe-fire effects on forested habitat. The Lewis’ woodpecker, a focal species for this habitat condition, is addressed in that section. Please refer to it for further details and effects from proposed activities. Other species that utilize this forest and habitat type are: olive-sided flycatcher, American kestrel, black-backed and three-toed woodpecker, mountain bluebird and northern flicker. Mesic Mixed Conifer: Multi-Layered, Structurally Diverse – Varied Thrush Mesic mixed conifer forest was another abundant habitat feature prior to the Monument Fire, particularly in the Monument Rock Wilderness. However, severe fire significantly reduced the availability of this habitat in the project and fire area. Small patches of this habitat condition remain in portions of the Swamp Creek and Little Malheur River subwatersheds. Outside the fire, particularly in the Swamp Creek subwatershed, this habitat type is still abundant, though fragmentation is an issue. Other species that utilize this forest and habitat type are: golden-crowned kinglet, chestnut- backed chickadee, hermit thrush, Townsend’s warbler, and winter wren. Mesic Mixed Conifer: Fire Edges and Openings – Olive-Sided Flycatcher This mesic mixed conifer condition has become relatively abundant due to effects from the Monument Fire. This condition is found most often along the edges of the fire and areas surrounding and including islands of unburned or low severity burned forested habitats within the fire. Habitat features include openings allowing for effective and efficient preying upon aerial insects, as well as the maintenance of live trees to provide nesting and perching habitat. Other species that utilize this forest and habitat type are: western tanager, Cassin’s finch, western wood-peewee, mountain bluebird, American kestrel, northern flicker, and American robin. Environmental Effects The effects of all activities within the action alternatives were reviewed. Only those activities with direct, indirect, or cumulative effects were addressed. Alternatives 1 and 5 Direct and Indirect Effects These alternatives would maintain existing fire-affected habitat conditions and the habitats they provide. The most abundant habitat types within the project and fire area would be habitat types affected by fire. Benefiting species, in addition to the primary cavity excavators previously described, would include mountain and western bluebirds, olive-sided flycatchers, and other fir-associated species. In areas of low fire severity, 2,847 acres of habitat for species dependent upon old dry forest in diverse structure conditions would continue to find suitable habitat. Those habitats may continue to fluctuate with secondary fire effects. Canopy closures and structure diversity may decrease due to secondary fire effects. As snags 239 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS are created naturally, conditions would benefit secondary cavity nesters such as pygmy nuthatch and flammulated owl. These conditions would reduce habitat for species such as the varied thrush and Townsend’s warbler. These alternatives lose the opportunity to promote stand structures and stand densities that are not only more resilient to secondary fire effects, but also future disturbances similar to what occurred with the Monument Fire. Indirect effects would include development of dry forest habitats into structure conditions desired by species such as the white-headed woodpecker. This is significant, particularly in relation to the drier pine forest types and the significant loss of such habitat that occurring in the Monument Fire. Mesic mixed conifer, multi-layered forest, and edges adjacent to openings will remain as described in affected environment. Those areas will continue to provide habitat for species such as the varied thrush and olive-sided flycatcher. The overall effects to landbird species would be similar to those described in the PCE section of the MIS discussions. In a sense, they represent the larger cohort of landbird species that inhabit those types of habitats described. Cumulative Effects All of the past, ongoing and foreseeable activities identified in the beginning of Chapter 3 have been considered for their cumulative effects on landbirds. The following discussion focuses on those past, ongoing and reasonable foreseeable future activities that may contribute positive or adverse effects to the species or its habitat. Overall, there area no cumulative effects to landbird species associated with Alternative 1. Within the severely burned areas, Alternative 5 has additional conifer planting planned. This planting in addition to the past and ongoing planting of conifers will contribute to the development of forested bird habitat sooner than with alternative one. Overall, species such as American robin, white-breasted nuthatch, and chipping sparrow, to name a few will benefit in the very long term. Alternative 2 and 4 Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 2 would result in the most change to existing habitat conditions for various landbird species using fire-affected habitats. Severe and light severity fire affected habitat types utilized by different landbird species would be impacted. Alternative 4 would result in fewer effects at a spatial scale, though impacts at the site-specific level would be similar. Salvage harvest areas that burned at high-moderate to severe fire severities would reduce habitat quality for a variety of burned-forest dependent species (including those that select for burned old forest and fire edges and openings). Removal of snags would reduce nesting habitat opportunities and affect woodpecker occupation. Snags provide nesting holes for species such as the mountain and western bluebirds. Of the about 16,942 acres of this habitat type in the fire area, Alternative 2 would salvage about 3,477 acres (about 21%) and Alternative 4 would salvage about 2,601 acres (about 15%). Commercial thinning activities would occur in pockets of forested areas on about 76 acres in commercial thinning areas (light to low-moderate fire severity areas); about 3% of the total light severity fire affected habitat type. Species such as varied thrush that select for denser, more complex multi-layered habitats would see reductions in habitats across the 223 acres. 240 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Removal of the canopy commercial and precommercial thinning (about 392 acres) activities would benefit species that select for ponderosa pine forest with open understory, providing a higher potential of increasing shrubs and small trees, habitat for chipping sparrows. Species like flammulated owls would be negatively affected by harvest of most of the snags in both commercial thinning and salvage units, thinning the green trees in the resiliency units, and precommercial thinning thickets on 392 acres. Harvest units would create more open large tree habitat conditions preferred by flammulated owl, pygmy nuthatch, and white- headed woodpeckers and at the same time remove many of the snags that would have been nesting habitat. Planting would occur across much of the project area deemed suitable for planting activities and regeneration of forested habitat. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 propose about 5,322 acres of planting within harvested and un-harvested areas. This would result in a shorter period of conifer habitat regeneration, when compared to the Alternative 1. Different successional stages would develop, providing habitat for different species over that time period Cumulative Effects All of the past, ongoing and foreseeable activities identified in the beginning of Chapter 3 have been considered for their cumulative effects on landbirds. The following discussion focuses on those past, ongoing and reasonable foreseeable future activities that may contribute positive or adverse effects to the species or its habitat. These cumulative effects are measured by treatment type and habitat involved. Fragmentation resulting from timber harvesting can have several negative effects on landbirds such as insufficient patch size for area-dependent species, and increases in edges and adjacent hostile landscapes, which can result in reduced productivity through increased nest predation, nest parasitism, and reduced pairing success of males. Additionally, fragmentation has likely altered the dynamics of dispersal and immigration necessary for maintenance of some populations at a regional scale. Salvage treatments would add cumulatively to changes having occurred in similar burned habitats. Salvage activities resulting from the Ironside Fire Recovery Project (1994) provide the primary source of additional cumulative effects. Through attrition over the past 9 years, much of the remaining snags have fallen. Primary habitat condition would be considered very early seral/grassland/upland shrubland (ceanothus shrubs the most common structure). Species such as mountain and western bluebirds, northern flickers, and other species dependent upon dead tree structure have likely seen habitat quality decline. Commercial thinning proposed would also result in cumulative effects. Activities proposed would result in changes to canopy closures affecting some species that would utilize those habitats. This would be additive to other changes in the forested environment, primarily past timber harvest, that has reduced the level of suitable habitat available to the species. The removal of pockets of understory trees (about 223 acres), precommercial thinning (about 392 acres) along with past harvest treatments would open up the understory and benefit species like the flammulated owl and white-breasted nuthatch. By opening up the canopy for shrubs and understory to grow, species such as chipping sparrow and American robin will benefit. Also benefiting from the commercial thinning treatments cumulatively with past harvest activities are the western tanager, American robin, and olive-sided flycatcher that prefer fire edges and openings. 241 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS These effects, however, are somewhat countered by cumulative effects of fire suppression creating additional habitat in areas that did not historically exist. Fire suppression has allowed traditionally open stands to develop later seral stand and structure condition more conducive to species that select for diverse forest vegetation and canopy structure. Species that would benefit from the cumulative effects include the varied thrush, golden-crowned kinglet, and Townsend’s warbler. These effects are expressed temporally through the period of time such habitats would be in an unsuitable condition for species affected. Likewise, on a spatial scale, these effects would be demonstrated in fragmentation and changes to habitat across the landscape. In general, the conifer planting associated with Alternatives 2 and 4 will add cumulatively to past and ongoing conifer planting to improve the overall bird habitat. Forested environment will develop sooner than without additional planting. Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects There would be direct and indirect effects to landbirds species based upon different habitat types affected. Effects differ in acres involved and types of treatments and resulting habitat manipulations expected to occur. In salvage treatments, 2,467 acres would be affected; about 15% of the high-moderate to severe fire severity areas. However, snag retention standards would be higher, which would provide for better habitat conditions for several species, including the Lewis’ woodpecker (see PCE discussions) and the western and mountain bluebirds. Other species dependent upon cavity habitats in burned forests would also see some benefits. Snag densities would average around 13 snags per acre, in size distributions identified in Chapter 2, and would also remain in all riparian areas. These would be scattered in clumps of 2 to 6 acres. These patches would provide primary habitat areas within the units. Habitat conditions would continue through the period that snags remain standing. Over the short to mid term, snag densities would decline as snags fall. Habitat quality would be reduced accordingly. Habitat quality would generally be considered unsuitable for snag dependent species within 30 years post fire due to a combination of snag fall and salvage harvest. In the low fire severity areas no treatments to green trees would occur. All that would be removed are snags, maintaining 13 per acre as described in Chapter 2. Removal of snags may result in some direct effects to species utilizing individual snags. Indirect effects would be small, as sufficient snag habitat would be maintained. Fewer total acres of low severity habitat would be harvested for removal of dead trees. Structure conditions would remain, providing similar habitat condition as described in the Affected Environment section. Lack of thinning, including precommercial thinning, and no harvest of suitable habitat in units such as 3 and 12 would result in more habitat being provided for white-headed woodpeckers, flammulated owls, pygmy nuthatches, and other cavity dependent species. Cumulative Effects All of the past, ongoing and foreseeable activities identified in the beginning of Chapter 3 have been considered for their cumulative effects on landbirds. The following discussion focuses on those past, ongoing and reasonable foreseeable future activities that may contribute positive or adverse effects to the species or its habitat. In salvage treatments, cumulative effects would be similar to Alternatives 2 and 4. Within retained patches, suitable habitat would remain. However, in harvested areas, snag densities 242 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences would be very low and result in similar cumulative effects but should have less adverse cumulative effects than Alternatives 2 and 4 because fewer snags will be harvested. In low severity fire salvaged areas, cumulative effects are less significant, as no change to green vegetation would result. Existing stand structures would be maintained providing habitat condition similar to those described in the Affected Environment section. Effects that would occur involve dead tree removal and would be additive to effects of some past harvest actions and firewood cutting. Temporal, scale and trend effects would be similar, particularly for high fire severity areas between Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. In the low fire severity areas, effects would be less similar and less significant due to lack of change in green-forested habitat. Summary of Landbirds Including Neotropicals Overall, effects to landbird species would be similar to those described in the PCE section of MIS discussions. In a sense, they represent the larger cohort of landbird species that inhabit those types of habitats described. Alternatives 2 and 4 would result in the most significant changes to habitat condition for various land bird species due to the extent and prescriptions of activities proposed. Alternative 3 would result in the lowest level of changes in habitat between Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Alternatives 1 and 5 would maintain the existing condition of habitats. Similar to discussions for PCE species, the effects of the activities proposed have less to do with viability of species and species diversity, particularly at the landscape level, and more about distribution across that landscape based upon habitat availability. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would result in changes to distribution across the project area, particularly in the high fire severity areas. The level of that change in distribution varies based upon snag retention standards within units as well as the retention of un-harvested habitat scattered across portions of the project area. Depending upon species, Alternatives 3 and 4 provide for the best distribution option for a diversity of species in the project area. Birds of Conservation Concern In February of 2003, The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) released the document Birds of Conservation Concern 2002 through the Federal Register (USFWS 2002). This document identified bird species of conservation concern across North America by geographic region. The project area exists within the Northern Rockies region, Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 10. Several species on that list are known or suspected to occur within the project area, including the flammulated owl, pygmy nuthatch, Lewis’ and white- headed woodpeckers, and the Williamson’s and red-naped sapsuckers. These species are addressed through the MIS PCE and the above landbird discussions and/or the Wildlife Specialist Report. Table W-16 identifies the list of species for BCR 10 that includes the project area. This table identifies the species listed and presence or absence within the project area. The third column documents reason for absence as appropriate. 243 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Table W-16. List of species of BCR 10, Northern Rockies Region, Their status as present or absent from the Project Area, and reasons for absence. Species Presence /Absence Reason for Absence/Where Addressed If Present Swainson’s Hawk Absent No Suitable Habitat Ferruginous Hawk Absent No Suitable Habitat Golden Eagle Present Habitat Not Affected by Proposed Activities Peregrine Falcon Absent No Suitable Habitat Prairie Falcon Habitat Not Affected by Proposed Activities Yellow Rail Absent No Suitable Habitat American Golden-Plover Absent Outside Range Snowy Plover Absent No Suitable Habitat Mountain Plover Absent Outside Range Solitary Sandpiper Absent Outside Range Upland Sandpiper Absent No Suitable Habitat Whimbrel Absent Outside Range Long-Billed Curlew Absent No Suitable Habitat Marbled Godwit Absent Outside Range Sanderling Absent Outside Range Wilson’s Phalarope Absent No Suitable Habitat Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Absent Outside Range Flammulated Owl Present Landbird Discussion Black Swift Absent Outside Range Lewis’ Woodpecker Present Landbird Discussion/Severe Fire MIS Williamson’s Sapsucker Present Low Fire Severity MIS Red-Naped Sapsucker Present Low Fire Severity MIS White-Headed Woodpecker Present Low fire Severity MIS Loggerhead Shrike Present Habitat Not Affected By Proposed Activities Pygmy Nuthatch Present Landbird Species Virginia’s Warbler Absent Outside Range Brewer’s Sparrow Present Habitat Not Affected by Proposed Activities McCown’s Longspur Absent Outside Range 244 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Affected Environment and Environmental Effects – Old-Growth Dedicated Old Growth Affected Environment Two dedicated old growth (DOG) and/or associated replacement old-growth (ROG) habitats were affected by the Monument fire. DOG 04334PP (pileated woodpecker and pine marten habitat, 504 acres), along with the ROG (334 acres), burned in the Monument Fire. Both burned at severe or moderate-high fire severities. These DOG and ROG habitats no longer function as late-and-old structure habitat for the pileated woodpecker and pine marten. Essentially no live conifer habitat exists in these blocks of habitat. These DOG and ROG habitats reside along the south slope above the Little Malheur River, opposite the Monument Rock Wilderness and the Camp Creek drainage (Figure 16, Map Section). The Monument Fire also affected a portion of ROG 04345PP (1,254 acres), which is the designated replacement stand for DOG 04345PP (410 acres). Sixty-nine acres of ROG habitat burned at moderate or severe fire severities. The fire significantly reduced or eliminated the function of this portion of ROG habitat. This ROG has also been impacted by past timber harvest activities. Environmental Effects The effects of all activities within the action alternatives were reviewed. Only those activities with direct, indirect, or cumulative effects were addressed. Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 would not present any direct effects to dedicated old growth habitats within the project area or within the larger analysis area. Habitat designations involving DOG and ROG habitats would remain, as currently existing. Habitat effectiveness for the species these DOG and ROG habitats would remain as described in the Affected Environment section. Indirect effects resulting from selection of this alternative would include the opportunity lost in this decision to implement DOG and ROG management direction (MA-13 in the Forest Plan) on existing late and old structure habitat (931 acres) meeting requirements for pileated woodpecker and the pine marten. The current designated DOG and ROG 04334PP, which currently do not function, would remain part of the old growth network. Indirect effects would also include the lost opportunity to re-delineate ROG 04345 PP to meet Forest Plan direction and designate pileated woodpecker feeding areas (380 acres), which do not currently exist for either DOG. Over all, these two DOG habitats would not meet Forest Plan direction for designated habitats. There would be a net reduction of 838 acres in suitable habitat for pileated woodpecker and pine marten under the MA-13 designation. Old growth habitat suitable for replacing DOG and ROG 04334PP would remain as it is currently, providing habitat for pileated woodpeckers and pine marten, even though it would not be designated or be included in MA-13. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects from Alternative 1 would involve changes in the trend of suitable old growth habitat under MA-13 direction across the larger landscape. Selection of this alternative would result in a reduction of 838 acres of suitable habitat designated under the 245 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS MA-13 direction. This would add to the net reduction in suitable habitat designated under MA-13 across the landscape. Recent fire events in the Little Malheur River and North Fork Malheur River watersheds have also impacted DOG and ROG habitats. Subsequent analysis and decisions involving salvage removal of dead trees did not result in the re-delineation or other changes to those DOG and ROG habitats. Portions of those DOG and ROG habitats do not currently function as old growth habitat. Selection of this alternative would result in a cumulative trend in reduction of suitable old growth habitat for the pileated woodpecker and pine marten under MA-13 direction. Cumulatively, adverse effects at the temporal scale would also occur. Maintaining existing designation under the No Action Alternative implies these habitats would continue to be managed for old growth habitat characteristics. Analysis by Knotts (1998) indicates a period from 240 to 280 years would be required for these stands to redevelop old growth characteristics (OFMS). Suitable habitat conditions for the pileated woodpecker and the pine marten would not be present in these stands until well after 180 to 200 years (Knotts 1998). Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 deals with the change in designation of habitats. Specifically, existing DOG and ROG habitats and habitats that currently meet habitat requirements for MA-13 designation, but are currently designated under other management area direction are at issue. Implementation of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 will not result in a net increase of suitable habitat available to those species that select for that habitat condition. Table W- 17. Changes for DOG/ROG and Pileated Woodpecker Habitat- Proposed Action Designation Current Size (Acres) Proposed (Acres) Change (Acres) Dedicated Old Growth 04334PP 504 575 +71 Replacement Old Growth 04334PP 334 356 +22 Pileated Woodpecker Feeding Area 04334PP 0 380 +380 Dedicated Old Growth 04345PP 410 410 +0 Replacement Old Growth 04345PP 1,254 294 -960 Pileated Woodpecker Feeding Area 04345PP 0 431 +431 Total 2502 2446 -56 Direct and Indirect Effects Direct and indirect effects of Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 would be designation and delineation of DOG, ROG and pileated woodpecker feeding area habitat as described in the FEIS. The current DOG and ROG 04334 PP habitat would be withdrawn from MA-13 designation and replaced with suitable habitat totaling 931 acres. In addition, 380 acres of pileated woodpecker feeding area habitat would be added. This habitat would replace the existing 838 acres not functioning as suitable habitat due to the fire. This change would result in a net increase of 473 acres managed under MA-13 direction and an increase of 1,311 acres of habitat that meets MA-13 habitat requirements. 246 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Direct effects of Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would also include delineation of ROG O4345PP to meet Forest Plan direction and the delineation of a pileated woodpecker feeding area for DOG 04345PP. Total acres identified as ROG habitat would decrease by 960 acres. Of those 960 acres, 431 acres would be re-designated as a feeding area. A total of 529 acres of habitat would no longer fall under MA-13 direction. There would be direct and indirect effects to pileated woodpeckers and pine marten in the form of suitable habitat protected and managed for those species. A total net increase in suitable habitat of 402 acres and an increase in suitable habitat of 782 acres managed under MA-13 designation would occur with implementation of this alternative. (Those additional 782 acres would be managed under MA-13 direction for the maintenance of suitable habitat for those species, as opposed to MA-1 and MA-22 direction as they currently exist). Replacement of DOG 04334PP and associated ROG would result in the “movement” of that habitat designation into another watershed, approximately 6 linear miles west of its current location. This would change the landscape distribution of old growth habitat within the North Fork Malheur River and Little Malheur River watersheds. The significance of this lies in the current location of suitable old growth habitat, as well as recent changes to existing DOG habitats from similar fire events in the last 10 years. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects of Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 fall under the spatial and temporal scales and a measure in trend. Replacement of DOG 04334PP and associated ROG would result in the “movement” of that habitat designation into another watershed, about 6 linear miles west of its current location. This would change the landscape distribution of old growth habitat within the North Fork Malheur River and Little Malheur River watersheds. The significance of this lies in the current location of suitable old growth habitat, as well as recent changes to existing DOG habitats from similar fire events in the last 10 years. The effects of the Monument Fire within the Monument Rock Wilderness, which essentially functioned as one large block of suitable old growth habitat exceeding 8,000 acres and now is now longer functioning as such on most of the acres, further adds to the cumulative effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 on spatial distribution of DOG and ROG habitats managed under MA-13 direction. With the effects of the fire, a large area is now with very limited acres of suitable old growth habitat. The fire has affected the distribution and connection of suitable old growth habitat across the landscape. At a temporal scale, Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 decrease the length of time suitable old growth habitat is managed under MA-13 direction. With regard to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, existing DOG and ROG habitat would be re-delineated to include suitable, functioning habitat. This would maintain roughly the same number of acres in suitable old growth habitat condition as existed prior to the Monument Fire. The re-delineation of these DOG and ROG habitats would counter the cumulative effects of the Monument Fire and declines in old growth functioning habitat outside of MA-13 habitat designation from past harvest actions, and would do so in a shorter time period than if alternative one were selected and the delay in the return of the existing DOG and ROG habitats to a functioning old growth habitat condition. 247 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Connectivity Affected Environment Connectivity refers to a network of habitat between late and old structure (LOS) stands and dedicated old growth units that allow interior forest species to disperse and move between those areas. The intent of Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment # 2 is to provide connectivity corridors that do not necessarily meet the description of suitable habitat for breeding, but allow free movement between suitable breeding habitats. Within the corridors, medium diameter or larger trees are common, and canopy closure should be within the top 1/3 of site potential. Corridors should be at least 400 feet wide and must connect LOS with dedicated old growth units by at least 2 different directions. If appropriate stands are not available, then the next best stands will have to provide connectivity, and should be managed to improve connectivity. Light mortality or underburn areas, partial burned, and unburned areas are currently providing the best connectivity in the area, and are likely the only stands that meet Forest Plan definitions of connectivity. Some stands identified as moderately burned such as unit 12 would provide connectivity, but most of the moderately burned areas and the severely burned areas have no green canopy, therefore would not provide connectivity. LOS blocks in the fire area are highly fragmented and limited. Connectivity would be provided by stand structure identified as young multi-story forest (YFMS). Young stands having two or more canopy layers that may be fairly open (UR and SEOC) would provide limited medium or large trees and limited overstory canopy, but would be the next best structure for providing connectivity. Those structures may not meet the Forest Plan definition. There are breaks in connectivity especially along the east portion of the analysis area, but there is a network pattern between the fragmented LOS blocks. Two small separate stands (less than 16 acres each) identified as LOS north of the analysis area have no stands connecting them to each other or other LOS blocks due to the adjacent severely burned wilderness area. The extent of connectivity outside the analysis area is unknown due to lack of stand structure information. Environmental Effects The effects of all activities within the action alternatives were reviewed. Only those activities with direct, indirect, or cumulative effects were addressed. Alternatives 1, 3, and 5 Direct and Indirest Effects These alternatives would not change connectivity because no trees would be harvested in Alternatives 1 and 5 and no live trees would be harvested in Alternative 3. Salvage harvest in Alternative 3 would be harvesting only those trees determined to be dead using the tree mortality guidelines. Cumulative Effects All of the past, ongoing and foreseeable activities identified in the beginning of Chapter 3 have been considered for their cumulative effects on connectivity. The following discussion focuses on those past, ongoing and reasonable foreseeable future activities that may contribute positive or negative effects to connectivity habitat. 248 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences In Alternative 1 and in the low to moderate severity burn areas associated with Alternative 5; there are no cumulative effects. In Alternative 3 and in the severely burned areas of Alternative 5 conifer planting is planned. Past, ongoing, and planned conifer planting will cumulatively improve connectivity habitat. The improvement to habitat will be in the long term, but will still improve connectivity sooner than without the additional conifer planting. Alternatives 2 and 4 Direct and Indirect Effects The salvage harvest in these two alternatives would not change connectivity. The green tree treatment and precommercial thinning would change canopy closure that would result in more open stands. In the commercial thinning units, a few acres of stands providing connectivity (YFMS) may be modified and decrease canopy closure. It is unknown if those stands would continue to meet the connectivity definition. Green tree removal in three of the commercial thinning units would be in open canopy stands (SEOC) that may not be currently meeting the connectivity definition. It would not be necessary for those units to provide connectivity due to the proximity of other adjacent connectivity stands. The best available connectivity would continue to exist with the green tree harvest of the commercial thinning units. Cumulative Effects All of the past, ongoing and foreseeable activities identified in the beginning of Chapter 3 have been considered for their cumulative effects on connectivity. The following discussion focuses on those past, ongoing and reasonable foreseeable future activities that may contribute positive or negative effects to the connectivity habitat. In Alternatives 2 and 4, conifer planting is planned throughout the project area. Past, ongoing, and planned conifer planting within the project area will cumulatively improve connectivity habitat. The improvement to habitat will be in the long term, but will still improve connectivity sooner than without the planned conifer planting. Consistency with Direction and Guidelines Big Game Cover The Malheur National Forest Plan requires that 20% of summer range and winter range be maintained as marginal and satisfactory cover. The Swamp Creek subwatershed meets this total cover summer range standard (see table W-10). The Upper Little Malheur River does not meet this standard because of the fire (see table W-10). None of the alternatives further reduce marginal and satisfactory habitat. Natural regeneration and planting are expected to re-vegetate forest although at different rates. Planting accelerates recovery of vegetation and development of hiding and thermal cover. Habitat Effectiveness Index (HEI) All alternatives proposed would be consistent with Forest Plan standards for summer and winter range HEI indices except for road densities in winter range. The Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed is not meeting the Forest Plan standard for the habitat effectiveness factor for roads (HER) in winter range (Table W-14). The amended Forest Plan identifies a series of criteria relative to measurement of elk habitat effectiveness, through the use of a tool known as a Habitat Effectiveness Index (HEI) (USDA 249 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Forest Service 1999). HEI models the relative quality of elk habitat based upon cover, forage, road densities, quality of cover, and the interrelationship of cover to forage habitats (USDA Forest Service 1999). The Forest Plan identifies the following figures as minimums across the Malheur National Forest for summer range habitats (Table W-14): The Forest Plan also identifies HEI standards for winter range habitat. This applies to only winter range habitat within the subwatershed. The minimum values are identified as follows (W-14): Winter range habitat only occurs within the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed. No harvest activities are proposed within winter range area that would influence the total HEI values. Road Densities-Summer Range and Winter Range The Swamp Creek subwatershed currently meets Forest Plan standards for open road summer range density (see Table W-11). The Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed meets summer range open road standard but not winter range standards (see Table W-11). Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 close additional roads within the burn areas (see Tables W-12 and W-13). Following road closures, the Upper Little Malheur River subwatershed would still not meet winter range standards for any of the alternatives. In future environmental analyses, additional road closures would be considered in the unburned portions of the subwatersheds after post-fire recovery projects have been completed. Goshawk For northern goshawks, all alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan and the Regional Forester’s Eastside Forest Plans Amendment #2. No harvest is proposed within any post- fledging areas (PFAs). Natural regeneration and planting are expected to re-vegetate forest although at different rates. Planting would accelerate the recovery of vegetation and development of nesting habitat. Mature and old growth stands suitable for nesting adjacent the project area, as well as the existing nest sites, would be monitored annually for nesting activity. If new nest sites are identified within or immediately adjacent to the project area, management activities would be prohibited within ½ mile of the nest sites from April 1 to September 30 to avoid disturbing goshawks during the breeding season. Migratory Birds All alternatives are consistent with the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Migratory Bird Executive Order 13186. Alternatives were designed under current Forest Service policy for landbirds. The Northern Rocky Mountains Bird Conservation Plan (Altman 2000) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2002) were reviewed for effects disclosure. Salvage logging and other vegetation management cannot completely avoid unintentional take of birds, no matter what mitigations are imposed on the activities. Endangered Species Act All alternatives are consistent with the Endangered Species Act (see Appendix D, Wildlife Biological Evaluation). All alternatives will have No Effect on lynx, bald eagles, or gray wolves. Based on these effect calls, consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service was not necessary. 250 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences The Monument ID Team followed the streamlining process to address ESA issues related to the Monument Fire Recovery Project. The Monument ID Team met with the Malheur NF Level 1 Team seven times over a two-year period to discuss the Monument Fire Recovery Project. Of those seven meetings, ESA issues concerning wildlife species were discussed during five meetings: 11/14/2002: The ID Team met with the Level 1 Team for a general discussion of potential activities for the recovery project and potential ESA issues. 01/21/2003: The ID Team met with the Level 1 Team to discuss the draft proposed action for the Monument Fire Recovery Project. 02/11/2003: The Wildlife Biologist on the ID Team met with the Level 1 Team to discuss issues concerning Lynx. 03/19/2003: The Wildlife Biologist on the ID Team met with the Level 1 Team to discuss issues concerning Lynx. 06/17/2003: The ID Team and the Level 1 Team visited the Monument Fire Recovery project area and the Monument Fire area to discuss proposed activities for the Monument Fire Recovery Project, design criteria, and potential effects to threatened and endangered species. Based on USFWS’ review of the biological evaluation and supporting information provided in Level 1 team meetings, and field trips to the fire and project areas, USFWS did not object to the Forests' no effect determinations for lynx, bald eagles, or gray wolves. Snag Retention Alternative 4 would require a non-significant Forest Plan amendment for snags with its implementation of the salvage and commercial thinning harvest treatments. Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 5 would meet plan snag standards. This amendment for Alternative 4 is considered a non-significant amendment to the Malheur Forest Plan due the following factors (see Forest Service Handbook 1909.12): Timing; location and size; goals, objectives, and outputs; and management prescriptions. Timing - The proposed change is taking place after the first decade of the current 1990 plan; but will be enacted before the next schedule revision. The next scheduled revision of the Malheur Forest is to begin in 2004 with an anticipated completion date of 2008. Therefore, the timing of this amendment is non-significant because of how late this change is occurring under the current Forest Plan. Location and Size – The harvest area of the dead/dying trees (snags) is a small percentage of the available cavity excavator habitat in the two subwatersheds. The harvest area in the Swamp Creek subwatershed less than 13% of the subwatershed and in the Upper Little Malheur River it is less than 3% of the subwatershed. Goals, Objectives, and Outputs – The Amended Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, 1990) identifies a modified snag standard as follows: “All sale activities will maintain snags and green replacement trees of greater than or equal to 21 inches dbh, (or whatever is the representative dbh of the overstory layer if it is less than 21 inches), at the 100% potential population levels of primary cavity excavators. This should 251 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS be determined using the best available science on species requirements as applied through current snag models or other documented procedures….” The Forest Plan (Chapter IV, Forest Wide Standard 38) identifies the 100% potential population level as being 239 snags per acre over a 100-acre area, or roughly 2.39 snags per acre. It has thus been interpreted that the 100% potential population level under the amendment identified above would be 2.39 large snags (> 21” dbh) per acre (or 239 larges snags (> 21” dbh) over 100 acres). This standard is based upon J.W. Thomas’ Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington (1979). This standard, through Thomas’ reference would cover most, if not all primary cavity excavator species associated with conifer habitats. This provided the rational for the snag standards developed for Alternative 2 and also is supported in Alternative 3. Recently, DecAID was developed in Region 6 to address new trends and understandings about the function of dead wood habitats (snags and down logs) in a variety of different habitat types and conditions (Mellen et al. 2003; Johnson and O’Neil 2001). DecAID represents an advisory tool that presents a synthesis of data and research results pertaining to dead wood habitats in Oregon and Washington (Mellen et al. 2003). In and of itself, DecAID represents the latest information about deadwood habitats and their relationship to a variety of different deadwood dependent wildlife species. Information derived from DecAID and associated research that it includes seem to indicate that the standard of 2.39 large snags (>21” dbh) per acre may not be sufficient to meet the amended Forest Plan Standard identified above. . Relative to the assumption that the amended Forest Plan refers to providing 100% potential population levels as having a snag density of 2.39 large snags (>21” dbh) per acre, Alternative 4 would not meet that standard across every acre. This would be due to the lack of retention of snags above and beyond those required to meet down wood requirements within harvest units (see description of alternatives in Chapter 2 FEIS). Management Prescriptions – The proposed harvest of snag habitat would not detract from or jeopardize the Forest Plan goals because of the small magnitude of change in snag availability and the large reserve of snags remaining in the Monument Rock Wilderness. Dedicated Old Growth Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would require a non-significant Malheur Forest Plan Amendment to make the proposed changes to dedicated old growth and replacement old growth habitat. This is considered a non-significant amendment to the Malheur Forest Plan due the following factors (see Forest Service Handbook 1909.12): Timing; location and size; goals, objectives, and outputs; and management prescriptions. Timing - The proposed change is taking place after the first decade of the current 1990 plan; but will be enacted before the next schedule revision. The next scheduled revision of the Malheur Forest is to begin in 2004 with an anticipated completion date of 2008. Therefore, the timing of this amendment is non-significant because of how late this change is occurring under current Forest Plan direction. Location and Size – The re-delineation of old growth and replacement old growth to another area maintains about the same size as the previous area and would be located in the closest available LOS stand. 252 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Goals, Objectives, Outputs, and Management Prescriptions - The Monument Fire affected the function and character of one dedicated old growth habitat and two replacement old growth habitats within the fire perimeter. Dedicated old growth impacted by fire no longer provides habitat conditions to meet pileated woodpecker and pine marten habitat requirements. The associated replacement old growth also no longer functions as suitable habitat for those species. The other affected replacement old growth habitat does not meet Forest Plan direction for the type of habitat to be included and the number of acres designated towards that purpose. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 propose the re-delineation of the dedicated old growth and two replacement old growth habitats such that they include habitat features and conditions suitable to the pileated woodpecker and the pine marten and meet Forest Plan direction. Irreversible/ Irretrievable Effects The loss of snags would be an irretrievable loss until replacements function as snags. There are no other irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources associated with wildlife or wildlife habitat that may result from the implementation of alternatives. Recreation ______________________________________ Regulatory Framework Management Direction The Forest Plan direction is to manage General Forest and Rangeland (MA 1 & 2) to: • construct, relocate, or protect designated system trails and facilities during management activities; • maintain dispersed camping opportunities in a roaded setting, and to manage these areas for partial retention; • provide roaded recreation opportunities. Manage Monument Rock Wilderness (MA 6B) in accordance with values specified in the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984. Preserve and protect the wilderness character of the resource. Provide for recreational, scenic, educational, scientific, and historical uses. Manage for primitive recreation opportunities under the Wilderness Recreation Opportunity Spectrum system. The Monument wildfire burned approximately 11,500 acres of the Monument Rock Wilderness. These acres are not included in the Monument Fire Project Area. Elk Flat Springs is a Forest Camp and is not listed as a developed campground in the Forest Plan, therefore it does not show up as MA 12, even though it is managed as a developed campground. This site is managed as a Developed Recreation Site (MA 12) to provide opportunities for interpretation and enhancement of natural resources and the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) system for this area is managed as roaded modified. The rest of the project area is managed as roaded natural. 253 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Analysis Method GIS was used to identify dispersed campsites. The recreation analysis considered the area within the fire boundary. Affected Environment The Monument Fire Recovery project area includes two developed recreation sites, Elk Flat Springs Forest Campground, and Little Malheur Trail/Trailhead on the south end. Table Rock Trail/Trailhead and Little Malheur Trail/Trailhead on the north end are outside the planning area, but are connected resources. Most of the dispersed campsites are along the Little Malheur River with the rest scattered throughout the roaded portion of the planning area. The area receives low to moderate levels of use from local residents gathering forest products, hunting, riding Off Highway Vehicles (OHVs) and snowmobiling. This area plays an important role by providing settings for various types of outdoor recreation hunting, camping, driving in the woods, hiking and winter activities. Viewing opportunities are abundant within the Monument Rock Wilderness area. Due to ease of access from Forest Service Roads (FSR) 16 and 13, this area is popular with recreationists where visitors may enjoy the project area for outdoor recreational opportunities. With the exception of FSRs 16 and 13 the major roads, corridors are gravel-surfaced, one-lane, and native surface routes initially developed to provide timber and mineral access, which now provides access for recreation type activities. Mushroom gathering is expected to greatly increase this year and then taper off in the following years. Recreational hunting for shed deer and elk antlers and other activities occur as well. Viewing scenery and enjoying the landscape is a part of all these activities. Such as FSR 1370 (Table Rock Visual Corridor) and Table Rock Lookout area are located in the Monument fire, just outside the project area with views into the project area from Monument Rock Wilderness and the Wallowa Whitman National Forest. Environmental Effects Direct/Indirect Effects: Alternative 1: No Action Alternative This alternative would result in little change from the existing condition. While recreational visits within the analysis area would remain near the same levels as previous years under this alternative, traditional use patterns and recreational opportunities would be impacted. Recreational use would probably remain fairly static. The fire did not affect Elk Flat Springs Campground and this site will remain intact as is. Forest Service Roads 16 and 13 have traditionally provided access to dispersed campsites. Day use activities such as fishing, sight seeing and driving roads would decrease due to hazard trees. Hazard trees along roads, trailheads, trail crossings, developed recreation sites and dispersed campsites would increase public safety risks. Due to these hazardous situations, based on past observations, motorists would likely create new parking and camping areas to replace the traditional used roads and sites. This would increase ground disturbance in the project area. 254 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences No improvement of road access will decrease the opportunities for those who prefer an easily accessed setting due to no timber harvest, which will lead to a decrease in hunting, fishing, and other recreational use of an area because usually improved road means better access resulting in an increase of recreational visitors. It is expected that as human populations increase and as recreational means of transportation advances, this will be an associated increase in need for road-related recreation activities. The existing characteristic of the Monument Rock Wilderness would remain the same. Large fires can be distracting or dangerous to Forest visitors and they modify the recreation setting. This will cause people to relocate to other areas that may not have been previously impacted from human use. The fire did not change ROS classification, so it will not change as a result of this alternative. The various types of outdoor recreation hunting, camping, driving in the woods, hiking and winter activities will continue. The temporary road closure on FSR 1672457 at the junction of 1672 has created a spot for people to park to walk up FSR 1672457 to access the existing trailhead and Little Malheur trail #366. This is not a developed site and a foreseeable action would be to relocate the trailhead to this site and create a connecting trail out of the existing FSR1672457 under another NEPA document. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 The action alternatives would result in little change from the existing condition and the ROS classification will remain the same. Some improvement of road systems would be noticed (surface and drainage structures). With a recovery only approach, some road segments may be improved and road management enhanced increasing recreational travel use. Improvement of road access will increase opportunities for those who prefer an easily accessed setting due to management activities associated with the project, which will improve access for hunting, viewing scenery, fishing, and other recreational use of the area. With the exception of temporary and short-term displacement of recreationists during the time management activities actually take place, there are no long-term direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to recreation settings or overall opportunities expected from harvest activities. There is the potential to displace some recreationists who traditionally use the area through the closing of some of the forest roads in the area that were previously open, i.e. some recreationists may find the road to their favorite hunting spot closed. With the temporary closure on FSR 1672494 some dispersed camping will not be assessable to recreationists. Also, the road closure will limit access to the Little Malheur Trailhead on the south end limiting some people from utilizing the trail system and Monument Rock Wilderness. Permanently closing this road is outside the scope of this analysis, and will be addressed in another NEPA process. Although the action alternatives propose to close some roads after management activities, others will remain open. While harvest activities are occurring, FSR 1672494 will be closed to public access for safety concerns for a short period. Helicopter activity over the road will be unsafe for the public and raises concerns for people being in the area at that time. Also, the Little Malheur Trail and Trailhead will be closed during harvest activities due to safety concerns with the activity of helicopters flying overhead with logs. 255 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS The temporary closure will be posted on the ground at the north end trailhead and on FSR 1672494. The fire did not affect Elk Flat Springs Campground and this site will remain intact as is. There would be a slight increase in big game hunter opportunities, as improvement in habitat (particularly forage) should increase big game populations (elk and mule deer), starting in the summer of 2003. Realizing that changes in big game hunter opportunities might occur at any time that the Oregon State Fish and Game Department significantly change big game hunting regulations. Hunting may be less desirable for some people until new under-story vegetation is established. Although future recreation use within the project area is difficult to determine, visitation has increased rapidly in the past few years. As the project area changes over time, so may the make-up of visitors and the activities they pursue. Recreationists will have to either adapt to the new situations or seek another area in which to recreate. Dispersed recreational opportunities would result in some change from the existing condition. Three existing dispersed campsites would remain in the same condition and location. The one dispersed campsite identified as having some soil and vegetation disturbance will be closed with boulders limiting camping at this site under the Camp Creek suppression rehab plan. Under these alternatives 16 dispersed campsites will temporary not be available for vehicle camping with the closure of the 1672494 temporary closure. In alternative 2 with the reduced level of dead standing trees may reduce safety concerns for the recreating public who enjoy cross-country travel and dispersed camping. Also with alternative 2 the reduced level of down fuel will create traveling by foot easier for the recreating public. Winter recreation would result in little change from the existing condition. Current winter recreation numbers are dependent upon snow conditions, as trail systems in the Monument Fire Recovery Analysis are managed under a Challenge Cost Share Agreement with the local snowmobile clubs. Hazard trees along roadways, trails, and trailheads will be managed for hazards and felled. Trails are open for public use. The recreational experiences available may be changed by road and harvest activities at some recreation sites. Certain recreation experience needs will not be satisfied, based on the extent to which the natural environment has been modified, the degree of outdoor skills needed to enjoy the area, and the relative density of recreation use. The possible effects include increased sights and sounds of equipment, people, and helicopter within the planning area during harvest activity. The visual character of some recreation sites will also be changed from management activities. Helicopter harvest of stands adjacent to the Wilderness area may result in indirect, short-term effects on remoteness within the area. Potential effects include increased sights and sounds of helicopter, people, and equipment adjacent to portions of the Wilderness boundary during harvest activity, along with other management activities. In alternative 3 with the high level of snag habitat left in the RHCAs may pose safety concerns for the recreating public who enjoy camping alongside streams. 256 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Alternative 5 No timber harvest will occur resulting in more down material on the ground for recreationist to maneuver over. As dead and damaged trees fall, cross-country travel will become difficult. People will have to crawl over downed material to get from one place to another. With more road closures by gates will decrease access to those who prefer an easily accessed setting. The road closures will decrease access for hunting, viewing scenery, and other recreational use of the area by motor vehicles. There is the potential to displace some recreationist due to the increase of road closures limiting access to favorite campsites and hunting areas. There will be an increase in a more solitude hunting experience from the road closures. Limiting vehicle noise the hunting experience will be changed. Cumulative Effects Recreation activities will continue. With additional projects planned or likely planned harvest type activities may have an effect on the ROS and an effect on the recreation resources. There may be adverse impacts to publics who hunt, camp, gather mushrooms or berries, and hike within the project area as roads are removed from the transportation system. Areas once easily accessible to the public may require additional effort (e.g., longer hikes or use of horses) to be accessed. It is useful to keep in mind that activities vary in importance over time. Therefore, sites that are there today may not be in the future. So this data is valid only over an intermediate length of timeframe. Consistency with Direction and Regulations All alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan direction and regulations. There are no irreversible or irretrievable commitments related to recreation from this project area. Visuals _________________________________________ Regulatory Framework The Malheur NF scenic resource is managed by direction provided in the Malheur NF Plan (1990). Visual Quality is assessed and evaluated under Landscape Aesthetics, USDA Forest Service Handbook Nr. 701, December 1995. The Malheur National Forest Plan includes Forest-wide management area (MA) standards: Viewshed Corridor One visual corridor is located in the Monument Fire Recovery Project that is prescribed for special management in the Malheur Forest Plan, Management Area 14. The Table corridor (Sensitivity Level 2) is along FS Road 1370 on the north edge of the project areas. (Appendix L - Malheur LRMP). No visual corridor plan has been completed for Table Rock scenic viewsheds. This management area consists of the visible and potentially visible landscapes along major travel routes where the traveling public has a high to medium sensitivity to the scenery. The 257 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Level 2 corridors should meet a visual quality objective of partial retention in the foreground areas and modification in the middleground. To meet partial retention standards, management activities may be evident to the viewer but must remain visually subordinate to the surrounding landscape. For modification standards, management activities may visually dominate surrounding landscape, but must borrow from naturally established from, line, color, and texture. Outside the Viewshed Corridor The visual management goal for Management Areas 1 (General Forest) and 4A (Winter Range) is to manage for maximum modification, which is heavily altered in appearance. Deviations may strongly dominate the landscape character, however, they must be shaped and blended with the natural terrain so that elements such as unnatural edges, roads, and landings do not dominate the composition. Management Area 13 (Old growth) and Riparian Management Areas are managed for visual management objectives consistent with adjacent lands. Analysis Method Management activities such as timber harvesting can affect forest scenic quality by changing the predominant form, color, line, or texture in a given viewing area. The degree of visibility of these events depends on the interaction of certain elements to the viewers such as: • Slope and aspect of the land • Surrounding landscape • Frequency and duration of view • Fuel reduction treatment methods used • Slash disposal methods These factors have been incorporated into the analysis of the effects of each alternative in meeting VQOs. VQOs are minimum guidelines for meeting Forest Plan visual goals. The Malheur National Forest's visual resources are managed under the USDA's National Forest Scenery Management System located in Agricultural Handbook Number 701. The scope of the analysis is limited to the area burned by the fire. Affected Environment The visual corridor portion of the project area near Elk Flat Camp is a dense lodgepole stand. The stand has moderate to severe burn severity damage. The visual integrity was reduced by this fire damage and fire suppression activities including firelines and stumps that are easily seen from the road. Distant portions (background) project area can be seen along road near Elk Flat and the Table Rock Lookout. Most of the project area can not be viewed from visual corridor or lookout. 258 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Effects Direct and Indirect Effects All Alternatives The effects on visuals are the same for all alternatives for foreground and middleground views since there are no proposed activities in these regions. The current visual appearance will be maintained along the visual corridor to Forest Plan standards. Alternatives 1 (No Action) and 5 Since there is no harvest proposed for Alternatives 1 and 5 there would be no change in background views. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Background views will be slightly alternated from the Salvage and Resiliency Treatments. There would be texture difference between the harvest areas and Monument Rock Wilderness. The harvest of the dead trees and the live trees over 12” dbh will most evident along the ridgetops in the Camp Creek drainage. This effect will lessen as the dead trees fall over after 10 to 15 years and the planted conifers grow to create diversity of color and texture with scattered dead trees. Cumulative Effects All Alternatives No visual cumulative effects of past, ongoing, or foreseeable activities are anticipated with the implementation of any of the alternatives. Consistency with Direction and Regulations Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) are minimum objectives and can be managed to a higher level where feasible. The proposed treatments identified in Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 will meet Forest Plan standards. Irreversible/ Irretrievable Effects There are no irreversible and irretrievable commitments that would affect visual resources by implementing any of the proposed alternatives. Cultural Resources _______________________________ Regulatory Framework The legal framework mandating the Forest to consider the effects of its actions on cultural resources is wide-ranging. In this case, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 196640 is the foremost legislation that governs the treatment of cultural resources 40 NHPA as amended in 1976, 1980, and 1992 259 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS during project planning and implementation. Federal regulations such as 36 CFR 800 (Protection of Historic Properties), 36 CFR 63 (Determination of Eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places), 36 CFR 296 (Protection of Archaeological Resources) and Forest Service Manual 2360 (FSM 2360) clarify and expand upon the NHPA. The Pacific Northwest Region (R6) of the Forest Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), signed a programmatic agreement (PA) regarding the management of cultural resources on National Forest system lands in 1995. The 1995 PA outlines specific procedures for the identification, evaluation, and protection of cultural resources during activities or projects sponsored by the Forest Service. It also establishes the process that the SHPO utilizes to review Forest Service undertakings for NHPA compliance. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 is also a cultural resource management directive. It calls for agencies to analyze the effects of their actions on socio- cultural elements of the environment. Laws such as the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990, and Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites) also guide Forest Service decision-making as it relates to Heritage. The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) of 1978 requires that federal agencies consider impacts of their projects on the free exercise of traditional Indian religions. The Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan tiers to the previously- mentioned laws and corresponding Forest Service manual direction as it sets forth resource management goals, objectives, and standards. Forest-wide management standards pertinent for this cultural resource effects analysis include: • Conduct a professionally supervised cultural resource survey on National Forest lands to identify cultural resource properties. Use sound survey strategies and the Malheur National Forest Cultural Resource Inventory Survey Design. • Evaluate the significance of sites by applying the criteria for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. • Consider effects of all Forest Service undertakings on cultural resources. Coordinate the formulation and evaluation of alternatives with the State cultural resource plan, the State Historic Preservation Office and State Archaeologist, other State and Federal agencies, and with traditional and religious leaders of Native American Indian groups and tribes with historic ties to the project planning area. Analysis Method The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for Heritage resources includes the Monument planning area. The APE also extends one-quarter mile beyond the outer perimeter of the planning area, and three helicopter log landings (covering 10 acres each) located external to the planning area. Cultural resource identification efforts in the vicinity of the Monument planning area have focused on three primary types of resources: prehistoric archaeological sites, historic archaeological sites, and places that support resources of contemporary tribal interest. Cultural resource identification efforts conducted in the area include four pedestrian cultural 260 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences resource inventory surveys (Monument, Awake, Hunter, and Tramp), literature reviews, and consultation with American Indian tribes and other stakeholders historically associated with the area. A cultural resource inventory survey, conducted in support of the Monument Fire Recovery project, examined an area of 7,300 acres, with a stratified sample survey strategy approved by the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (Thomas 1991). An area of approximately 2,500 acres south of the Little Malheur River was adequately surveyed for cultural resources during the Awake timber sale project (Bailor 1994). Other cultural resource inventory surveys conducted in the vicinity of the planning area were associated with the Onion and Alarm timber sale projects and the Elk Flat project. Affected Environment The most frequently encountered archaeological resources in the Monument planning area are scatters of lithic remains distributed in variable densities and related to occupations of hunter-gatherers that span several thousand years. Obsidian and cryptocrystalline silicate (chert, flint) materials are both commonly present within archaeological assemblages. These lithic scatters are generally of limited area (<5 acres), and several display potential for buried archaeological deposits. The largest and most complex lithic scatter in the planning area covers more than 26 acres. A sparse lithic-oriented archaeological deposit associated with a rockshelter, represents a cultural resource that has potentially high scientific value. Eighteen lithic scatter archaeological sites have been identified within one-quarter mile of the planning area boundary. All of these sites have been evaluated as eligible or potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Over the course of the last century, these 18 sites have been impacted by a variety of land management activities. According to previous site records, combined effects of timber harvest, livestock grazing, and road construction have moderately to heavily impacted the site integrity at nine of the sites. The most recent site documentation noted impacts associated with logging and grazing at 6 sites. A Burned Area Emergency Recovery (BAER) team assigned to the Monument Fire found that archaeological values did not appear to have been compromised by the fire, and in two instances, lithic scatter sites appeared to have been disturbed by fire suppression efforts. Recent research suggests the scientific value of obsidian-dominated lithic scatters located at or near the surface of the ground, is often degraded by surface temperatures generated during high and moderate-severity wildfires (Trembour, 1990). Seven of the existing lithic scatters within the project APE are located in areas of high fire severity. Primarily because of fire, logging, and grazing-related impacts, archaeological site integrity is generally declining. This rate of decline has most likely accelerated during the past 100 years of active land management. Historic archaeological resources may include foundations or structural ruins, or features such as privy pits, trash dumps, and blazed trees. Sites with historic archaeological components in the planning area are believed to be associated with Depression-era livestock grazing activities and early Forest Service land management. Site constituents for this type of deposit typically include scatters of solder-sealed tin cans, tobacco tins, bottle glass, nails, and miscellaneous fragments of tin and iron hardware that are greater than 50 years of age. There are 7 identified archaeological sites within the APE that display a historic period component. Four of these sites have been evaluated as eligible or potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 261 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS The condition of the archaeological record of the historic period is extremely poor. Resources deposited by cultural occupation during the middle of the 20th century are almost always situated at or very near to the surface of the ground, and are therefore more vulnerable to surface disturbances such as trampling, burning, and artifact collecting. All sites have been altered to a high degree by timber harvest, livestock grazing, road construction, dispersed recreation, and fire-related impacts. No historic components of archaeological resources within the APE possess the integrity necessary to contribute to NRHP significance. The National Environmental Policy Act and other authorities require that federal agencies consider the impact of their actions on cultural uses of the natural environment, such as those practiced by present-day communities of American Indians. Resources of contemporary tribal interest may include traditional cultural properties (NPS 1990), areas important for the practice of Indian religion, Indian sacred sites on federal lands, and areas supporting cultural uses of the natural environment (i.e., subsistence use of plants or animals). Presently, there are no specific places within the Monument Fire affected environment determined to be important for traditional American Indian land uses. The Burns Paiute have, however, expressed a concern regarding the population and distribution of culturally important plant species on all parts of the Forest during previous consultation. Stream bottoms along Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River provide habitat suitable for hardwood shrubs of interest to the tribe, such as Prunus virginiana (chokecherry), Salix spp. (willow), and Populus tremuloides (quaking aspen). Environmental Effects Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 – No Action There would be no direct effect on the cultural resources identified within the Monument Fire Recovery Area under the No Action alternative, as no salvage, fuels reduction, reforestation, or watershed improvement activities would be implemented. However, with no implementation of reforestation or watershed improvement activities, it would be more likely that archaeological sites could be impacted by erosion or flood events. Archaeological sites would also be more likely to sustain damage from additional high severe wildfires. If vegetative cover is not re-established and access to the planning area is not reduced, archaeological sites may be exposed to elevated levels of surface collecting or vandalism. Effects Common to Alternatives 2, 3 & 4 Cultural resources could sustain a wide range of adverse effects under Alternatives 2, 3, or 4. Actions necessary for the salvage of dead and dying trees, such as felling, skidding, decking, and slash disposal, may have direct detrimental effects on archaeological deposits situated within or adjacent to the project area. Proposed harvest units in Alternative 2 encompass 8 sites, Alternative 3 – 5 sites, and Alternative 4 – 7 sites. Complete site avoidance is the preferred form of treatment for archaeological resources that have the ability, or may have the ability, to yield scientific data (Keyser et. al., 1988). Risks of site disturbance during log removal would vary in accordance with the logging system utilized. Helicopter-logging systems will be employed exclusively within the Little Malheur River watershed, minimizing the risk of site disturbance during log removal, by reduction of log skid distances and number of necessary log landings. No more than 23 helicopter log landings and service landings will 262 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences be constructed under any action alternative. All proposed logging within the North Fork Malheur River will be ground-based. Ground-based logging systems require more log skidding, and are more likely to result in the disturbance of archaeological sites (Table C-1). The risks that cultural resources face from additional severe wildfire events would diminish as standing large diameter fuels are reduced. Under Alternatives 2, 3, or 4, harvesting of potential large diameter fuels would reduce fuel loading and the risk of high-severity wildfire (Fire/Fuels Chapter 3). Some habitat for plants traditionally important to the regional tribes of American Indians will be enhanced by the vegetation treatments. Cultural plant stands in upland areas may realize a limited positive effect under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, as fuel loading is addressed across the landscape. Habitat for species of cultural plants that inhabit upland portions of the planning area (i.e., bitterroot, biscuitroot, onion) will be avoided. Effects Common to Alternatives 2, 3, 4, & 5 For Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5, identified lithic scatter archaeological sites may be damaged by reforestation measures conducted in their vicinity. Conversely, the same lithic-oriented archaeological sites may realize an indirect beneficial effect, as reforestation stabilizes erosive soils and stream banks. Reforestation will expedite the establishment of vegetative cover over fire-exposed archaeological resources, and reduce the likelihood that lithic scatters will be impacted by surface collection. Activities associated with the construction of temporary roads and landings (only Alternatives 2, 3, and 4), as well as road decommissioning, can also degrade the integrity of archaeological sites. No more than 11.8 miles of road will be decommissioned under any Action Alternative. Road closures and decommissioning might also protect fire-exposed archaeological resources from artifact collecting and vandalism, to an unknown degree, as access is reduced. Table C-1. Activities Planned in Areas Classified as High-Probability for the Occurrence of Cultural Resources. Activity Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Tractor harvest 293 acres 152 acres 293 acres No Harvest Helicopter harvest 1,786 acres 826 acres 1,064 acres No Harvest Reforestation 2,786 acres 2,786 acres 2,786 acres 2,786 Temporary road construction 0.1 mile 0.1 mile 0.1 mile No Temp Rd Construction Delineation of new Dedicated Old-growth areas, Replacement Old-growth areas, and pileated woodpecker feeding areas would have no effect on any identified cultural resource. Cumulative Effects For cultural resources identified within the Monument affected environment, the cumulative or incremental nature of two distinct types of cause-and-effect relationships will be analyzed. Cumulative effects issues considered include: 1) incremental effects of heavy machinery 263 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS operating adjacent to known archaeological sites; and 2) potential effect to identified cultural resources of changing fuel-loading conditions in the project area. Past, Ongoing & Forseeable Alternative 1 (No Action) and Alternative 5 Alternatives 1 and 5 would not reduce standing dead fuel across the landscape within the Heritage resource APE and not incrementally reduce risks that the resource will experience future severe wildfire events. The threat of a severe or moderately-severe wildfire, will contribute to long-term stability of archaeological sites. Effects Common to Alternatives 2, 3 & 4 Previous mechanical timber harvest projects, livestock grazing, wildfires, road construction, and dispersed recreation have had incremental negative effects on the 16 historic properties identified within the Monument Area of Potential Effect for cultural resources. Reasonably foreseeable future activities in the planning area include riparian shrub planting, prescribed fire, and livestock grazing. Identified historic properties will be avoided, and project implementation will be halted if it is determined that a historic property has been damaged or may become damaged. Use of helicopter-logging systems in the Little Malheur River watershed will minimize ground disturbance in the vicinity of the 14 historic properties located in Little Malheur portion of the planning area. There is minimal risk of additional incremental degradation of historic properties associated with the proposed action and its alternatives. Project-related disturbance of archaeological resources, in combination with more severe disturbances related to previous timber harvest projects and livestock grazing, may diminish the scientific value of the 16 NRHP-eligible sites. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 reduce standing dead fuel across the landscape within the Heritage resource APE to some extent and incrementally reduce risks that the resource will experience future severe wildfire events. Actions reducing the likelihood of a severe or moderately- severe wildfire, will contribute to long-term stability of archaeological sites. The proposed activities in combination with: 1) past activities, 2) Wallowa-Whitman National Forest fire recovery efforts, and 3) prescribed burning projects planned in the foreseeable future, will reduce threats posed by intense wildfire to Monument archaeological sites. Consistency with Direction and Regulations National Historic Preservation Act Nineteen sites in the Monument Project Area have been evaluated as significant and are therefore eligible for inclusion to the NHRP. All sites that have been evaluated as eligible or potentially eligible will be strictly avoided during ground-disturbing activity. Log landings or other ground-disturbing activities will not be permitted in the vicinity of eligible historic properties. Prior to project implementation, State Historic Preservation Office consultation will be completed under Programmatic Agreement41. 41 Programmatic Agreement references an agreement among the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6), The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer regarding Cultural Resource Management on National Forests in the State of Oregon, dated March 10, 1995, pursuant to the stipulated Forest Archeologist review dated November 15, 1996. 264 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Tribal Interests All tribes of federally-recognized American Indians have off-reservation interests, and some maintain treaty-reserved rights on public lands within ceded territories. No tribes or groups of American Indians maintain treaty-reserved rights within the Monument Fire Recovery planning area. However, the planning area does lie within overlapping areas of interest that have been recognized for the Burns Paiute and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR). According to the Eastside Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 1997), these areas of geographic interest are loosely based upon historic tribal ranges, traditional use areas, and zones of influence. Also, the Monument planning area is within six air miles of the area of interest defined in the Eastside DEIS for the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation (CTWSR). The “inherently sovereign” status of federally recognized Indian tribes requires that land managing agencies consult with tribes on a government-to-government basis over planned actions that may affect tribal interests (McConnell, 1991). Some examples of tribal interests include: traditional cultural practices, ethnohabitats, sacred sites, certain plant and animal resources, and socio-economic opportunities. The Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan also directs the Forest to consult with tribes about effects of projects planned within their areas of historic interest (Malheur LRMP, 1990). At early stages of the planning process, the District initiated government-to-government consultation with tribes that have an area of interest that includes the Monument Fire Recovery project area. To date, tribal consultation efforts consist of scoping letters mailed to each potentially-affected tribal council, e-mails sent to tribal resource specialists, and a face- to-face meeting with resource specialists of the Burns Paiute tribe. The consultation process did not result in documentation of any specific concerns regarding project impacts on resources of tribal interest. The Burns Paiute tribe did express a general concern regarding cultural plant habitat and access management within all areas burned in the fire season of 2002. Irreversible/ Irretrievable Effects There are no irreversible and irretrievable commitments that would affect cultural resources by implementing any of the proposed alternatives. Range __________________________________________ Regulatory Framework The Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan allows and encourages grazing (USDA Forest Service, 1990). Stated goals include (FLMP IV-2): • Providing a sustained production of palatable forage for grazing by domestic livestock and dependent wildlife species (FLMP, 1990). • Managing rangelands to meet needs of other resources and uses at a level responsive to site-specific objectives. • Permitting livestock use on suitable range when a permittee manages livestock using prescribed practices. 265 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Post-fire grazing interim guidelines will be followed as issued for the Malheur National Forest by the Forest Supervisor. Some items considered in this guideline are amount of acres, fire intensity and vegetation community condition pre and post fire. Monitoring will be done on an annual basis to determine when grazing will be allowed in areas that were burned based on the parameters of the guideline. Analysis Method The area impacted by the fire was summarized as it relates to the whole of the allotments impacted. Affected Environment Livestock grazing has been a part of the landscape of the Malheur National Forest since the 1860's when the first miners and homesteaders entered this area. Both domestic cattle and sheep have grazed allotments within the planning area. Cattle have almost exclusively foraged these allotments in the past 40 years. However, sheep were brought back into grazing in this area in 1998. Although livestock grazing on National Forest System lands has decreased since the early 1900s, the ranching industry remains an important part of the Grant and Baker County economies. Early grazing was essentially unregulated and resulted in resource impacts. Some effects from past practices are still observable today. During the middle part of the century, the Forest Service took significant action to regulate livestock numbers and to establish workable grazing seasons and allotments. In the latter part of the century, emphasis shifted to development of range management systems and regulation of effects on specific resources. During the past twenty years or so, emphasis has been on protection and management of riparian and aquatic habitats. According to Area Ecologist, Charlie Johnson, there has been a marked improvement on most rangelands on the Malheur National Forest since the 1970s. However, the impacts at the turn of the century and continuing into the 1950s were sometimes too severe for the dry, warm non-forested communities to sustain. The result was degraded rangeland ecosystems with little opportunity (time) for natural rectification (reasserting of balance) for the natural community. He notes the improvements since the 1970s were mainly where rotational grazing (deferred or rest) were implemented, generally with added fencing. Charlie Johnson’s notes from the mid 1990s characterize the vegetation within the planning area as outside the normal range of variation. He asserts key factors influencing this are severe disturbance and a lack of maintenance disturbance processes. Because fire has such a profound influence on the ecosystem the curtailment of fire’s natural cycle combined with livestock grazing has significantly contributed to the ecosystems being outside natural variation. Although his report was generated for other reasons, he adds that present health of vegetation within allotments also relates to the incursions by administrative projects to harvest trees. The removal of larger trees coupled with removal of fire from the ecosystem has led to promotion of later seral tree species when fire seral tree species were favored in the removal. These plant communities are now far outside the natural range of variation, which effects the overall rangeland/allotment health and production. (Charles G. Johnson, Jr; Summary Report for Rangeland Health on Selected Allotments, 6/6/95). For these reasons, prior to the Monument Fire, it was difficult to state that upland range conditions were continuing to improve, as the reverse may be more appropriate. 266 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences The Monument Fire impacted two grazing allotments. They are the North Fork and Spring Creek C&H Allotments. This analysis will only deal with those areas out side of the Monument Wilderness. The North Fork Allotment is permitted for use by 450 cow/calf pairs for a period of June 15 through October 11 under a six unit deferred rotation system. The Camp Creek Unit, which was totally burned, is planned for rest from grazing for at least two growing seasons in compliance with the Forest’s Post Burn Grazing Guidelines. Two other units Mountain and Squaw Creek were partially burned in the fire. Only a few lightly burned upland areas exist in both units. Burned aeas consist primarily of elk sedge and pine grass which requires little fo no recovery time after a light burn. The post fire guidelines allowed grazing to resume in 2003 in these units. The Spring Creek Allotment is permitted for use by 600 cow/calf pairs or 2800 ewe/lamb and 40 cow/calf pairs for a period of June 10 through October 25 under a twelve unit deferred rotation system. The bulk of the Elk Flat unit was burned in the Monument Rock Wilderness. Only the unburned portion of this will be grazed by the sheep in 2003. The burned area will be rested from grazing for two growing seasons in compliance with the Forest’s Post Burn Grazing Guidelines. Environmental Effects Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Forage Availability In Alternative 1, short term effects would be increased forage availability as grasses and forbs would have little competition from shrubs and trees for a number of years. However, over the long-term, forage availability would be decreased as snags fall and material accumulates on the forest floor inhibiting the growth of ground vegetation. Distribution of Livestock In the long term (10 –15 years) as a large quantity of snags fall the difficulty in getting proper livestock distribution would increase. There would be decreased distribution of cattle through the units including RHCAs, resulting in an increased possibility of overuse of forage in some areas, and no use in others. As debris accumulates, access to water sources could be impaired which would further disrupt livestock distribution patterns. The lack of application of prescribed fire under the No Action Alternative would directly affect the amount of downed material hindering cattle distribution. Range Improvements Under Alternative 1, existing spring developments and fence lines would require more intensive maintenance. As falling snags and accumulating debris will likely cause damage to structures and impede fence rights-of-way and routes to water sources. Permittee/Range Management Access Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no closures or decommissioning of roads. This would allow current road access to spring developments, salt grounds and fence lines. The eventual accumulation of fallen debris under the No Action Alternative would result in impediment of horseback riders in moving cattle, as well as Off Highway Vehicles (OHV’s) 267 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS used to inspect and maintain fence lines and spring developments away from established roads. In the long-term, as forage becomes less available, the number of permitted livestock or period of use may need to be reduced. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 During the recovery period, grazing management techniques to achieve desired use levels would be implemented. This could include adjusting location of livestock turnout, placement of salt blocks or other management practices that would promote use by livestock in those portions of the pasture away from the fire. Specific grazing management adjustments would be developed in coordination with the allotment permittee and incorporated into annual instructions. Forage Availability Forage would be more readily available as salvage harvest opens up canopy cover, and reduces the number of snags that will fall and accumulate on the forest floor. Fuels treatment associated with these alternatives would reduce the accumulation of large material on the ground, which would also increase forage availability. Reforestation would impair forage availability to some extent, as young trees become competition for grasses and forbs. Management of planted trees would at some point include thinning and commercial harvest, which would open up the canopy and allow more ground vegetation growth in the long-term. Decommissioning of roads under these alternatives would also provide more forage as grasses become established in old roadbeds. Distribution of Livestock Harvest and fuel treatment would result in fewer future impediments to travel from large log accumulations on the ground. This would facilitate cattle movement, and thus distribution, over the allotment, resulting in more even utilization of forage resources. The expected reduction in large materials on the ground would allow more open travel ways for livestock to salt and water sources, maintaining livestock distribution patterns in uplands. The RHCA salvage included in Alternative 2 also would reduce impediments to cattle. Alternative 3 and 4 that includes no RHCA salvage would reduce cattle movement to water sources. A restriction on sheep grazing within the portion of the Spring Creek allotment where within areas of newly regenerating seedlings would exist for a period of 5 to 10 years. Sheep would not be allowed to graze within these planted or natural regenerated areas until the seedling are 3 feet tall. This would be time necessary to allow seedling to grow to average height of 3 feet and would not be susceptible to grazing damage from the sheep. Closure and decommissioning of roads will affect changes in livestock use patterns. Over time, snags will fall across currently unobstructed roads. This may result in better distribution of cattle, as cattle are encouraged to find new routes and negotiate around downed materials. The animals may be channeled to sources of forage overlooked in the past. Range Improvements The reduction in potential for falling snags will lessen the chance of damage to fence lines and spring troughs resulting in standard maintenance rather than the excessive repairs 268 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences expected from large numbers of snags. Fuels treatment will likely provide more open access along fence rights-of-way and routes to water sources, to properly utilize these structures. Permittee/Range Management Access Closure and decommissioning of roads within the fire area will limit access to some salt grounds, springs and fences which otherwise could be accessed by vehicle. However, horseback or OHV access along fence lines and to salt grounds and spring developments away from roads will be enhanced by the reduction in the quantity of snags and lesser accumulations of large materials on the ground. In general, most permittee or range management work is accomplished by either of these methods, so road closure or decommissioning is not likely to be a hindrance. Alternatives 5 During the recovery period, grazing management techniques to achieve desired use levels would be implemented. This could include adjusting location of livestock turnout, placement of salt blocks or other management practices that would promote use by livestock in those portions of the pasture away from the fire. Specific grazing management adjustments would be developed in coordination with the allotment permittee and incorporated into the annual instructions. Forage Availability Same as Alternative 1. Distribution of Livestock Same as Alternative 1. Range Improvements Same as Alternative 1. Permittee/Range Management Access The effects are similar to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Increased closures of roads within the fire area will further limit access to some salt grounds, springs and fences that otherwise could be accessed by vehicle. These access issues would carry the most financial impact to range permittees. However, horseback or OHV access along fence lines and to salt grounds and spring developments away from roads will be enhanced by the reduction in the quantity of snags and lesser accumulations of large materials on the ground. Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives The past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities listed at the beginning of Chapter 3 were reviewed for possible cumulative effects. Livestock grazing is restricted on the Wallowa-Whitman portion of the fire. This will further limit grazing lands available to range permittees who rely on National system lands for livestock production. Common to Alternatives 2,3,4 and 5 The past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities listed at the beginning of Chapter 3 were reviewed for possible cumulative effects. The proposed closure of roads on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest would further restrict the amount of motor vehicle access available to range permittees in managing their allotments. 269 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Consistency With Direction and Regulations As previously mentioned, the project will not prevent grazing of the allotments. The effects of the wildfire will require a cessation of grazing for a period to allow recovery of herbaceous vegetation. The project as described will not result in any irreversible or irretrievable effects to the range resource. Thus this project is consistent with guidelines for range set forth in the Forest Plan. Irreversible/ Irretrievable Effects The project as described will not result in any irreversible or irretrievable effects to the range resource. Thus this project is consistent with guidelines for range set forth in the Forest Plan. Economics/Social ________________________________ Regulatory Framework The Malheur Forest Plan includes forest-wide management goals to: • Provide a sustained flow of timber for lumber, fiber, and/or associated wood products at a level that will contribute to economic stability, while providing for regional and national needs. • Contribute to the social/economic health of communities, which are significantly affected by national forest management. • Provide an economic return to the public. • Provide and utilize wood fiber in the form of sawtimber, fiber, and/or associated wood products, while minimizing losses and maximizing outputs in a cost-effective manner, consistent with the various resource objectives and environmental standards. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is a codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the Executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government. Minimum specific management requirements are identified in 36 CFR 219.27, to accomplish goals and objectives for the National Forest System. Those management requirements are addressed as follows. • Section (b) Vegetative Manipulation: (1) Multiple-use; (3) Not chosen for greatest dollar return; (7) Practical transportation, harvest requirements, and preparation and administration. • Forest Service policy sets a minimum level of financial analysis for project planning (FSH, 1909.17). • The National Environmental Policy Act requires integrated use of the natural and social sciences in all planning and decision-making that affects the human environment. The human environment includes the natural and physical environment, and the relationship of people to the environment (40 CFR 1508.14). Forest Service land management planning regulations require the integration of social science knowledge into forest and regional planning processes (36 CFR 219.5). • Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations for NEPA (40 CFR 1502.23) addresses non- commodity values, stating “For the purposes of complying with the Act, the weighing of the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis, and should not be, when there are qualitative considerations.” 270 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences • 36 CFR 219.3 – National Forest System Land and Management Planning • Executive Order 12898 (February 11, 1994) on Environmental Justice directs federal agencies to identify and address agency programs that may have disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian tribes. The order directs federal agencies to focus attention on the human health and environment effects to ethnic minorities (American Indians, Hispanics, African Americans, and Asian and Pacific-Islander Americans), disabled people, and low-income groups. Analysis Method Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2409.18 provides direction to analyze financial efficiency and, if needed, economic efficiency, to identify the most efficient alternative that achieves the desired objectives of the project. Consideration of the proposal that maximizes net public benefits is an important consideration of the decision-making process. An economic efficiency analysis was completed. It focused on identifiable and quantifiable ecosystem benefits and costs for each alternative in terms of the present net value (benefits minus costs), to assess which alternative comes nearest to maximizing net public benefits (36 CFR 219). Ecosystem functions provide a broad set of ecosystem services, such as clean water or native forest stands, which are valuable to both human and nonhuman components of the ecosystem. These ecosystem values may be assessed in economic and noneconomic terms. Economic valuation provides a partial measure of the full range of ecosystem values in commensurate terms for assessing economic tradeoffs. Noneconomic values are necessarily assessed in terms relevant to other disciplines such as ecology or ethics. Changes in ecosystem services must be measurable and quantifiable in like terms, preferably monetary measures, in order to assess a relevant change in economic value (Kohrman 2003). This analysis is based on identifiable and quantifiable economic benefits and costs, and is more typically a financial comparison between revenues and costs. The objective of the economic efficiency analysis is to show a relative measure of difference between alternatives, based on direct costs and values used. All dollar values have been discounted in terms of the present net value (2003 dollars). Discounting is a process whereby the dollar values of costs and benefits that occur at different time periods are adjusted to a common time period so that they can be compared. The real (exclusive of inflation) discount rate of 4% was used in the analysis over the planning period. Present net value is defined as the present (discounted) net value of project benefits minus the present (discounted) net value of project costs. A benefit-cost ratio is the ratio of present net benefits to present net costs. Present net value is a more appropriate measure for comparison between alternatives when land and productive activities are limiting, such as in an environmental analysis of alternatives. A benefit-cost ratio comparison is more appropriate when investment capital is limited, for example when considering budget allocation among a number of different activities. The tentative advertised bid rates estimated for the Monument Fire Recovery Project reflect the most current volume, price, and cost estimates for this analysis. An initial bid rate was determined by subtracting the costs associated with logging from the base period prices adjusted for the quality of the material and current market conditions. This rate was further 271 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS reduced by current appraisal methods (Transaction Evidence Appraisal) to allow for competition between bidders, to determine the tentative advertised bid rate. The computer software program, TEA_ECON, was used for this analysis. The results of that analysis are included in the Project File. Costs for reforestation and other direct work were developed based on previously experienced costs. Costs for temporary roads and road maintenance were included in the Transaction Evidence Appraisal. Reforestation costs were not included in the sale appraisal. Non-commodity values were not included in this analysis, because these resources are evaluated under the specific resource section (40 CFR 1502.23). Effects on resources are documented in individual resource sections. Employment and income effects were derived from response coefficients from the input- output model IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning) for the Roadless Social Economical Report for the Malheur National Forest impact zone, and from the forest-level Timber Sale Program Information Reporting System (TSPIRS) analysis in fiscal years 1996 to 1998, Job estimates include temporary, permanent full-time, and part-time employment. The estimates do not include unpaid family workers or sole-proprietors. Analysis Area Although individuals and communities over a wide geographic area use national forest resources, the residents and businesses of counties near the forest depend most heavily on the availability of the resources. Consequently, the effects of forest management on social and economic factors are strongest within these areas. For this reason, the Malheur National Forest primary zone of influence is defined as Grant and Harney counties in Oregon. Affected Environment A social and economic analysis entitled Recovery Efforts 2002 Fires – Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Social and Economic Conditions, has been completed for the fire recovery efforts on the Malheur National Forest (Kohrman, 2003). This document is incorporated by reference under 40 CFR 1502.21. The document presents social and economic affected-environment information for this analysis. It provides information on human uses, social and economic characteristics, and conflicts among various users and uses of the ecosystem. It also discloses: the health of the relationships among the people (community), the forest, and the larger ecosystem; perceptions and values related to ecosystem management; and recent social and economic trends in the economic region. The focus is primarily on, but not limited to, Grant and Harney counties. Changes in levels of resource use associated with the Monument Fire Recovery Project may affect the major social and economic characteristics of the surrounding geographic area. The affected area or impact zone for the Malheur National Forest consists of Grant and Harney counties in Oregon. Agriculture, manufacturing (particularly wood products), and retail trade are important sources of employment and income in this region. Grant County, for example, has a low level of economic diversity, a high dependence on federal timber and forage, and a low resiliency for change. Reliance on timber and forage from federal lands is moderate to high in counties in the impact zone (Kohrman 2003). Many communities are closely tied to the forest in both work activities and recreation. The local communities within an hour or two drive that are anticipated to be directly or indirectly 272 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences affected by the proposed action, alternatives, and their associated economics include: Prairie City (population 1,080), Burns/Hines (4,565), Dayville (140), John Day/Canyon City (2,740), Long Creek (260), Mount Vernon (650), Monument (150), Seneca (230), Sumpter (175), and Unity (145). Austin, Greenhorn, and Hereford are examples of other smaller communities also located in the vicinity. Larger cities two or more hours away from John Day include: Baker City (10,160), LaGrande (12,795), Ontario (10,680), Bend (52,029), and Pendleton (16,915) (ODOT 2001). The nearest metropolitan areas are the Tri-Cities area of Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland in Washington State, and Boise, Idaho. Employment Cattle production and forest products provide the core employment for Grant and Harney counties. Forest products industries include 3 major lumber mills and numerous logging companies. Wood products employment totaled 530 direct jobs (e.g., mill workers and loggers) and 131 indirect jobs, approximately 14% of the total non-farm employment in Grant and Harney counties (average annual in 2000). Local government, retail trade, and services employ the most people in Grant and Harney counties (Kohrman 2003). The area surrounding the Monument Fire Recovery area is rural, and has disproportionately high unemployment compared with the Oregon state average and the National average. Grant County is in its sixth consecutive year of declining non-farm employment, and “this is quite possibly the longest ongoing downturn any local labor market area in Oregon has ever experienced” (Kohrman 2003). Ranchers in Grant and Harney counties, with federal permits in the analysis area, are highly dependent on forage from federally managed lands, compared to other counties in the region. The value of cattle reared on forage from federally managed lands represents more than 10% of total agricultural sales in Grant and Harney counties (Haynes & Horne, 1997). Baker, Wheeler, and Malheur counties are rated moderately dependent (3.57% to 10% of total agricultural sales comes from cattle raised on forage from federally-managed lands). Union, Umatilla, Morrow, and Gilliam counties are less dependent (less than 3.57%). Shifts in permitted use of federal grazing allotments change the availability of this forage source. The impact these shifts have on the local economy varies according to the adjustments that local ranchers have to make within their ranching operation. Recreation-based industries, while prevalent elsewhere in the region, have not been a major contributor to the local economies. Recent efforts indicate that the volume of business is only enough to supplement income, rather than provide a primary source of income (Kohrman 2003). The exception is hunting season, which typically draws larger numbers of people into the area. Stores that sell sporting goods benefit during this period. Recreation- based employment is seasonal and service-oriented, with wages at the lower end of the pay scale (Kohrman 2003). Economic activity based on recreation may have limited growth potential for communities in the area (Kline, 2001). Seasonal limitations, the dispersed nature of recreation within the counties, along with a general lack of large, water-based recreational opportunities, does not create the concentrated numbers of recreationists and readily-identifiable recreation destinations necessary to support many recreation industries (Kohrman 2003). Historically, government employment and expenditures has provided a degree of stability in rural communities (Kohrman 2003). With reduced Forest Service budgets and work force, and a switch to management emphasis that produces generally lower amounts and value of products, federal workforce and program expenditures has not buffered economic downturns 273 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS as in the past (Oregon Department of Employment, 2001). This situation, combined with fluctuations in the other base industries, has had a significant effect on the economy (Kohrman 2003). The communities surrounding the Monument Fire Project Recovery area are considered rural in character, and have a disproportionately high unemployment compared with the Oregon State average of 7.3% and the National average of 5.8%. Unemployment in Baker County for February 2003 was 12.6%, Grant County – 14.6%, Harney County – 13.1% and Malheur County – 11.4%. Average Wages Average annual pay per job provides an indication of the quality of jobs in the analysis area. Average income for the affected counties is also below the national and state averages: United States $36,214, Oregon $33,202, Baker County $24,190, Grant County $24,492, Harney County $23,308, Malheur County $23,163 (Kohrman 2003). Wages in Grant and Harney counties are lower, primarily due to lower wage rates per hour and a larger number of part-time jobs, compared to the state as a whole (Kohrman 2003). Per Capita Income Per capita income measures economic well being, taking into account both population and income changes, although it does not address income distribution. Per capita personal income is total personal income divided by the estimated population. Per capita income in Grant and Harney counties is approximately $22,439 and $22,670 (2003 dollars), respectively. These counties lag behind the statewide average of $29,347 (2003 dollars). Human Health and Safety There are concerns about effects to the human health and safety of people using the project area and roads accessing the area. Another issue raised was the safety concern to workers and the public from hazard trees along roadsides. Environmental Justice The population of the area is predominately white, followed by American Indians. The region is sparsely populated, and contains low populations of minorities (5.5% of the Grant County population, 5.4% of Baker County, 9.9% of Harney County, and 31.2% of Malheur County (of which 25.6% is of Hispanic origin with the majority living east of Vale) (Kohrman, 2003; United States Census Bureau 2003). The primary American Indian tribes involved are the Burns Paiute and Umatilla. With the exceptions of the Burns Paiute and Hispanics east of Vale, minorities are scattered throughout the counties. Poverty rates provide some indication of the percentage of the population in surrounding communities with low-incomes. Poverty rates for both Grant and Harney counties are 13.7%. The Oregon statewide average rate of persons living below poverty is 11.6% (Kohrman 2003). Data regarding minorities or people with disabilities employed in the region in the timber, mining, ranching, 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 migratory workforce in the area. Asian and Pacific Islanders uses of the area include commercial mushroom harvesting and developed camping associated with this activity. Some contracts are reserved for award to minority businesses 274 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences under the USDA Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization and the Small Business Administration, although overall contract amounts to these groups has declined since 1998 (Kohrman 2003). Environmental Effects The social and economic effects of the various proposed management alternatives were assessed in terms of viability of harvestable timber, employment supported by the alternatives, and the economic efficiency for relative comparison between alternatives. Timber Harvest Economic Viability The area proposed for commercial harvest within the Monument Fire Recovery Project area was analyzed to determine the economic viability of harvesting timber, by determining the tentative advertised bid rates per hundred cubic feet ($/ccf). The tentative advertised bid rates estimated for the Monument Fire Recovery Project reflect the most current volume, price, and cost estimates for this analysis. All alternatives that harvest timber would produce positive bid rates, indicating that the project would provide a viable harvest proposal. Based on this analysis, Alternative 4 provides the highest tentative advertised bid rate at $127.14/ccf, and therefore the highest potential revenue from the sale of timber. Alternative 2’s bid rate is slightly lower, at $121.09/ccf, due to a greater amount of advanced logging systems, followed by Alternative 3 with the lowest bid rate of $104.82/ccf. Alternative 1 and Alternative 5 would not harvest any timber, and therefore would not produce any revenue or benefits to wood products industries. Advertised bid rates have fluctuated over the last few years, reflecting the volatility of the timber market. Changes to prices would likely occur at the time of the appraisal, depending on actual market conditions at that time. Timber Supply The 1990 Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) established an allowable sale quantity (ASQ) for the forest of 38.4 million cubic feet or 211 million board feet (MMBF) average per year. An ASQ is an upper limit for the plan period, not proposals for sale offerings or an assigned target. Actual sale levels depend on factors such as limitations of modeling, changes in law and regulations, changes in social-economic values, listing of threatened and endangered species, changes in budgets, and site-specific conditions. The Regional Forester Eastside Forest Plans Amendment 2 (1995) and by PACFISH and INFISH in 1995, in response to some of these changing factors. Table SE-1 compares the Malheur National Forest’s annual offered timber volume with its assigned target timber volume for the fiscal years since the 1990 LRMP went into effect. Accomplishment of timber targets is based on volume offered. 275 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Table ES-1. Malheur National Forest Timber Offer by Fiscal Year 1991 to 2002 Fiscal Year Target Volume MMBF Offered Volume MMBF 1991 229.0 201.6 1992 220.0 100.8 1993 197.0 71.7 1994 101.0 33.1 1995 85.0 66.9 1996 100.0 80.9 1997 110.0 38.9 1998 95.0 77.1 1999 63.5 34.1 2000 45.0 17.5 2001 36.7 15.4 2002 24.2 2.7 In response to a request by then Oregon Governor Kitzhaber, the Blue Mountains Demonstration Area published in 2002 an assessment entitled Assessment of Timber Availability from Forest Restoration with the Blue Mountains of Oregon (USDA, 2002). The assessment describes management actions over the past decade, current vegetation conditions where a reliable supply of wood could be available, estimations of the quantity and type of forest timber products that may result from forest restoration actions, and a market analysis for potential timber products and the associated economic impacts on individual communities. This assessment concludes that 71% of the national forest lands in the Blue Mountains of Oregon were not available for substantial and sustainable harvesting of timber. Only minimal amounts of timber would be harvested during restoration treatments of these lands, and prescribed fire may be the primary tool available to accomplish fuels reduction and thinning. This trend would likely continue because there is no anticipated change in management direction. The assessment further concludes that the remaining 29% of the national forest lands that are available for substantial and sustainable timber harvest (Active Forestry lands) was actively managed over the last three decades. Up to a third of these lands have experienced timber harvest or non-commercial thinning since 1988. Approximately 58% of these Active Forestry lands are currently overstocked; however, nearly half of these overstocked lands are suitable only for non-commercial thinning treatments, yielding only incidental amounts of merchantable timber. This trend is also likely to continue. Selection of Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) and Alternative 5 (Restoration) has the potential to continue the decline of timber-related employment in the rural communities of Baker, Grant, Harney, and Malheur counties. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would provide some short-term (1 to 2 years) economic relief. Various amounts of large diameter wood (greater than 12 inches diameter at breast height) would be salvaged, rather than the biomass 276 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences utilization brought about by just thinning smaller diameter trees. This larger diameter wood is the type of material needed to support the 3 large-diameter saw mills operating in the John Day/Prairie City area. The amount of local economic relief would be determined by whether the purchaser is local or distant, what mill(s) local or distant actually receives the logs, and the price for lumber. These cumulative economic effects could cause cumulative “quality of life” social effects. Continued loss in timber-related jobs could affect the remaining infrastructure and capacity in the local rural communities, and could disrupt the dependent local goods and services industries. Diversification opportunities for these local rural economies are currently limited, and this trend is expected to continue until economical biomass utilization can be further developed (LeVan, 1998). Employment The primary effect on timber harvest-related employment would occur from commercial harvesting associated with the alternatives over the next two years. Financially viable sales would be necessary to provide opportunities for timber harvest-related employment. Levels of harvest volume by alternative would affect employment and income in several ways: 1) Direct effects attributable to employment associated with harvesting, logging, and mills and processing plants for sawtimber, pulp, chips, veneer, and plywood 2) Indirect effects attributable to industries that supply materials, equipment, and services to these businesses; and 3) Induced effects attributable to personal spending by the business owners, employees, and related industries. No harvest-related activities would occur under Alternative 1 (No Action), and Alternative 5 (Restoration), and therefore no contribution to direct, indirect, or induced employment and income associated with timber harvesting would result from the project. Declining trends in timber harvesting from National Forest System (NFS) lands would continue in the future, and contribute to declines in wood products employment and associated indirect employment over the next two decades. Changes in the economic base and wood products infrastructure for the impact area would also continue to be influenced by fluctuations in market prices, international market conditions, changes in technology, and industry restructuring. The overall employment and income effect from Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would continue to support the wood products manufacturing component of the economic base of the impact area. The magnitude of the economic effects would be limited to two years, associated with the harvesting activities. Alternative 2 would support the highest level of employment, at 271 jobs over the two-year period. Alternative 3 is the lowest with 131 jobs, with Alternative 4 supporting 240 jobs. Any individual county or community in the impact area could experience greater benefits in the short-term (2-3 years), particularly the communities highly specialized in wood products manufacturing. However, several factors would influence the ability of any one county or community to experience the largest extent of the harvest-related employment and income effects. The financial viability of the timber sale proposals would influence whether potential purchasers closest to the project area could be competitive with other purchasers, to acquire the majority of the supply of wood. Employment projections would depend on other factors such as market conditions, quality and quantity of the volume offered for sale, timing of the offerings, and financial conditions of local firms. 277 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS The distribution of economic impacts would depend on the location of the timber purchaser awarded the contracts at the time of the sale, the availability of equipment and skills in the impact area, and the location and availability of the wood processing facilities and related infrastructure. Given the size of the potential volume compared to offerings in the last year from NFS lands across the Blue Mountains, several mills located in other counties in Northeast Oregon would be potentially interested in the supply of wood offered. Alternatives 2, 3and 4 require helicopter logging. There are no locally owned, helicopter logging businesses; all locally owned logging businesses use ground-based equipment. Therefore, even if a locally-owned logging business is the purchaser of the proposed timber sales, a portion of the income generated from these sales will leave the local area to a sub-contracting helicopter business. The reverse is also true. If a helicopter logging business purchases the sales, they may hire local loggers to perform a portion of the work. Alternative 2 proportionately would return the least amount of income to local logging businesses, because it requires the most amount of helicopter logging (3,785 acres); Alternative 4 proposes 2,885 acres; and Alternative 3 proposes 2,520 acres. Alternatives 2 proposes 490 acres of ground- based timber harvesting, and Alternative 3 proposes 305 acres, and Alternative 4, 459 acres. Since the majority of the volume in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 will be helicopter-yarded, companies outside of Northeast Oregon would bid on the helicopter-logging portion of the sale, and distribute the jobs and income effect to other regions of the State. Annual timber-related employment supported by timber harvested from the Malheur National Forest for the years 1999-01 averaged 388 direct jobs. Annual harvest for these years averaged 39 MMBF. Employment supported by commercial harvesting in Alternative 2 would support approximately 70% toward this level of annual employment. Alternative 4 would support approximately 62%, with Alternative 3 supporting approximately 34% toward this level. Alternatives 1 and 5 would not provide harvest opportunities and would not support employment in the impact zone from timber harvesting. Other employment would continue to occur as a result of other timber sales in progress, domestic-livestock grazing, recreation activities, and other special use receipts across the Forest. Commercial collection of non-timber forest products, such as mushrooms, could continue to occur, although the quantity of harvest is unknown. In addition, other employment opportunities would also be provided by restoration and enhancement activities outlined for the Monument Fire Recovery Project, and would depend on the level of funded projects. Economic Efficiency An economic efficiency analysis was completed. It focused on identifiable and quantifiable ecosystem benefits and costs for each alternative, in terms of the present net value (benefits minus costs), to assess which alternative comes nearest to maximizing net public benefits (36 CFR 219.3). Measurable and quantifiable economic market benefits identified in the Monument Fire Recovery Project include discounted revenue from timber volume proposed for harvest. Measurable and quantifiable costs at the project level include direct costs to the Forest Service for preparing and administering the commercial timber sales, and implementing other restoration activities including reforestation, decommissioning roads, and rehabilitating skid trails. 278 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table ES-2. Present Net Benefit, Present Net Costs, and Present Net Value. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Present Net Benefits 1.34 0.66 1.27 Timber Value $0 $6,806,351 $2,746,429 $6,117,461 $0 Sale preparation and administration $0 $1,680,915 $738,489 $1,438,803 $0 Restoration and mitigation projects $0 $3,391,388 $3,391,388 $3,391,388 $2,171,750 Present Net Value $0 $1,734,048 -$1,383,448 $1,287,270 -$2,171,750 Alternative 2 would have the greatest present monetary net value of all of the alternatives, due primarily to the number of acres treated and the combination of logging systems. Alternative 4’s present net value would have a slightly lower value, due to the harvest of fewer acres and the same amount of restoration work. Alternative 3 would have a negative present net value due to fewer acres harvested, more volume per acre retained to meet resource needs, and higher logging costs. Costs for sale preparation and administration vary by alternative, based on the amount of timber harvested and acres treated. Alternative 1 would have no project-associated costs for comparison to the action alternatives. Alternative 5 would have costs associated with restoration activities but no timber value to offset these costs therefore producing a negative value of -$2,171,750. Cost for restoration and mitigation contracts include preparation and contract administration costs. In addition to use values, existence values otherwise referred to as passive, nonuse, or preservation values may capture important economic value to the public (Kohrman 2003). Although these benefits are important components of the ecosystem services provided to humans, the production relationship between ecosystem functions and ecosystem services (such as changes in recreation visitor days, fishing days, animal unit months, or fish population) is not well defined or measurable at the project level, in terms that provide meaningful comparisons of commensurate dollar values. Potential benefits include improvements to soil productivity, reduced erosion, water quality improvements in temperature, and terrestrial and aquatic habitat improvement. Potential improvements in fish habitat would increase fingerling survival rates, overall fish population levels, and recreational fishing opportunities. Other potential qualitative economic benefits or costs from the alternatives include changes to the diversity, quality, and quantity of wildlife habitat for both game and non-game terrestrial species. The economic value of big-game hunting would depend on how changes in population levels and spatial distribution of game animals affect either the quality or intensity of the hunting experience. Consequently, the overall level of hunting would change with corresponding economic impacts from hunting-related expenditures. Changes in non- game population levels and diversity would affect wildlife viewing, photography, and other non-consumptive uses of the area. Other opportunity or externalized costs that would potentially occur include damage to soils from harvest operations in tractor units, resulting in long-term losses in soil productivity and potential timber harvest, losses in wildlife habitat as a result of salvage of large dead trees, or 279 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS increases in sedimentation to downstream fish habitat from erosion in the fire area. These costs are not well defined or measurable at the project level in terms that provide comparison of commensurate dollar values. The rural communities of these Eastern Oregon Counties are highly dependent on firewood for personal home heating. Firewood gathering for home use is already not allowed in the Monument Rock Wilderness, and there are other opportunities for firewood gathering close by, therefore no adverse effects are anticipated. Human Health and Safety Health effects are limited in scope and duration. This analysis summarizes the human health and safety effects described in other sections of the DEIS. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 1 would not improve road access. Deteriorating conditions of standing fire-killed trees along roads would result in a decline in user safety, without additional analysis and corrective measures. In order to maintain public safety, some roads would be closed to motorized vehicles. Normal road maintenance would continue to be scheduled, but road conditions would continue to decline due to the effects of the fire. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 With commercial timber harvest, the level of road use would increase within the project area and accessing the area. Increases in the level of use on roads will potentially increase the number of encounters between heavy equipment for logging and recreational visitors, and increase the likelihood of accidents in the short-term (2-3 years). Reconstruction design standards for width, brushing, and hazard trees would mitigate potential encounters and provide safer access on current roads in the long-term, after the harvesting activities are concluded. Directional signing and public information about logging activities would lessen encounters and increase safety. During helicopter yarding operations, the 1672 road system would be closed to public access. This closure would be necessary, because of safety issues involving logs flown across these roads and the increase in log truck traffic. Retention of snags in Alternative 2 and 3 could subject workers to an increased exposure to hazards created from working around small clumps of snags as they would be distributed across the harvest units. Workers would be required to work within the vicinity of these trees. Some snags would be lost due to safety and operational needs. Alternative 4 would reduce the exposure of workers to hazards created from snags in the majority of units. Snags would be distributed in patches located outside the harvest units, thus reducing the need to cut them for safety or operational reasons. In the resiliency treatment and two of the salvage units, 1.5 to 2.5 snags per acre would be designated for retention. The majority of these trees would be selected from recent dead thus reducing the potential of them being hazardous to workers. Alternative 5 Alternative 5 would not improve road access. Deteriorating conditions of standing fire-killed trees along roads would result in a decline in user safety, without additional analysis and corrective measures. In order to maintain public safety 17.2 miles of roads would be closed 280 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences to motorized vehicles and 11.8 miles would be decommissioned and removed from the transportation system. Normal road maintenance would continue to be scheduled but roads would continue to decline due to the effects of the fire. The costs of road maintenance and reconstruction would increase in the future due to further declines in the system. Cumulative Effects Because of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, there are economic and social cumulative effects due to road closures and timber harvest. Due to decreased roads funding for the Malheur National Forest over the past several years, there is a cumulative effect as the Forest continues to reduce road densities in other project areas in order to meet budgetary constraints and other resource needs. The costs of road maintenance and reconstruction would increase in the future, due to further declines in the system. Road closures and decommissionings would probably be considered and implemented in future timber sale areas. Socially, this means the current level of access by roads would decline. Recreation, acquisition of nontimber forest products, and other opportunities dependent on road access, would also decline in areas of the road closure or decommissioning. Environmental Justice The analysis focuses on potential effects from the project to minority populations, disabled persons, and low-income groups. Alternative 1 (No Action) All current uses of the National Forest System lands would continue, including recreation, harvesting of nontimber 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. Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 These alternatives provide a variety of opportunities for potential contracts. The 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. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would plant 5,326 acres, while Alternative 5 would plant 2,845 acres. There is no existing information on how much use the area receives from minority and low- income populations. It is estimated that this area receives limited use because of the road conditions prior to the 2002 wildfire. The anticipated direct and indirect social effects to these populations are primarily due to change of access from road closures and decommissioning proposed in Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5. Changes in access, due to decreases in open road miles, would occur over the long-term (10 years) in Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5. Open road miles would be decreased by 18.1 miles, and would potentially impact disabled people, or low-income groups that require motorized access to participate in recreational activities such as hunting, dispersed camping, or collection of non-timber forest products. These effects would occur for all users of the project area and would not have a disparate impact on any particular minority group. This change from road to non-road access would have its greatest effect on the young, elderly, and disabled. Those with other forms of off- 281 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS road transportation (horses, off-highway vehicles, mountain bicycles, etc.) would be less affected than those without these opportunities. Opportunities for all groups of people to collect species from disturbed and nondisturbed sites would be maintained by all alternatives, and no disproportionate effect is anticipated to subsets of the general population. None of the alternatives would have disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian tribes. Consistency with Direction and Regulations The Forest Plan contains several goal statements: • Provide a sustained flow of timber for lumber, fiber, and/or associated wood products at a level that will contribute to economic stability, while providing for regional and national needs. • Contribute to the social/economic health of communities, which are significantly affected by national forest management. • Provide an economic return to the public. • Provide and utilize wood fiber in the form of sawtimber, fiber, and/or associated wood products while minimizing losses and maximizing outputs in a cost-effective manner, consistent with the various resource objectives and environmental standards. Otherwise, management objectives and standards for economics are not specifically addressed in the Forest Plan. This analysis attempts to display the effects to economic efficiency for this project. In this regard, all alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan. All economic elements are consistent with current regulations. Roads/Access ___________________________________ Regulatory Framework A Roads Analysis for the Monument Area was completed in July 2003 consistent with current direction (Monument Fire Recovery Roads Analysis, USDA Forest Service 2003). All roads within the fire boundary or which will be used for the fire recovery project were included in this analysis. The analysis showed that there were roads in the area that should be closed to the public and other roads that should be decommissioned. The reasons suggested for the decommissioning of these roads include: unnecessary for future management purposes, wildlife security, noxious weed spread and reduction of sediment into adjacent streams. The Monument Fire Recovery Project is an opportunity to implement some of those recommendations. Affected Environment Most of the Forest Service land is roaded with the majority of the roads being Maintenance Level 1 and 2. All of the roads will need some work done on them to meet maintenance standards. This work will range from simple maintenance to reconstruction as defined on Page 3231 of the Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Notices. 282 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences On most roads, the roadway surface is either rutted or has rill erosion, or both, which is caused by water running down the roadway or rutting made by the passage of a vehicle. This causes sedimentation to filter into adjacent streams. Other maintenance needs range from blading the road to reshaping the surface. Most roads in the project area will need this work done. There are also areas where rock will need to be placed to create a surface that will be resistant to rutting during the wet times of the year. Other maintenance items needed, includes brushing areas where there is vegetation encroaching on the road and seeding those areas where the soil has been disturbed by maintenance activities. There are approximately 11 miles of road that can be decommissioned after any management activities are concluded. Among the reasons for the decommissioning of these roads are: no longer needed for future management purposes; protect adjacent resources such as streams or aspen stands; reduce sediment into adjacent streams. Approximately 7 miles of the decommissioning would occur on roads that are grown in with sapling and have not been driven in a number of years. Included in the maintenance requirements for these roads is the following work that can be performed as maintenance in any contracts: • Blade and shape road including existing drainage dips, grade sags, and waterbars. • Remove and replace culverts with same size or larger culverts up to 36 inches diameter • Repair damaged culverts • Place rock in some existing drainage dips and grade sags • Place rock in wet areas of road • Brushing • Remove hazard trees • Dust abatement The following work is classified as maintenance under the definition listed in the Federal Register but will be listed as reconstruction in any contracts that are signed. • Construct new drainage dips. • Construct new waterbars. • Construct new outlet ditches. • Remove and replace culverts with same size or culverts greater than 36 inches diameter. • Place geotextile on existing road surface. • Place fill material in ruts in road. • Repair or replace existing cattleguards. Environmental Effects Alternative 1 Direct and Indirect Effects The consequences of this alternative would be to leave the road system in the same condition it is in now. There would be no opportunity to close or decommission roads or to improve drainage by installing additional drainage dips, waterbars, or cross ditches. This could result 283 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS in sedimentation into streams at the current level or higher and would remain at the same cost to the Federal government to meet road maintenance standards. Cumulative Effects As described above, past activities and occurrences have affected roads and access in the analysis area. Past and proposed activities that affect roads and access have been analyzed in direct and indirect effects. In review of past, ongoing, and foreseeable actions, ongoing and foreseeable maintenance and recreational use could pose cumulative effects. Routine surveys of roads would provide condition and effectiveness information to drive ongoing management and maintenance of roads. Road use by motorized vehicles on the open roads would continue degrade road conditions especially during wet periods since most of the roads are native surfaced. All other ongoing and future actions are not expected to affect roads and access. The cumulative effect of roads and access on other resources is discussed in each resource section of Chapter 3 of the FEIS. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Direct and Indirect Effects These alternatives recommend the same level of work on the transportation system. Approximately 7.0 miles of road that is currently open to traffic would be closed and approximately 11.8 miles of road would be decommissioned. The maintenance work which would be done on many of the open roads would include blading to eliminate existing ruts, brushing for safety, maintenance of existing drainage features such as drainage dips, waterbars, and cross ditches, placing rock in areas where it will help to decrease sedimentation into streams, and seeding. The accomplishment of the closures and maintenance will make the open roads safer to travel, reduce sedimentation, lower the open road densities and the total road densities, and improve fish habitat by closing and/or decommissioning roads in RHCAs. Cumulative Effects As described above, past activities and occurrences have affected roads and access in the analysis area. Past and proposed activities that affect roads and access have been analyzed in direct and indirect effects. In review of past, ongoing, and foreseeable actions, ongoing and foreseeable maintenance and recreational use could pose cumulative effects. Routine surveys of roads would provide condition and effectiveness information to drive ongoing management and maintenance of roads. Road use by motorized vehicles on the open roads would continue degrade road conditions especially during wet periods since most of the roads are native surfaced. All other ongoing and future actions are not expected to affect roads and access. The cumulative effect of roads and access on other resources is discussed in each resource section of Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 284 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Alternative 5 Direct and Indirect Effects The effects are much the same as described for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. The difference is that more roads would be closed by gates or dirt berms. This would be approximately 16.2 versus 7.0 miles. This would further reduce recreational use of roads and the reduction in the cost of maintaining open roads. Cumulative Effects Same as Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Consistency with Direction and Regulations Alternative 1 would not bring this area any closer to meeting the Standards and Guidelines for road densities, fish habitat, or water quality which are contained in the Malheur Forest Plan. Through implementation of Alternative 2, 3, 4 and 5 the Forest would move closer to meeting those Standards and Guidelines. Inventoried Roadless Areas and Unroaded Areas The project area is not within any inventoried roadless areas. (See maps contained in Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, FEIS, Volume 2, 11/2000, page 149 and Monument Recovery Project, Project Scale Roads Analysis, 7/1/2003). No road construction/reconstruction or timber harvest would occur in any of the alternatives in inventoried roadless areas. This meets the requirements of the Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule, 36 CFR 294. Low Road Density Areas (Unroaded Areas) The project meets low road density recommendations identified in the Density Analysis Team Final Report (01/30/2002). The project does not contain that meet the unroaded 1,000 acre areas standards in the report. An analysis was completed using the protocols established in Final Report, Land Management Recommendations Related to the Value of Low Road Density Areas in the Conservation of Listed Salmon, Steelhead, and Bull Trout. (Appendix D, pg 37 -41). The two maps created are located in the Monument Project File. Irreversible/ Irretrievable Effects Alternative 2, 3, and 4 if implemented, use rock on roads for spot rocking. This would be an irreversible commitment of rock (considered to be a resource). This rock would come from the three rock sources identified in figure 10, Map Section. There would be a short-term loss of productivity where temporary roads are proposed in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. But those areas would be returned to productivity when the roads are rehabilitated. 285 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Other Disclosures ________________________________ NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with …other environmental review laws and executive orders.” The laws and regulations listed in Chapter 1, Laws and Regulations, would be adhered to. Disclosures are addressed in the environmental consequences discussion by resource. The following is a discussion of issues relating to the Beschta Report (1995). Issues Relating to the Beschta Report (1995) The interdisciplinary team (ID Team) considered resource concerns raised by the public, including the Beschta Report. The ID Team considered concerns in the context of the post- fire conditions of the Monument Fire Recovery Project area, and the goals and objectives of the Forest Plan, while consulting the scientific literature on post-fire logging. Scientific literature and monitoring reports are cited throughout this DEIS. The ID Team used McIver and Starr (2000). McIver and Starr reviewed and discussed the existing body of scientific literature on logging following wildfire. Specifically, 21 post-fire logging studies were reviewed and interpreted. McIver and Starr also include an annotated bibliography providing discussion of references, commentaries, and scientific papers pertaining to post-fire logging studies by a wide range of scientific and advocacy sources including the Beschta Report; Everett (1995) (regarding review of the Beschta Report); Saab and Dudley (1997) (regarding responses by cavity-nesting birds to high intensity wildfire and post-fire salvage logging); Sallabanks (1998) (regarding response of breeding bird communities to wildfire in the Oregon Blue Mountains); Sexton (1994) (regarding ecological effects of post-fire salvage logging on vegetation diversity, biomass and growth); and 124 other sources. Authors of the Beschta Report, who are mostly scientists, provided their opinions on issues of salvage logging in the form of general principles and recommendations. The authors present their suggested policy principles and land management recommendations as generally applicable to Federal lands throughout the western United States, or at least the Interior Columbia and Upper Missouri Basins. They are not focused on the specific ecological, social, and economic characteristics of the post-fire conditions of the Monument Fire Recovery area or the Malheur National Forest. A major concern with the Beschta Report is that the authors ask land managers to consider all post-fire hazards and management alternatives, but their recommendations usually favor only custodial management (hands off). The report is centered on the “common thread” that natural patterns and processes provide the best pathway to recovery. Limiting post-fire management action to only intensive management or only to custodial management may be inappropriate; every situation is different and should be handled on a case-by-case basis (Everett 1995). Alternatives 1 came closest to meeting the Beschta Report recommendations to allow natural processes to provide the pathway to recovery followed closely by Alternative 3. The significant issues raised in the Beschta Report and their applicability to the Monument Fire Recovery Project are addressed below, with quotes from the Beschta Report presented in bold italicized font to distinguish them from responses. Further documentation of the site- specific consideration of resource topics raised in the Beschta Report is contained in Chapters 2 and 3. 286 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Findings and Recommendations Ongoing human activity and the residual effect of past activity continue to threaten watershed ecosystem integrity. The region’s ecosystems, not just forests, are under severe strain. Ongoing human activity and the residual effect of past activity do continue to threaten watershed ecosystem integrity and will likely continue to do so in the future. As revealed during the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, many of these activities that pose the greatest threats to watershed integrity occur on private lands and are the result of permanent settlement, construction of cities, towns, industrial areas, and various agricultural practices beyond the control of the Federal land management agencies. The proposed project contains actions aimed at recovery of certain ecosystem process and it contains design criteria and mitigations aimed at minimizing further disruption of ecosystem processes. Examples of actions aimed at recovery include fuels control by logging, conifer planting, restoration of old skid, and include road decommissioning. Chapter 3 discloses that there would be short-term impacts and risks associated with some activities in order to realize long-term improvements. Projects planned under Categorical Exclusions (Chapter 1) also would help decrease threats from residual effects of past activity. Fires are an inherent part of the disturbance and recovery patterns to which native species have adapted. If fuels are not effectively reduced, the severity of future wildfires will not be part of the disturbance and recovery patterns to which native species have adapted. Lightning caused fire and Native American burning has had a significant influence on plant community structure and species compositions and fire regimes. Lightning causes more than 50% of the fire starts in the watershed; the rest are human. Species present in this area were adapted to primarily low intensity, frequent fire as part of the disturbance regime. However around 1900, fire exclusion, selective logging of high value trees, and livestock began dramatic changes, especially in Hot Dry and Warm Dry forests. Grasses were grazed by livestock, reducing fine fuels and making fire suppression more effective. Selective logging removed many of the larger, fire- resistant ponderosa pine. The result is that stands are much denser than historically and an understory of shade tolerant species such as Douglas-fir and grand fir has developed in many areas. These species are not well adapted to the type of fire they may experience today, especially where frequent, low-severity fire has been replaced by infrequent, high-severity fire. The smaller trees serve as ladder fuels that provide a pathway for ground fires to travel into the tree canopy. Once in the canopy, the trees crowns are close enough together for the crown fire to travel long distances causing widespread mortality, as occurred in Monument Fire. In these ecosystems, wildfire no longer operates within historical ranges of variability (Agee 1994), and their effects may be foreign to ecosystem function (Everett 1995). This issue is also discussed in the responses immediately below. There is no ecological need for immediate intervention on the post-fire landscape. Chapter 1 says Purposes and Needs include reducing future fuel loading and re- establishing upland vegetation. These are two long term ecological needs that would not be met without immediate intervention. Objectives include reforesting the burned 287 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS area (planting would accelerate reforestation), and fuel reduction (which would protect the trees). A need exists to reduce future fire hazard so that natural and prescribed fire can be used to maintain stands and fuels in more natural and resilient conditions. Chapter 1 also says the purposes and needs include reducing the effects of roads on wildlife and water quality. This project would reduce sedimentation in streams from existing roads and from interactions between roads and post-fire runoff. In addition there are needs to treat sediment sources and streams to rehabilitate past disturbance. These needs are addressed in this DEIS. The majority of the planning area is General Forest Management Area where the primary goal is timber production on a sustained yield basis. There is a valid economic objective to provide timber for production of wood products and to contribute to the economy of the local communities. Existing condition should not be used as “baseline” or “desired” conditions upon which to base management objectives. The Monument Fire Recovery Project does not adopt pre-fire conditions as Desired Conditions (Chapter 1). Desired Conditions come from the Forest Plan (including “Regional Forester’s Eastside Forest Plans Amendment #2” (1995) and INFISH) to help determine what actions may be appropriate. Desired Conditions describe what environmental, social, or commodity goods and services are wanted from a particular land management area. Generally, baseline conditions (historical conditions) are conditions present before Euro-American settlement, and are often described in terms of Historical Range of Variation. Fire suppression throughout forest ecosystems should not automatically be a management goal of the highest priority. The overall management goal must be to preserve (and reestablish) the fire and other disturbance regimes that maintain ecological systems and processes, while protecting human life and property. Fire suppression is not a management goal. Fire suppression is used to meet land management objectives related to protection of life, property, and resources (Evers 2003). The Malheur Forest Plan provides direction to initiate initial suppression action that provides for the most reasonable probability of minimizing fire suppression costs and resource damage, consistent with probable fire behavior, resource impacts, safety, and smoke management considerations. Additional direction is to identify, develop, and maintain fuel profiles that contribute to the most cost efficient fire protection program consistent with management direction (Chapter IV-4). Forest standards are described in the Forest Plan. General fire suppression recommendations are not within the decision space for Monument Fire Recovery DEIS. Purposes and Need statement in Chapter 1 clearly indicates the goal to re-establish fire to maintain the ecosystem. Purpose for activity “Reduce levels of dead standing and down fuel in upland and riparian areas, to reduce the potential for future high- severity fires and restore a low-intensity/frequent fire regime.” When the Desired Conditions are achieved, less fire suppression probably would be needed to protect life, property, and resources. 288 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Recommended Post-Fire Principles Allow natural recovery and recognize the temporal scales involved with ecosystem evolution. Human intervention should not be permitted unless and until it is determined that natural recovery processes are not occurring. Preserve capabilities of species to naturally regenerate. Do not take actions that impede natural recovery of disturbed systems. Active reseeding and replanting should be conducted only under limited conditions; such practices should be employed only where there are several years of evidence that natural regeneration is not occurring. Monument Fire severity was outside the historical range of variability, because fuel loads and connectivity were higher than under natural conditions, resulting in higher tree mortality and higher future fuel loads than under natural conditions. Relying on only natural recovery processes would substantially delay recovery, as described in Chapter 3. Salvage logging is not expected to have an effect on the developmental pathway of the vegetation (Chapter 3). Reduction in shade on seedlings from salvage operations will not affect seedling survival in the plant associations present in the Monument Fire Recovery planning area. Successful regeneration of previous regeneration cutting in the immediate vicinity of the fire attests to this fact. Reforestation of burned areas is not required within 5 years by NFMA, but Congress has long emphasized restocking of deforested National Forests. Thus the Forest Service has established a policy that salvaged areas are to be reforested within 5 years also. Where no salvage is done, deforested lands should be reforested as quickly as possible. (Nov. 19, 2002, Regional Forester Letter). Local experience indicates that delaying reforestation activities will make the regeneration of early seral conifer species such as ponderosa pine increasingly difficult because of vegetative competition and animal damage that is low immediately after a fire and increases over the next 3-5 years (Chapter 3). If natural reforestation failed, it could require the use of chemicals (rodenticides and herbicides) to establish conifer seedlings because of the potential vegetative animal damage. Tree species used in conifer planting are all native species collected from locally- adapted seed sources. By planting as soon as possible, there is no anticipated need for control of competing vegetation or animal damage control. This avoids use of chemicals to achieve reforestation goals. A non-native, non-persistent, grass seed mix would be used to establish ground cover in certain specific situations. Seeding will be used to prevent erosion on soil exposed during road work, on landings, and on certain skidtrails. Seeding will also be used to prevent colonization by noxious weeds and other undesirable plants on certain disturbed sites. Non-native seed would be used because there is no locally collected seed available for this area. Areas that are seeded with this mix will be monitored verify the amount of time these grasses persist. Under all alternatives cattle grazing would be deferred in burned portions of allotments for at least two growing seasons, to allow natural recovery of plants. This would be accomplished under a Malheur National Forest post fire interim guidelines. 289 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Noxious weed prevention strategies to wash vehicles to be used off-road are included in the alternatives (Chapter 2). Protect soils. No management activity should be undertaken which does not protect soil integrity. This is Forest Service policy. Forest Service Manual 2500, Region 6 Supplement to Chapter 2520, Watershed Protection and Management (2500.98-1) provides policy to meet direction in the “National Forest Management Act” of 1976 (NFMA) and other legal mandates, to manage lands without permanent impairment of land productivity and to maintain or improve soil and water quality. Forest Plan Standards meet NFMA and other legal and regulatory requirements to protect soil integrity. Site-specific soil assessments and analysis were completed for Monument Fire Recovery Project. Information regarding soil conditions and effects of the alternatives are described in Chapter 3. The Monument Fire Recovery alternatives contain design and mitigation measures to protect soil integrity. The timber harvest activities will not permanently impair the productivity of the land or irreversibly damage soil or other watershed conditions. Recommendations on Post-Fire Practices Salvage logging should be prohibited in sensitive areas including: severely burned areas, erosive sites, fragile soils, roadless areas, riparian areas, steep slopes or any site where accelerated erosion is possible. Because of soil compaction and erosion concerns, conventional types of ground-based yarding systems should be generally prohibited. As explained in the response immediately above, federal laws, regulations, and the Forest Plan provide authoritative direction to ensure that management activities on these sites do not result in unacceptable impacts to soil and water resources. Harvest and yarding of trees could lead to increased erosion, soil compaction, and loss of down wood and soil fauna. However, the extent to which these effects occur depends upon a variety of factors such as specific site conditions, the methods used, the timing of these activities, and their duration. As evidence in Chapter 3 indicates, all alternatives meet Forest Plan Standards for detrimental soil impacts, including compaction. Under harvest alternatives (2,3 and 4) erosion and sediment delivery to streams would be negligible. Under Alternatives 1,there would be no risk of erosion or sediment production from harvest. The alternatives are designed to avoid or mitigate potential impacts of salvage harvest on severely burned areas and erosive sites (including steep slopes), so that impacts are small and acceptable (Chapters 2 and 3). For instance, helicopter yarding systems will be utilized on steeper slopes or those with a high erosion potential. No harvest is planned for the most fragile, non-forested soils. No inventoried roadless areas or low density roaded areas exist within the project area. Timber harvest activities would occur in default RHCAs under Alternative 2. Helicopter yarding is proposed to reduce impacts. On portions of the post-fire landscape determined to be suitable for salvage logging, limitations aimed at maintaining species and natural recovery processes should apply. 290 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Salvage logging must: leave at least 50 percent of standing dead trees in each diameter class, leave all trees greater than 20 inches DBH or older than 150 years, generally leave all live trees. The Beschta Report provides no rationale or references for these specific quantitative recommendations. “Regional Forester’s Eastside Forest Plans Amendment #2” (1995) directs that snags shall be maintained at 100 percent potential population levels of primary cavity excavators. Malheur National Forest determined prescriptive levels based on this direction as well as post-fire snag use levels summarized in the DecAID analysis tool (Mellen, 2003). Prescriptions have been fine-tuned to address physical and biological conditions in Monument Fire. A range of snag prescriptions have been analyzed in Chapter 3 of the DEIS. The wildlife habitat value of snags and down woody debris, and the effects of alternatives on snag habitat and down-wood-dependant species are addressed in Chapter 3. All trees that have a reasonable chance of surviving will be retained within the salvage treatment areas (except trees in areas such as landings, trees that pose a hazard to logging operations, or trees that must be felled for road work). Leaving all big trees would result in a loss of economic viability for salvage operations, loss of the commercial forest product value and associated benefits to the local economy, thus conflicting with some of the Purposes and Needs (Chapter 1), and the objectives for Management Areas 1. The current fire hazard is low, but by retaining standing dead trees at the levels recommended by the Beschta Report the hazard will increase over the next 10 to 20 years as the snags decay and fall down. A very receptive fuelbed would be created as trees and brush grow through the fallen snags. This fuelbed would prevent the re- introduction of prescribed fire. If a wildfire occurs, it would likely produce intense heat close to the ground, killing any trees (large or small) and could result in damaged soils. Because of the wide range of chronic ecological effects associated with road building, the building of new roads in the burned landscape should be prohibited. Road construction would be kept to a minimum. Roads would not be built within RHCAs. Under Alternative 2 and 3, 0.6 miles of temporary would be constructed and under Alternative 4, 0.4 miles of temporary road would be constructed. While some local impacts to soils would occur, these roads are located in upland areas and would be rehabilitated and decommissioned at completion of harvest activities. No permanent roads would be constructed. Structural (check dams, etc.) post-fire restoration is generally to be discouraged. Sediment management should focus on reducing or eliminating anthropogenic sources prior to their initiation (that is, improve stream crossings to prevent culvert failure), and protecting and maintaining natural sediment control mechanisms in burned landscapes, particularly the natural recruitment of large woody debris on hillslopes and in streams. No check dams or other structures are proposed for streams Numerous roads within the analysis area have been identified as having minimal cross drainage with sediment routed to the streams in numerous locations. Maintenance/restoration of roads that are contributing to erosion and sediment 291 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS concerns are identified in the alternatives. No harvest activities will occur within RHCAs in Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, and any hazard trees felled within RHCAs would remain there under all alternatives. Natural recruitment of large woody debris to channels and draws is anticipated as the fire affected trees die and fall into the active stream channels. The ground cover and sediment control provided by natural recruitment of large woody debris on hillslopes is minor, compared with re-growth of ground plants and shedding of needles and small woody debris by burned trees. Post-fire management will generally require reassessment of existing management— for example the condition of the transportation system (determine the need for undertaking road maintenance, improvement, or obliteration). As part of the analysis for this project, a Roads Analysis was completed and is documented in the project file. The ID Team focused on identifying roads or portions thereof, within the existing road system, where resource damage is occurring or is likely to occur based upon the post-fire conditions in the planning area. Roads were recommended for maintenance/restoration and decommissioning. The results of the assessment of the transportation system condition led to the proposed actions related to the road system (Chapter 2). Continued research efforts are needed to help address ecological and operation issues. Monument Fire is currently the focus of research this summer by two USDA Forest Service groups, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Moscow, Idaho and Pest Management Group, LaGrande, Oregon in cooperation with Oregon State University. Considerable other research has begun regarding fire ecology, fire effects, fire risks, fire recovery, and restoration as part of the Joint Fire Science Program and the “National Fire Plan.” Additional information must be provided to the public regarding natural fires and post- burn landscapes to provide balance to the “Smokey Bear” perspective of fires and forests. Although designing a public information program is outside the scope of this project, the FEIS contains abundant information regarding natural fires, fuels, vegetation, wildlife, and streams in this landscape. The Forest Service has increased appreciation and understanding of natural disturbance regimes in the ecology of forest ecosystems as evidenced by the “National Fire Plan”. Land management agencies have made much progress in sharing information with the public on fires role in the ecosystem. Evers (2003) states that public information and education campaigns on the benefits of fire and fire ecology had begun before 1995. Fire suppression activities should be conducted only when absolutely necessary and with utmost care for the long-term integrity of the ecosystem and the protection of natural recovery processes. This recommendation is beyond the scope of this analysis. National fire management policies direct suppression activities. Current policy is to suppress fires that threaten natural resources and human life and property; these types of fires have become more common because current forest conditions differ greatly from historical conditions, resulting in increased fire sizes and severity. Fire suppression activities are implemented with consideration for ecosystem protection, among other factors. For instance, operating procedures were already in place before 1995 to protect smaller 292 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences bodies of water from excessive removal of water and riparian areas from damage to suppression activities (Evers 2003). Unroaded Introduction Agency direction is to consider unroaded areas greater than 1,000 acres if they are contiguous to an inventoried roadless area. Monument Fire Recovery Project area is contiguous to a large unroaded area, the Monument Rock Wilderness. A GIS analysis by the IDT team identified two unroaded areas contiguous to the wilderness, 237 acres and 108 acres. There were other unroaded areas not contiguous to the wilderness, the largest being 485 acres. This analysis was based on the protocols contained the Low Density Road Analysis Report (See Chapter 3, Roads). These protocol standards buffer the roads by ¼ mile and identify any remaining polygons greater than 1,000 acres. However, the Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC) comment letters identified three large “Uninv Roadless” or unroaded areas within or adjacent the project area that approach 1,000 acres in size. Other smaller mapped areas on the west side the project area were less than 200 acres were also identified. These areas identified by ONRC were digitized using their map and overlaid on the District GIS mapping. The areas identified by ONRC are mapped directly adjacent to existing roads. The following acreage calculations were generated directly from ONRC’s map and not adjusted to meet agency direction. Area 1 is approximately 1,000 acres (west of Camp Creek and adjacent the wilderness), Area 2 is approximately 1,400 acres (east of Camp Creek between a number of roads), and Area #3 is approximately 1,000 acres (south of the Little Malheur River). Area #1 includes a number of system roads on the interior of the 1,000-acre polygon that reduces this unroaded area by half; it was not considered in the following analysis. The following analysis does consider ONRC Unroaded Area 2 and Unroaded Area 3. Neither unroaded Area 2 or 3 is contiguous to the Monument Rock Wilderness Area or any other inventoried roadless areas. Regulatory Framework • National Forest System Land Resource Management Planning; Final Rule (November 2000) • Malheur Forest Plan Analysis Methods The IDT evaluated Areas 2 and Areas 3 for consistency with the nine roadless characteristics defined in 36 CFR 294.11. Results Characteristic 1 – High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air. Area 2: Area 2 has been impacted by past timber harvest activities. The earliest sale, Canteen Camp, occurred in 1967 and covered about 875 acres of Area 2. The majority of this sale was logged with tractors that has resulted in long term impacts to soil and water resources in the area (Soils and Aquatics sections in Chapter 3). In 1984, the southern end of Area 2 was again logged under the Camp Creek sale. This sale was also logged using tractors and covered about 303 acres of Area 2. 293 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Timber Sale Name Harvest Date Harvest Type Harvest Method Acres Canteen Camp 1967 Partial Removal Tractor, Cable 875 Camp Creek 1984 Partial Removal Tractor 303 As described in the affected environment of the Aquatics section of the FEIS, most of the draws draining this area are disturbed from past skidding activities that resulted in gullying. Under pre-fire conditions, these draws were sources of sediment and concentrated flows that affected Camp Creek and the Little Malheur River. Activities proposed under this FEIS are expected to initiate restoration of these legacy conditions. Under the current conditions watershed function is not typical of pristine, wilderness-like conditions associated with unroaded areas. The headwaters of one Category 2 stream are present in the northern portion of Area 2. We do not have water temperature data available to determine the importance of this stream in providing cool water to Camp Creek. No other live streams are present in Area 2. About half of the Area 2 was burned severely during the Monument Fire. The majority of the remaining portion of Area 2 burned moderately. Soil erosion resulting from the 2002 fire has been severe in areas with the Clarno soil type. This soil type predominates in the southern half of Area 2. Area 3: The majority of Area 3 is a designated old growth area. About 28 acres of the Bug Butte timber sale occurred along the northern boundary of Area 3 adjacent to the Little Malheur River. An old skid trail from this sale is still visible along the south side of the Little Malheur River. About 44 acres of the Awake timber sale occurred along the southern portion of Area 3. Timber Sale Name Harvest Date Harvest Type Harvest Method Acres Bug Butte 1977 Partial Removal Tractor 28 Awake 1998 Commercial Thinning Tractor 44 About three miles of the Little Malheur River are present in Area 3. The Little Malheur River is currently on the 303(d) for exceeding ODEQ standards for water temperatures. No other live streams are present in Area 3. The majority of Area 3 was severely burned during the Monument Fire. Soil erosion resulting from the 2002 fire has occurred but has been relatively minor compared to Area 2. This is because the ash soil type in Area 3. Conclusions: Area 2 does not exhibit high quality or undisturbed soil. Impacts to soil from past timber harvest activities are evident and have been exacerbated by the 2002 fire. We do not have the data available to determine if the Category 2 stream in the northern portion of Area 2 can be considered as a high quality water resource. Before the 2002 fire, Area 3 exhibited high quality and relatively undisturbed soil conditions. Minor amounts of soil disturbance occurred during timber harvest activities. Increases in soil erosion resulting from the fire have been minor and will likely dissipate in three to five years following the fire. Area 3 does not exhibit high quality or undisturbed water resources. The portion of the Little Malheur River that flows through Area 3 is currently on the 303(d) list for exceeding state 294 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences water quality standards. Based on the historical presence of bull trout in this section of the river, management activities in the upper Little Malheur River subwatershed have likely resulted in increases in water temperature. Characteristic 2 – Sources of public drinking water. There are no sources of drinking water located in either Area 2 or Area 3. Characteristic 3 – Diversity of plant and animal communities. Area 2: Area 2 was surveyed for plant species listed on the Regional Foresters’ Sensitive Plant List. Neither habitat nor sensitive plants were found in the area. A mosaic of open timber stands, and non-forested open areas characterized Area 2 before the 2002 fire. Denser forested stands were present in the northern portion of the area. About half of the Area 2, primarily the southern half, was burned severely during the Monument Fire. The majority of the remaining portion of Area 2 burned moderately. Tree mortality was nearly 100 percent in severely and moderately burned areas in Area 2. The denser forested stands that existed prior to the fire in the northern portion would have provided for more diverse species than the open timber stands and non-forested areas. Because the area was burned at a moderate to sever fire intensity, forested habitat was eliminated for species that existed prior to the fire. The area now would be considered habitat for woodpeckers such as black-backed, Lewis’, and three -toed that prefer habitat with many smaller diameter snags. Area 3: Area 3 was surveyed for plant species listed on the Regional Foresters’ Sensitive Plant List. Neither habitat nor sensitive plants were found in the area. Area 3 was characterized by a dense mixed conifer stand before the 2002 fire. This area burned severely and tree mortality was nearly 100 percent. Based on the old growth habitat type that existed prior to the fire, there was value for interior forest species such as pine marten, pileated woodpeckers, and goshawk. Because the area burned at a moderate to sever fire intensity, forested habitat was eliminated for species that existed prior to the fire. The area now provides snag habitat in a range of diameters and may be foraging habitat for many woodpeckers, including black-backed, Lewis’, three-toed pileated, and white-headed. There is a goshawk near nearby , but it is unknown if the nest still active. Because of the likely presence of many woodpeckers in the area, and small rodents in the moderately burned portions, it could also be foraging habitat for goshawks. Nesting habitat for interior forest species no longer exists. There is a small portion in the interior of this area that is farther than 500 meters from an open road. Prior to the fire, deer or elk may have used the interior of the area more than other areas beauxe of the cover value and the distance from an open road. Because sight distance increased and cover is now reduced or eliminated, the area would not provide for the security for big game. Use by big game may e more for it’s forage value, as new ground vegetation develops. Characteristic 4 – Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species (TES) and for those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land. Terrestrial Species 295 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Habitat for TES terrestrial animals was very limited in the project area, even prior to the Monument Fire, due to past management activities in forestlands and limited non-forested habitats (see Wildlife Biological Evaluation in Appendix D). Both unroaded areas are entirely within the project area; therefore, disclosures for TES species are as described in the Wildlife Biological Evaluation. The unroaded areas, as mapped, do not reflect the influence of the perimeter roads; if road influences are considered, the size of the undisturbed areas of land is reduced. For example, Chapter 3, Terrestrial Wildlife, Big Game Habitat, describes the effects of open roads on elk use; roads that averaged as little as one vehicle per 12-hour period were affecting habitat selection out to 1,000 meters or more (Rowland et al. 2001 and Wisdom et al. 1998). Much of Areas 2 and 3 are within 1,000 meters of an open road, reducing their effectiveness as elk habitat. Disturbance effects vary by wildlife species, and road influences may or may not extend to the same distance as suggested for elk. In the short-term, the Monument Fire, particularly where it burned with moderate to severe intensity, has further reduced the likelihood of wildlife species dependent on large, contiguous blocks of forest from using these areas. Species such as wolverine might use these areas for dispersal or foraging; however, given the size of these areas, the influence of roads, and the severity of the burn, it is unlikely that use levels would vary substantially from adjacent areas. Aquatic Species Area 2: Habitat for Columbia spotted frogs may be present in the three springs located in Area 2. No other habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive aquatic species is present in Area 2. Area 3: About 3 miles of the Little Malheur River are in Area 3. The Little Malheur River provides habitat for three Region 6 sensitive aquatic species: redband trout, Malheur mottled sculpin, and Columbia spotted frog. Proposed critical habitat for bull trout is also present in this reach of the Little Malheur River. Rare Plants Threatened or endangered plant species or their habitats are not present on the Malheur National Forest (which includes the unroaded areas identified). Surveys did not find sensitive plant species within these unroaded portions of the Monument Fire (see Characteristic 3). Characteristic 5 – Primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation. Area 2 and Area 3 are managed as roaded modified and roaded natural. Characteristic 6 – Reference landscape. Area 2: The forested and non-forested areas in Area 2 have been sufficiently altered that they no longer provide a reference landscape. The most noticeable impacts are from timber harvest and livestock grazing. Area 3: Before the 2002 fire, Area 3 provided an old growth reference landscape. However, like the majority of old growth stands on the southern portion of the District, this stand had been altered because of fire suppression activities. This likely resulted in an increase in fire 296 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences severity during the 2002 fire and higher mortality compared to what would have been expected for an unaltered old growth stand. Characteristic 7 – Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality. Area 2: Area 2 is outside the Table Visual Corridor. Before the Monument Fire, evidence of past timber harvest activities was present in Area 2. Old skid trails and stumps were readily visible over much of the area. The amount of classified and unclassified roads, skid trails and stumps within Area 2 combined with the increased visibility of the landscape through the loss of live trees gives the viewer the same effects to landscape aesthetics as adjacent burned areas not identified by ONRC as unroaded areas. This area does not have the pristine, wilderness-like appearance associated with unroaded areas. Area 3: Area 3 is outside the Table Visual Corridor. Most of the large diameter trees that were present in Area 3, especially in the Designated Old Growth Area, where were killed by the 2002 fire. Although evidence from past timber harvest activities was not readily apparent in Area 3, the increased visibility of the landscape through the loss of live trees gives the viewer the same effects to landscape aesthetics as adjacent burned areas not identified by ONRC as unroaded areas. This area does not have the pristine, wilderness-like appearance associated with unroaded areas. Characteristic 8 – Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites. Traditional cultural properties or sacred sites are not present in Area 2 or Area 3 (see FEIS, Chapter 3, Cultural Resources Section. Characteristic 9 – Other locally identified unique characteristics. Locally identified unique characteristics are not present in Area 2 or Area 3. Conclusions Based on the 9 characteristics of roadless areas, neither Area 2 nor Area 3 in their current condition is considered to have value for consideration as roadless areas. This document will continue to analyze these areas as their existing land classification. 297 Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Environmental Effects Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Blank page 298 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination CHAPTER 4. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION Preparers and Contributors _______________________ 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 (IDT) Members: Lori Bailey, Botanist – Bachelor of Science in Forest Biology, Utah State University, 1991. Fifteen years of Forest Service experience at the ranger district level in Utah and Oregon, specializing in silviculture, planning, and botany. Shannon Brit, Range Conservationist --Bachelor of Science in Rangeland Management, Oregon State University, 1991. Bachelor of Science Agricultural Education Washington State University, 1986. Fifteen years of Forest Service and Natural Resource Conservation Service experience in Oregon and Washington specializing in rangeland management/soils at the ranger district and field office level. Noelle Colby-Rotell, Writer/Editor—Bachelor of Arts in Communication, Eastern Washington University, 1990. Master of Arts in Communication, Washington State University, 1992. Doctoral student in Communication Psychology. Six years experience as a Public Relations Director in manufacturing. Kim Conlee, Project Engineer – Associate of Art in Civil Engineering Technology, Blue Mountain Community College, 1974. Twenty-nine years of Forest Service experience at the district and forest level in Idaho and Oregon, specializing in management of forest transportation system through project planning, implementation, and monitoring. Ryan Falk, Planner, Acting District Ranger – Bachelor of Science in Forest Management, Utah State University, 1985. Twenty-two years of Forest Service experience at the district level in Oregon, specializing in environmental planning. Mike Feiger, Wildlife Biologist – Bachelor of Science in Wildlife Resources, University of Idaho, 1995. Ten years of Forest Service experience at the ranger district level in Oregon, specializing in fisheries and wildlife habitat inventory and management. Susan Harries, Forestry Technician, Writer/Editor – Bachelor of Science in Forest Management, Colorado State University, 1980. Twenty-five years of Forest Service experience at the ranger district level in Colorado and Oregon, specializing in timber sale preparation. Ken Kincaid, Supervisory Forester – Bachelor of Science in Forestry Resources Management, University of Idaho, 1979. Thirty years of Forest Service experience at the ranger district level in Oregon and Idaho, specializing in silviculture. Rick Larson, Planner– Bachelor of Science in Forestry, Oklahoma State University, 1975. Twenty-seven years of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management experience in Oregon, Washington, and Montana, specializing in forest management/ planning and administration of lands/minerals programs at the ranger district and forest level. 299 Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Alan Miller, Fish Biologist – Bachelor of Science in Fish Science, Oregon State University, 1989. Master of Science, Fish and Water Resources, Oregon State University, 1997. Five years of Forest Service experience at the district and forest level in Oregon, specializing in fisheries management and hydrology. Glenn Miller, Sale Administrator, Logging Systems/Economics – Associate Degree in Forestry, Clatsop Community College, 1967. Thirty-six years of Forest Service experience at the ranger district level in Oregon, specializing in timber sale preparation and timber sale administration. Mary Roberston, Archaeologist – Bachelor of Arts, University of Montana, 1981, Master of Arts/Anthropology, Idaho State University, 2000. Twelve years of Forest Service and National Park Service experience in eastern Oregon, Idaho, New Mexico, California, Wyoming, Arizona, Utah, and Nevada, specializing in cultural resource management. Don Rotell, Archaeologist – Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology, Washington State University, 1992. Ten years of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management experience in eastern Oregon, specializing in cultural resource management. Kristine Shull, Wildlife Biologist - Bachelor of Science in Biological Science, South Dakota State University, 1989. Fifteen years of Forest Service experience at the ranger district level in Oregon, specializing in wildlife habitat inventory and management. Jim Soupir, Hydrological/Soils Technician – Associate of Applied Science, University of Minnesota-Crookston, 1979. Twenty-four years of Forest Service experience at the district level in Oregon and Idaho, specializing in timber sale preparation, silviculture, and hydrology/soils/fisheries. Anthony Starkovich, Fire/Fuels Specialist– Bachelor of Science in Forest Resource Management, University of Idaho, 1994. 15 years of Forest Service experience at the district level in Oregon and Washington, specializing in fire management and forest restoration. Eric Werner, Forester – Bachelor of Science in Forest Resource Management, University of Idaho, 1996. Five years of Forest Service experience at the district level in Oregon, specializing in timber sale preparation and silviculture. Shannon Winegar, Recreation Specialist– Bachelor of Science in Nursing, Eastern Oregon University, 2003 and Associate of Liberal Studies, Eastern Oregon University, 2001. Nineteen years of Forest Service experience at the ranger district level in Oregon specializing in forest recreation management/planning and administration programs. Contributors ____________________________________ The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes, and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental impact statement: MANAGEMENT AND REVIEW: Larry Bright - Threatened and Endangered Species Coordinator Greg Whipple - GIS Dan Bennett - GIS 300 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination Terry Corning-Sevey - GIS Steve Cossette - Forest NEPA Coordinator Jennifer Harris - Public Affairs, Tribal Relations William McArthur – Former Forest Silviculturist Sarah Bush - Fish Biologist Brooks Smith - Prairie City District Ranger Roger Ogden - Regional Appeals Coordinator FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Fisheries (NOAA) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife/Ken Rutherford Oregon Department of Forestry/Russ Lane Grant County/Judge Dennis Reynolds TRIBES: Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Burns Paiute Tribe Public Involvement Summary ______________________ The analysis of the Monument Fire Recovery Project began in October 2002. A Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on March 24, 2003. The project was also listed quarterly in the Schedule of Proposed Activities (SOPA) starting in the Summer/Fall of 2002 and continuing through the Fall/Winter of 2003/2004. A fire recovery open house was held at the Federal Building in John Day on February 13, 2003, and on February 14, 2003, the agency mailed a scoping letter seeking public comment to approximately 130 groups, other agencies, and individuals who had previously shown interest in Malheur National Forest projects. In response to these scoping efforts, written comments were received from 13 interested parties. In addition to comments supporting the project, the District received comments reflecting concerns related to potential adverse impacts on soils, wildlife and aquatic habitat, and economics. Public comments were used in the development of the reasonable range of alternatives and the identification of the significant issues. In July 2003 the Monument Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement was published by the Malheur National Forest, and a Notice of Availability (NOA) was published in the Federal Register by the Environmental Protection Agency on August 3, 2003. A news release announcing the availability of the DEIS was also published in the Blue Mountain Eagle on August 13, 2003. The DEIS was mailed to over 80 individuals, organizations, or agencies, as well as the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and the Burns Paiute Tribe. The DEIS was made available to the public for a 45-day review and comment period which ended on September 23, 2003. Eleven timely comments were received in response to the DEIS (see Table 4-1). Information received from these sources of public involvement was used by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) to help refine and develop this final EIS. 301 Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination Monument Fire Recovery FEIS The IDT reviewed the 11 letters with comments on the DEIS and addressed each substantive comment provided. The 11 letters are disclosed in Response to Comments section in Appendix F of the FEIS. Comments received on the DEIS were assigned a number to track them through the review and response process. Table 4-1 lists those who commented and the tracking number assigned to their letter. Table 4-1: Individuals Who Commented on the Monument DEIS Letter Number Commentor 1 Walt Gentis-Malheur Lumber Company 2 Linda Driskill 3 Doug Heiken-Oregon Natural Resources Council 4 Ken Evans-KLE Enterprises/Malheur Timber Operators, Inc 5 Erin Uhlemann-Northwest Environmental Defense Center 6 Asante Riverwind-League of Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mtn. Biodiversity Project 7 Josh Laughlin-Cascadia Wildlands Project 8 .Dan Becker 9 Dan Bishop-Prairie Wood Products. 10 Preston Sleeger-USDI Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 11 Judith Leckrone – US EPA, Region 10 Distribution of the Final Environmental Impact Statement ______________________________________ In addition to the public involvement described above, copies have been sent to the following Federal agencies, federally recognized tribes, State and local governments, and organizations representing a wide range of views regarding the project. This environmental impact statement has been distributed to individuals who commented on the DEIS or requested a copy of the document. Individuals Linda Driskill William Butler Conrad Bateman Dan Joyce Geraldine Joyce Tony Joyce Mark Joyce 302 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination Organizations, Industry, and Local Agencies Dan Bishop.................. Prairie Wood Products Karen Coulter.............. League of Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mtn. Biodiversity Project Ken Evans .................. KLE Enterprises/Malheur Timber Operators, Inc. Walt Gentis ................. Malheur Lumber Company D. R. Johnson.............. D. R. Johnson Lumber Company Doug Heiken ............... Oregon Natural Resources Council Josh Laughlin .............. Cascadia Wildlands Project Asante Riverwind........ League of Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mtn. Biodiversity Project Erin Uhlemann............ Northwest Environmental Defense Center Thomas Partin ............. American Forest Resource Council Bryan Bird................... Sierra Club National Forest Campaign Oregon State Agencies Department of Fish and Wildlife/Habitat Division/Dave McAllister Planning and Development Section/Parks and Recreation Department Water Resources Department/Rick Bastasch Division of State Lands/John Lilly Department of Geology and Mineral Industries/Dennis Olmstead Department of Environmental Quality Department of Land Conservation and Development/Jim Knight Rural Development Section/Bill Campbell Executive Department/State Economist/Paul Warner Oregon Department of Forestry Tribal Contacts Burns Paiute Tribe/Tribal Chairman/Dean Adams Burns Paiute Tribe/Cultural Res. Program/Charisse Snapp Conf. Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation/Chairman, Board of Trustees/Gary Burke Conf. Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation/Program Mgr., Env. Planning and Rights Protection/Rick George Conf. Tribes of Warm Springs/Tribal Council Chairman/Olney Patt, Jr. Conf. Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation/Princ. Investigator/THPO, Cult. Res. Prog. Mgr./Manfred Jaehnig Conf. Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation/Natural Res. Policy Analyst/Harold Shepard Conf. Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation/Jim Webster Conf. Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation/Heritage/Shaun Steinmetz Conf. Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation/Cultural Res. Program Mgr./Sally Bird Conf. Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation /Fara Ann Currim Conf. Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation /Fish & Wildlife Mgr./Terry Luther Conf. Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation /Clay Penhollow Conf. Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation /Cultural Heritage Committee 303 Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Federal Agencies U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Library (3) OPA Publication Stockroom Director, Environmental Coordination (Chief 1950) (3) USDA Forest Service, Region 6/Environmental Coordination Policy and Planning Division Natural Resource Conservation Service/ Environmental Coordinator of Ecological Sciences Division USDA APHIS TDP/EAD U.S. Department of Commerce Northwest Regional Unit, (Portland, OR) of NOAA Fisheries U.S. Department of the Interior Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance (9) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Environmental Review (5) Region 10 EIS Review Coordinator, Seattle (2) U. S. Department of Defense U. S. Army Engineer, North Pacific, CENPD Naval Oceanography Division, U.S. Naval Observatory U. S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Compliance/Director Northwest Power Planning Council U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Region Federal Highway Administration, Western Resource Center Federal Energy Regulatory Commission/Advisor on Environmental Quality Surface Transportation Board/Chief, Energy and Environment Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Western Office of Review General Services Administration/Office of Planning & Analysis 304 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination Federal, State, and Local Officials Senator Gordon Smith Senator Ron Wyden Representative Greg Walden Governor Ted Kulongoski Governor’s Forest Advisor State Representative Ted Ferrioli Grant County Judge Dennis Reynolds 305 Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Blank Page 306 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Glossary GLOSSARY A Access — The mode by which activities are pursued and how well users can travel to or within the setting. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) — An independent Federal agency that provides a forum for influencing Federal activities, programs, and policies as they affect historic resources. Aquatic (and riparian) health — Aquatic and riparian habitats that support animal and plant communities that can adapt to environmental changes and follow natural evolutionary and biogeographic processes. Healthy aquatic and riparian systems are resilient and recover rapidly from natural and human disturbance. They are stable and sustainable; they maintain their organization and autonomy over time and are resilient to stress. In a healthy aquatic/riparian system, there is a high degree of connectivity from headwaters to downstream reaches, from streams to floodplains, and from subsurface to surface. Floods can spread into floodplains, and fish and wildlife populations can move freely throughout the watershed. Healthy aquatic and riparian ecosystems also maintain long-term soil productivity. Mineral and energy cycles continue without loss of efficiency. Archaeological site — A place that has the potential to yield information important to scientific or scholarly studies of history or prehistory. Area of Potential Effect (APE) — An Area of Potential Effect is the area that contains cultural resources that may reasonably be expected to be impacted by an undertaking. Effects may be physical, visual, auditory, or socio-cultural (King 1998). B Biophysical environment or Bioenvironment — The interaction of climatic factors (moisture and temperature) and soil conditions on the expression of vegetation types and associated habitats. Climatic and soil conditions that result in similar successional pathways, disturbance processes, and associated vegetative/habitat characteristics are referred to as a biophysical environment. C Canopy — In a forest, the branches from the upper-most layer of trees; on rangeland, the vertical projection downward of the aerial portion of vegetation. Canopy closure — The amount of ground surface shaded by tree canopies as seen from above. Used to describe how open or dense a stand of trees is, often expressed in 10% increments. Channel (stream) — The deepest part of a stream or riverbed through which the main current of water flows. Closure — A road management term indicating the road cannot be used by motorized traffic. This limitation can be accomplished by regulation, barricade, or blockage devices. The road can be available for emergency use or permitted use, such as firewood cutting, during dry periods. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) — A codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the Executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government. Competition — An interaction that occurs when two or more individuals make demands of the same resources that are in short supply. Connectivity — The arrangement of habitats that allows organisms and ecological processes to move across the landscape; patches of similar habitats are either close together or linked by corridors of appropriate vegetation; the opposite of a fragmented condition. Corridor (landscape) — Landscape elements that connect similar patches of habitat through an area with different characteristics. For example, streamside vegetation may create a corridor of willows and hardwoods between meadows or through a forest. Cover — (1) Trees, shrubs, rocks, or other landscape features that allow an animal to partly or fully conceal itself. (2) The area of ground covered by plants of one or more species. Cover type — A vegetation classification depicting a genus, species, group of species, or life form of tree, shrub, grass, or sedge; in effect, the present vegetation of an area. Crown — The part of a tree containing live foliage; treetops. Cryptocrystalline silicates (CCS, chert, flint) — Rock with texture consisting of crystals that is too small to be recognized and distinguished under an ordinary microscope. 307 Glossary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS D Decommissioning — Activities to permanently remove a road from the transportation system. The management objective of the activities is to restore the hydrologic function. These activities include, as needed: the removal of drainage structures such as culverts, re-contouring cut and fill slopes, subsoiling, and re-vegetating the old road beds. Density (stand) — The number of trees growing in a given area; usually expressed in terms of trees per acre. Diameter at breast height (DBH) — Diameter of a tree in inches, measured at 4 ½ feet above the root collar on the uphill side of the tree. Disturbance — Refers to events that alter the structure, composition, or function of terrestrial or aquatic habitats. Natural disturbances include, among others, drought, floods, wind, fires, wildlife grazing, and insects and diseases. Human-caused disturbances include, among others, actions such as timber harvest, livestock grazing, roads, and the introduction of exotic species. Down wood — A tree or part of a tree that is dead and laying on the ground. Duff — The partially decomposed organic material of the forest floor that lies beneath freshly fallen leaves, needles, twigs, stems, bark, and fruit. Detrimental soil impacts: - A Forest Plan Standard limits the amount of detrimental soil impacts to 20% of a unit. Detrimental Compaction – An increase in soil bulk density of 20 percent, or more, over the undisturbed level for volcanic ash soils. For all other soils it is an increase in soil bulk density of 15 percent, or more, over the undisturbed level. Assess changes in compaction by sampling bulk density, macro porosity, or penetration resistance in the zone in which change in relatively long term and that is the principal root development zone. This zone is commonly between 4 to 12 inches in depth. Detrimental Displacement – The removal of more than 50 percent of the topsoil or humus enriched horizon from an area of 100 square feet, or more, which is at least 5 feet in width. Detrimental Puddling – When the depth of ruts or imprints is 6 inches or more. Soil deformation and loss of structure are observable and usually bulk density is increased. Detrimental Surface Erosion – Visual evidence of soil loss in areas greater than 100 square feet, rills or gullies and/or water quality degradation from sediment or nutrient enrichment. Detrimental Burned Soil – Top layer of mineral soil has been significantly changed in color, oxidized to a reddish color, and the next one-half inch blackened from organic matter charring by heat conducted through the top layer. The detrimentally burned soil standard applies to an area greater than 100 square feet, which is at least 5 feet in width. E Ecosystem — A complete, interacting system of living organisms and the land and water that make up their environment; the home places of all living things, including humans. Endangered species — Species listed under the Endangered Species Act, that are likely to become extinct within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their range. Environment — The combination of external physical, biological, social, and cultural conditions affecting the growth and development of organisms and the nature of an individual or community. Erosion — The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, gravity, or other geological activities; can be accelerated or intensified by human activities that reduce the stability of slopes or soils. Ethnography — A descriptive, non-interpretive, non-comparable study of another culture. Even-aged stand — Stand of trees in which all the trees are within one year of having been established, or have a narrow range of age classes. F Fire-dependent systems — Forests, grasslands, and other ecosystems historically composed of species of plants that evolved with and are maintained by fire regimes. Fire-intolerant species — Species of plants that do not grow well with or die from the effects of too much fire. Generally these are shade-tolerant species. 308 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Glossary Fire regime — The characteristics of fire in a given ecosystem, such as the frequency, predictability, intensity, and seasonality of fire. Fire return interval — The average time between fires in a given area. Fire-tolerant species — Species of plants that can withstand certain frequency and intensity of fire. Generally these are shade-intolerant species. Floodplain — The portion of river valley or level lowland next to streams, which is covered with water when the river or stream overflows its banks at flood stage. Forage — Vegetation (both woody and non-woody) eaten by animals, especially grazing and browsing animals. Forbs — Broad-leafed plants; includes plants that commonly are called weeds or wildflowers. Forest health — The condition in which forest ecosystems sustain their complexity, diversity, resiliency, and productivity to provide for specified human needs and values. It is a useful way to communicate about the current condition of the forest, especially with regard to resiliency, a part of forest health that describes the ability of the ecosystem to respond to disturbances. Forest health and resiliency can be described, in part, by species composition, density, and structure. Forest Plan (Forest Land and Resource Management Plan) — A document that guides natural resource management and establishes standards and guidelines for a national forest; required by the National Forest Management Act. Fragmentation (habitat) — The break-up of a large land area (such as a forest) into smaller patches isolated by areas converted to a different land type; the opposite of connectivity. Fuel (fire) — Dry, dead parts of trees, shrubs, and other vegetation that can burn readily. Fuel ladder — Vegetative structures or conditions such as low-growing tree branches, shrubs, or smaller trees that allow fire to move vertically from a surface fire to a crown fire. Fuel load — The dry weight of combustible materials per unit area; usually expressed as tons per acre. G Ground fire — A fire that burns the organic material in the soil layer, and the decayed material or peat below the ground surface. H Habitat — A place that provides seasonal or year-round food, water, shelter, and other environmental conditions for an organism, community, or population of plants or animals. Habitat type — A group of plant communities having similar habitat relationships. Harvest — (1) Felling and removal of trees from the forest. (2) Removal of game animals or fish from a population, typically by hunting or fishing. Headwaters — Beginning of a watershed; un-branched tributaries of a stream. Historical Range of Variability (HRV) — The natural fluctuation of ecological and physical processes and functions that would have occurred during a specified period of time. Refers to the range of conditions that are likely to have occurred prior to settlement of the project area by Euro-Americans (approximately the mid 1800s), which would have varied within certain limits over time. HRV is discussed in this document only as a reference point, to establish a baseline set of conditions for which sufficient scientific or historical information is available to enable comparison to current conditions. Historic Property — As defined in the National Historic Preservation Act, any “district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places, including artifacts, records, and material remains related to such a property or resource.” Historic site — A type of cultural resource associated with the historic-era that may possess archaeological values; or may be valued in light of its ability to convey its association with important historic events, people, or architectural/engineering techniques. Historic sites usually must be 50 years of age or more. Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) – The 2- to 8-digit classification dividing the levels of hydrology in the United States. The largest HUC is a region, divided hierarchically into subregions, accounting units, cataloging units, watersheds, and subwatersheds. (Watersheds are fifth-field HUCs; subwatersheds are sixth-field HUCs.) Hunter-gatherers — A term for members of small-scale mobile or semi-sedentary societies, whose subsistence is dependent upon hunting game and gathering wild plants. Hydrophobic Soil - Soil that does not readily absorb water. Hydrophobic soil is highly erodible. It is sometimes formed during sever fire on coarse textured soils. Hydrophobic soil usually returns to a non- hydrophobic condition after one or two winters. 309 Glossary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS I Indicator species — A species that is presumed to be sensitive to habitat changes. Population changes of indicator species are believed to best indicate the effects of land management activities. Intermittent stream — A stream that flows only at certain times of the year, when it receives water from other streams or from surface sources such as melting snow. L Landscape — All the natural features such as grass-lands, hills, forest, and water, which distinguish one part of the earth’s surface from another part; usually that portion of land which the eye can comprehend in a single view, including all its natural characteristics. Large down wood — Logs on the forest floor with a large end diameter of at least 21 inches. Large woody debris (LWD) — Pieces of wood that are of a large enough size to affect stream channel morphology. Late and Old Structural (LOS) Forest — (a) Single stratum with large tree (SSWL) forest refers to mature forest characterized by a single canopy layer consisting of large or old trees. Understory trees are often absent, or present in randomly spaced patches. SSWL generally consists of widely spaced, shade- intolerant species, such as ponderosa pine and western larch, adapted to a low-severity, high-frequency fire regime. (b) Multi-stratum with large tree (MSWL) forest refers to mature forest characterized by two or more canopy layers with generally large or old trees in the upper canopy. Understory trees are also usually present, as a result of a lack of frequent disturbance to the understory. MSWL can include both shade- tolerant and shade-intolerant species, and is generally adapted to a mixed fire regime of both high-severity and low-severity fires. Other characteristics of old forests include: variability in tree size; increasing numbers of snags and coarse woody debris; increasing appearance of decadence, such as broken tops, sparse crowns, and decay in roots and stems; canopy gaps and understory patchiness; and old trees relative to the site and species. Lithic Scatter — A type of archaeological site that consists of surface or buried concentrations of stone waste flakes and tools (Keyser et. al. 1988). Litter — The uppermost layer of organic debris on the soil surface, which is essentially the freshly fallen or slightly decomposed vegetation material such as stems, leaves, twigs, and fruits. M Management direction — A statement of goals and objectives, management prescriptions, and associated standards and guidelines for attaining them. N National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) — A list of significant cultural resources that is maintained by the National Park Service. A “significant” site is a site that has been evaluated as eligible for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places, or its eligibility status is undetermined. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 — “An act to establish a national policy for the environment, to provide for the establishment of a Council on Environmental Quality, and for other purposes.” O Obsidian Hydration — A process in which a volcanic glass absorbs moisture in ever-thickening bands over time. Measurements of hydration bands on archaeological obsidian can indicate how long a surface has been exposed. Obsidian hydration analysis is usually considered a relative dating technique. Ongoing actions — Those actions that have been implemented, or have contracts awarded or permits issued. On-site recreation development — The degree and appropriateness of recreation facilities provided within the setting. P Prescribed fire — Intentional use of fire under specified conditions to achieve specific management objectives. Prescription — A management pathway to achieve a desired objective(s). Productivity — (1) Soil productivity: the capacity of a soil to produce plant growth, due to the soil’s chemical, physical, and biological properties (such as depth, temperature, water-holding capacity, and mineral, nutrient, and organic matter content). (2) Vegetative productivity: the rate of production of vegetation within a given period. (3) General: the innate capacity of an environment to support plant and animal life over time. Proposed Action — A proposal by a federal agency to authorize, recommend, or implement an action. 310 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Glossary R Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) — The Forest Service developed the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) system to help identify, quantify, and describe the variety of recreational settings available in National Forests. The ROS system provides a framework for planning and managing recreation resources. The ROS settings are classified on a scale ranging from primitive to urban. Seven elements are used to determine where the setting belongs on the scale: Recreation Visitor Day (RVD) — One visitor day equals 12 hours (one person for 12 hours, or 12 people for 1 hour, or any combination thereof). Reforestation — Treatments or activities that help to regenerate stands of trees after disturbances such as harvest or wildfire. Typically, reforestation activities include preparing soil, controlling pests, and planting seeds or seedlings. Regeneration — The process of establishing new plant seedlings, whether by natural means or artificial measures (planting). Rehabilitate — To repair and protect certain aspects of a system so that essential structures and functions are recovered, even though the overall system may not be exactly as it was before. Remoteness — The extent to which individuals perceive themselves removed from the sights and sounds of human activity. Resilient, resilience, resiliency — (1) The ability of a system to respond to disturbances. Resiliency is one of the properties that enable the system to persist in many different states or successional stages. (2) In human communities, refers to the ability of a community to respond to externally-induced changes such as larger economic or social forces. Restoration — Holistic actions taken to modify an ecosystem to achieve desired, healthy, and functioning conditions and processes; generally refers to the process of enabling the system to resume acting or continue to act following disturbance, as if the disturbances were absent. Restoration management activities can be either active (such as control of noxious weeds, thinning of over-dense stands of trees, or redistributing roads) or more passive (more restrictive, hands-off management direction that is primarily conservation-oriented). Riparian area — Area with distinctive soil and vegetation between a stream or other body of water and the adjacent upland; includes wetlands and those portions of floodplains and valley bottoms that support riparian vegetation. Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) — Portions of watersheds where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis, and management activities are subject to specific standards and guidelines. Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas include traditional riparian corridors, wetlands, intermittent streams, and other areas that help maintain the integrity of aquatic ecosystems by (1) influencing the delivery of coarse sediment, organic matter, and woody debris to streams; (2) providing root strength for channel stability; (3) providing shading for streams; and (4) protecting water quality. Roaded Modified — A natural environment substantially modified, particularly by vegetation and landform alterations. There is strong evidence of roads and /or highways. Frequency of contact is low to moderate. Roaded Natural — A natural-appearing environment with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of humans. Such evidence usually harmonizes with the natural environment. Interaction between users may be moderate to high, with evidence of other users prevalent. Motorized use is allowed. Rockshelter — A small cave or overhang of rock that affords some degree of protection from the elements, either as a permanent camp or temporary location of activity. S Scoping — The early stages of preparation of an environmental impact statement/ environmental assessment; used to solicit public opinion, receive comments and suggestions, and determine the issues to be considered in the development and analysis of a range of alternatives. Scoping may involve public meetings, telephone conversations, mailings, letters, or other contacts. Sediment — Solid materials, both mineral and organic, in suspension or transported by water, gravity, ice, or air; may be moved and deposited away from their original position and eventually will settle to the bottom. Semi-Primitive Motorized — A natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. Interaction between users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. The opportunity exists to use motorized equipment. 311 Glossary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized — A natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. Concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. Use of local roads for recreational purposes is not allowed. Sensitive species — Species identified by a Forest Service regional forester or BLM state director for which population viability is a concern either (a) because of significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, or (b) because of significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution. Seral — Refers to the stages that plant communities go through during succession. Developmental stages have characteristic structure and plant species composition. Early seral refers to plants that are present soon after a disturbance or at the beginning of a new successional process (such as seedling or sapling growth stages in a forest); mid-seral in a forest would refer to pole or medium sawtimber growth stages; late or old seral refers to plants present during a later stage of plant community succession (such as mature and old forest stages). Seral stage — The developmental phase of a forest stand or rangeland with characteristic structure and plant species composition. Shade-intolerant species — Species of plants that do not grow well in or die from the effects of too much shade. Generally these are fire-tolerant species. Shade-tolerant species — Species of plants that can develop and grow in the shade of other plants. Generally these are fire-intolerant species. Silviculture — The practice of manipulating the establishment, composition, structure, growth, and rate of succession of forests to accomplish specific objectives. Site — A specific location of an activity or project, such as a campground, a lake, or a stand of trees to be harvested. Snag — A standing dead tree, usually larger than five feet tall and larger than six inches in diameter at breast height. Snags are important as habitat for a variety of wildlife species and their prey. Social encounters — The degree of solitude or social opportunities provided. Soil — The earth material that has been so modified and acted upon by physical, chemical, and biological agents that it will support rooted plants. Soil disturbance — Describes effects of the alternatives on soil productivity. Stand — A group of trees in a specific area, that is sufficiently alike in composition, age, arrangement, and condition so as to be distinguishable from the forest in adjoining areas. Stand density — Refers to the number of trees growing in a given area; usually expressed in trees per acre. Stand structure — The size and arrangement, both vertically and horizontally, of vegetation. Forested vegetation is classified into 7 different structural stages: Stand Initiation – When land is occupied by trees following a stand-replacing disturbance. Stem Exclusion Open Canopy – Forested areas where the occurrence of new trees is predominantly limited by moisture. Stem Exclusion Closed Canopy – Forested areas where the occurrence of new trees is predominately limited by light. Understory Reinitiation – When a second generation of trees is established under an older, typically seral, overstory. Young-Forest Multistory – Stand development resulting from frequent harvest or lethal disturbance to the overstory. Old-Forest Multistory – Forested areas lacking frequent disturbance to understory vegetation. Old-Forest Single-Story – Forested areas resulting from frequent non-lethal prescribed or natural underburning, or other management. The abundance and distribution of these forest structures provides the basis for evaluation of the historic range of variability (HRV) of structural conditions, providing insight to the interaction of disturbance processes and associated structural and compositional conditions of forested landscapes. 312 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Glossary State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) — The agency that represents the interests of the state in historic preservation and cultural resources. Federal land managers are required by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, to consult with the SHPO during land management planning. Structure — The size and arrangement, both vertically and horizontally, of vegetation. Structural stage — A stage of development of a vegetation community, that is classified on the dominant processes of growth, development, competition, and mortality. Subwatershed — A drainage area of approximately 20,000 acres, equivalent to a 6th-field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC). Hierarchically, subwatersheds (6th-field HUC) are contained within a watershed (5th- field HUC), which in turn is contained within a subbasin (4th-field HUC). T Terrestrial — Pertaining to the land. Terrestrial communities — Groups of cover types with similar moisture and temperature regimes, elevational gradients, structures, and use by vertebrate wildlife species. Thermal cover — Cover used by animals to protect them against weather. Thinning — An operation to remove stems from a forest for the purpose of reducing fuel, maintaining stand vigor, regulating stand density/composition, or for other resource benefits. Although thinning can result in commercial products, thinning generally refers to non-commercial operations. Threatened species — Species listed under the Endangered Species Act, that are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their range. U Underburn — To burn by a surface fire that can consume ground vegetation and ladder fuels. Understory — Plants that grow beneath the canopy of other plants. Usually refers to grasses, forbs, and low shrubs under a tree or shrub canopy. Uneven-aged stand — Stand of trees in which there are considerable differences in the ages of individual trees. Upland — The portion of the landscape above the valley floor or stream. V Viability — In general, viability means the ability of a population of a plant or animal species to persist for some specified time into the future. For planning purposes, a viable population is one that has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals, to ensure that its continued existence will be well-distributed in the planning area. Visitor impacts — The degree of impact on both the attributes of the setting and other visitors within the setting. Visitor management — The degree and appropriateness of how visitor actions are managed and serviced. Visual quality — The degree of apparent modification of the natural landscape. W Watershed — (1) The region draining into a river, river system, or body of water. (2) A watershed also refers specifically to a drainage area of approximately 50,000 to 100,000 acres, which is equivalent to a 5th-field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC). Hierarchically, subwatersheds (6th-field HUC) are contained within a watershed (5th-field HUC), which in turn is contained within a subbasin (4th-field HUC). Wetland — In general, an area soaked by surface or groundwater frequently enough to support vegetation that requires saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction; generally includes swamps, marshes, springs, seeps, bogs, wet meadows, mudflats, natural ponds, and other similar areas. Legally, federal agencies define wetlands as possessing three essential characteristics: (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology. The three technical characteristics specified are mandatory and must all be met for an area to be identified as a wetland. Hydrophytic vegetation is defined as plant life growing in water, soil, or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content. Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic (without oxygen) conditions in the upper part of the soil profile. Generally, for soil to be considered hydric, it must be saturated at temperatures above freezing for at least seven days. Wetland hydrology is defined as permanent or periodic inundation, or soil saturation to the surface, at least seasonally. Wildfire — A human-caused or naturally-caused fire that does not meet land management objectives. 313 Glossary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS 314 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS References REFERENCES References Cited Amaranthus, M.P., D.S. Parris and D.A. Perry. 1989. Decaying Logs as Moisture Reservoirs after Drought and Wildfire. Proceedings from Watershed 1989: A Conference on the Stewardship of Soil, Air and Water Resources. U.S. Department of Agriculture: Forest Service, Alaska Region. Amaranthus, M.P.; Molina R.; and Trappe J. M. 1990. Long-Term Forest Productivity and the Living Soil. Chapter 3. In D.A. Perry, eds. Maintaining Long-Term Forest Productivity in the Pacific Northwest Forest Ecosystem. Timber Press. Portland, Oregon 97208. Bailor, T. 1993. The Awake Cultural Resource Inventory Survey Report. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur National Forest. Beckley, T. 1998. The (F)utility of “Community Sustainability” in an Inter-dependent World. Ecoforestry: 34-40. Beechie, T.J. and T.H. Sibley. 1997. Relationships Between Channel Characteristics, Woody Debris, and Fish Habitat in Northeastern Washington Streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126: 217-229. Bengston, D.N; D.P. Fan and D.N. Celarier. 1999. A New Approach to Monitoring the Social Environment for Natural Resource Management and Policy: The Case of U.S. National Forest Benefits and Values. Journal of Environmental Management 56: 181-193. Bergstrom, J.C. and J.B. Loomis. 1999. Economic Dimensions of Ecosystem Management. In Cordell, H.K. and J.C. Bergstrom, eds. Integrating Social Sciences in Ecosystem Management. Sagamore Press. Beschta, R.L. and others. 1995. Wildfire and Salvage Logging: Recommendations for Ecologically Sound Post-Fire Salvage Logging and Other Post-Fire Treatments on Federal Lands in the West. Oregon State University. Booth, D.B. and C. R. Jackson. 1997. Urbanization of Aquatic Systems: Degradation Thresholds, Stormwater Detention, and the Limits of Mitigation. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 22(5): 1-19. Botkin, D.B. 1990. Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-First Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bowers, W.L., P.A. Dupee, M. L. Hanson and R.R. Perkins. 1993. [Unpublished Report]. Bull Trout Population Summary Malheur River Basin. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Hines, Oregon. Brady, N.C. 1974. The Nature and Properties of Soils. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc. 341 pp. Bright, A.D.,K.H. Cordell, A.P. Hoover and M.A. Tarrant. 1999. Guidelines for Conducting Social Assessments Within the Human Dimension Framework. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Brooks, P. K. Urban and G. Yates. 1991. Sensitive Plants of the Malheur, Ochoco, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. General Technical Report, R6- 315 Glossary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS WAW-TP-040-92. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Brown, J.K., E.D. Reinhard, and K.A. Kramer. 2003. Coarse Woody Debris: Managing Benefits and Fire Hazard in the Recovering Forest. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Brown, J.K., E.D. Reinhardt and KA. Kramer. 2001. Coarse Woody Debris and Succession in the Recovering Forest. Internal Memorandum, USDA Forest Service. Brown, J.K., K. Snell and D.L. Bunnell. 1977. Handbook for Predicting Slash Weight of Western Conifers. General Technical Report, INT-37. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 35pp. Brown, J.K. and J.K. Smith, eds. 2000. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Flora. General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 257 pp. Brunson, M.W. and J.J. Kennedy. 1995. Redefining “Multiple Use”: Agency Response to Changing Social Values. In: Knight, R.L. and S.F. Bates, eds. A New Century for Natural Resource Management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Buchanan, D.V. and S.V. Gregory. 1997. Development of Water Temperature Standards to Protect and Restore Habitat for Bull Trout and Other Cold Water Species in Oregon. In W.C. Mackay, M.K. Brewinand and M. Monita eds, Proceedings of the Friends of the Bull Trout Conference. Calgary, Alberta pp. 119-126. Buchanan, D.V., M. L. Hanson and R. M. Hooten. 1997. Status of Oregon's Bull Trout. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, Oregon. Buckman, R.C., W.E. Hosford, and P.A. Dupee. 1992. Malheur River Bull Trout Investigations. In Howell, P.J. and D.V. Buchanan, eds. Proceedings of the Gearheart Mountain Bull Trout Workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, Oregon. Pp. 45-57. Bull, E.L. and R. Holthausen. 1993. Habitat Use and Management of Pileated Woodpeckers in Northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 57 (2): 335-345. Burns Paiute Tribe. 2001. Comment Letter on the Silvies Canyon Watershed Restoration Project Draft EIS. Natural Resource Programs. Burns, Oregon. Burns Paiute Tribe Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2000. Evaluation of the life history of native salmonids in the Malheur River basin (BPA project 9701900/9701901): FY1999 annual report. Burns, OR. Burtchard, G.C. 1998. Environment, Prehistory, and Archaeology of John Day Fossil Beds National Monument. General Technical Report, Seattle Washington: United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Seattle. Prepared by Honolulu: International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc Blue Mountain Region, North Central Oregon. Caton, E. 1998. Effects of Fire and Salvage Logging on a Cavity-Nesting Bird Community in Fire and Wildlife in the Pacific Northwest: Research, Policy, and Management. The Wildlife Society Symposium, Northwest Secion. p. 78. Cinnamon, S.K., N.C. Johnson, G. Super, J. Nelson and D. Loomis. 1999. Shifting Human Use and Expected Demands on Natural Resources. In Sexton, W.T, A.J. 316 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS References Malk, R.C. Szaro and N.C. Johnson, eds. Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference for Ecosystem Management. 3: 327-343. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. 2000. Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit (Spirit of the Salmon). The Columbia River Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan of the Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Yakima Tribes. www.critfc.org/text/TRP.HTM Committee of Scientists. 1999. Sustaining the People’s Lands: Recommendations for Stewardship of the National Forests and Grasslands into the Next Century. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture. Cordova, J.J. 1995. Streamside Forests, Channel Constraint, Large Woody Debris Characteristics, and Pool Morphology in Low Order Streams, Blue Mountains, Oregon. M.S. Theis. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University. Couture, M.D. 1986. Foraging Behavior of a Contemporary Northern Great Basin Population. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 8: 150-160. Crone, L.K. and R.W. Haynes. 1999. Revised Estimates for Direct-Effect Recreational Jobs in the Interior Columbia River Basin. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR- 483. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Crone, L.K., R.W. Haynes, and N.E. Reyna. 1999. Different Perspectives on Economic Base. General Technical Report, PNW-RN-538. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Dambacher, J.M., K.K. Jones [In Press]. Benchmarks and Patterns of Abundance of Redband Trout (Oncorhyncus mykiss ssp.) in Oregon Streams. Proceedings of the 1996 Redband Trout Workshop, Malheur Field Station, Oregon, Washington. Danks, C. and L. Jungwirth. 1999. Community-Based Socioeconomic Assessment and Monitoring of Activities Related to National Forest Management. Hayfork, California: Watershed Research and Training Center, Working Paper Series. Davis, Hibbitts, & McCaig, Inc. 2001. What Do Oregonians Value about Their Forests? Salem, Oregon: Oregon Department of Forestry. Dean Runyan Associates. 2001. Oregon Travel Impacts. Vol. 1991-2000. Prepared for the Oregon Tourism Commission. Salem, Oregon. DeBano, L.F., D.G. Neary and P.F. Folliott. 1998. Fire’s Effects on Ecosystems. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Driver, B.L., D. Dustin, T. Baltic, G. Elsner and G. Peterson. 1996. Nature and the Human Spirit: Overview. In Nature and the Human Spirit: Toward an Expanded Land Management Ethic. State College, Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing, Inc. Ehringer, P.F. & Associates. 2001. Columbia Basin Socio-Economic Assessment – Phase II Forest Products Data: 1989-2000. Idaho Rural Partnership, Montana Department of Commerce, Oregon Economic & Community Development Department, Washington Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development. Elliot, W.J., D.L. Scheele and D.E. Hall. 2000. The Forest Service WEPP Interfaces. ASAE Paper No. 005021. Presented at the 2000 ASAE Annual International Meeting, July 9-12, 2000. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. St. Joseph, Michigan: American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 8p. Emery, M.R. 1999. Social Values of Specialty Forest Products to Rural Communities. In S. Josiah, ed. Proceedings of the North American Conference on Enterprise 317 Glossary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Development Through Agroforestry: Farming the Forest for Specialty Products. St. Paul, Minnesota: University of Minnesota. 11 pp. Environmental Assessment for the Interim Strategies for Managing Fish-Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, Western Montana, and Portions of Nevada (INFISH). 1995. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. EPA Region 10 guidance for Pacific Northwest State and Tribal Temperature Water Quality Standards. General Technical Report, EPA 910-B-03-002. Seattle, Washington: Region 10 Office of Water. Everett, R. 1995. Review of Beschta Document. Internal Memorandum, USDA Forest Service. Ewert, A.W. 1999. Managing for the New Forest Visitor: The Impact of Changing Demographic Variables. In: Aley, J, W.R. Burch, B. Conover and D. Field, eds. Ecosystem Management: Adaptive Strategies for Natural Resources Organizations in the Twenty-First Century. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Taylor and Francis. pp. 25-32. Fight, D.R., L.E. Kruger, C. Hansen-Murray, A. Holden and D. Bays. 2000. Understanding Human Uses and Values in Watershed Analysis. General Technical Report, GTR-PNW-489. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Fire Effect Information System (FEIS). 2002. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (2002, April). Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [01 April 2002]. Flather, C.H.; and T.W. Hoekstra, 1989. An Analysis of the Wildlife and Fish Situation in the United States: 1989-2040. General Technical Report, RM-178. Fort Collins, Colorado: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Floyd, D.W., ed. 1999. Forest of Discord. Bethesda, Maryland: Society of American Foresters. Fraley, J.J. and B.B. Shepard. 1989. Life History, Ecology and Population Status of Migratory Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Flathead Lake river System, Montana. Northwest Science 63(4): 133-143. Galliano, S.J. and G. Loeffler. 1999. Place Assessment: How People Define Ecosytems. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Garcia, M.T. 1999. Hispanic Perspectives and Values. In Driver, B.L, D. Dustin, T. Baltic, G. Elsner and G. Peterson, eds. Nature and the Human Spirit: Toward an Expanded Land Management Ethic. State College, Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing, Inc. Gilligan, J., M.D. Smith and D. Rogers. 1994. Birds of Oregon Status and Distribution. Portland Oregon: Cinclus Publications. 330pp. Goetz, F. 1989. Biology of the Bull Trout, Salvelinus Confluentus: A Literature Review. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Willamette National Forest. Graham, R.T, A.E. Harvey, T.B. Jain, and J.R. Tonn. 1999. The Effects of Thinning and Similar Stand Treatments on Fire Behavior in Western Forests. General 318 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS References Technical Report, PNW-GTR-463. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Hadfield, J.S., R.W. Magelssen, R.W. 1996-2000. Wood Changes in Fire-Killed Eastern Washington Tree Species- First through Fifth Year Progress Reports. Wenatchee, WA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest, Wenatchee Service Center. Hanson, M.L., R.C. Buckman, W.E. Hosford and others. 1990. Malheur River Basin Fish Management Plan. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Hines, Oregon. Hanzel, D.A. 1986. Seasonal Area and Depth Distribution of Cuthroat, Bull Trout (Dolly Varden) and Lake Trout in Flathead Lake. Progress Report, F-33-R-20, Job I-a. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Kalispell, Montana. Harney County Chamber of Commerce. 1998-2000. Visitor Logs. Harris, C., G. Brown and B. McLaughlin. 1996. Rural Communities in the Inland Northwest: Characteristics of Small Towns in the Interior and Upper Columbia River Basins: An Assessment of the Past and Present. Final Report Parts 1 & 2 Submitted to the Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Harvey, A.E., M.J. Larsen, and M.F. Jurgensen. 1979. Fire-decay: Interactive roles regulating wood accumulation and soil development in the Rocky Mountains. Haynes, R.W. and A.L. Horne. 1997. Economic Assessment of the Basin. In Quigley, T.M. and S.J. Arbelbide, eds. An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great basins: Volume IV. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Hemmingsen, A.R.B., B.L. Bellerud, S.L.Gunckel, and P.J. Howell. 2001. Bull Trout Life History, Genetics, Habitat Needs, and Limiting Factors in Central and Northeastern Oregon, 1998 Annual Report. Project Number 199405400, Bonneville Power Adminstration, Portland, Oregon. Heyerdahl, E.K. and J.K. Agee. 1996. Historical Fire Regimes of Four Sites in the Blue Mountains, Oregon and Washington. University of Washington: MA Thesis. Hitchcock, C.L.; A. Cronquist, M. Ownbey and J.W. Thompson. 1969. Vascular Plants of the Pacific Northwest, Parts 1-5. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington Press. Horne, A.L. and R.W. Haynes. 1999. Developing Measures of Socioeconomic Resiliency in the Interior Columbia Basin. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-453. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Hovee, E.D. and Company. 1995. Eastside Ecosystem Management Project: Communities of Interest and Their Social Values. Walla Walla Washington: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Eastside Ecosystem Management Project. Johnson, C. 1999. Participation Differences Among Social Groups. In Cordell, H.K., principal investigator. Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends. Champaign, Illinois: Sagamore Press. pp. 248-268. 319 Glossary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Johnson, C.G., Jr. 1998. Vegetation Response After Wildfires in National Forests of Northeastern Oregon. General Technical Report, R6-NR-ECOL-TP-06-98. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Johnson, C.G., Jr. and. R.R. Clausnitzer. 1992. Plant Association of the Blue and Ochoco Mountains. R6-ERW-TP-036-92. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Keyser, J.D., T.L. Burge and D.M. Fleming. 1988. Management Strategy for Treatment of Lithic Scatter Sites. Studies in Cultural Resource Management No. 7. Oregon and Washington: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region and United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. King, T.F. 1998. Cultural Resource Laws and Practice, An Introductory Guide. Alta Mira Press. Kline, J.D. 2001. Tourism and Natural Resource Management: A General Overview of Research and Issues. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-506. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Klock, G.O. 1975. Impact of Five Postfire Salvage Logging Systems on Soils and Vegetation. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 30(2): 78-81. Kohrman, E.B. 2003. Recovery Efforts 2002 Fires – Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Social and Economic Conditions. John Day, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur National Forest. 42 pp. Kreisel, K.J. and S.J. Stein. 1998. Effects of Fire and Salvage Logging on a Cavity- Nesting Bird Community in Fire and Wildlife in the Pacific Northwest, Research, Policy, and Management. The Wildlife Society Symposium, Northwest Secion. pp. 79-84. Laverty, L. and J. Williams. 2000. Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire- Adapted Ecosystems: A Cohesive Strategy. The Forest Service Management Response to the General Accounting Office Report, GAO/RCED-99-65, October 13, 2000. LeVan, S.L. 1998. Biomass Utilization for Forest Health and Community Development. BioEnergy’98: Expanding BioEnergy Partnerships. www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf1998/levan98a.pdf Linderman, C.A. 1992. [Unpublished] The Effects of Fire on Obsidian Artifacts: A Problem in Hydration Dating in a Woodland Environment. Eugene, Oregon: Senior Honors Paper, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon. Lipsey, R. and P. Steiner. 1981. Economics (6th ed.). New York, New York: Harper and Row Publishers. Loomis, J.B. and R. Richardson. 2000. Economic Values of Protecting Roadless Areas in the United States. Washington, D.C.: The Wilderness Society and Heritage Forest Campaign. Ludlow, K, Recreation Staff. 2001. [Personal communication]. On file in the administrative record. Martin, A. 1985. Reproduction of Bull Trout. In D.D. MacDonald ed, Proceedings of the Flathead River Basin Bull Trout Biology and Population Dynamics Modeling Information Exchange. Fisheries Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Cranbrook, British Columbia. pp. 99-101. 320 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS References McArthur, W.L. 2002. Noxious Weeds. Specialist Report, Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation, Monument Fire. John Day, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur National Forest. McAvoy, L. and Lais, G. 1999. Hard-To-Define Values and Persons with Disabilities. In Driver, B.L., D. Dustin, T. Baltic, G. Elsner and G. Peterson. 1996. Nature and the Human Spirit: Toward an Expanded Land Management Ethic. State College, Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing, Inc. McConnell, L. 1991. Forest Service Desk Guide to Tribal Government Relations. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. McGinnis, W.J., R.H. Phillips and K.P. Connaughton. 1996. County Portraits of Oregon and Northern California. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. McGranahan, D.A. 1999. Natural Amenities Drive Rural Population Change. Agricultural Economic Report No. 781. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Food and Rural Economics Division. Miller, M. 2000. RMRS-GTR-42-vol 2. “Wildland Fire in Ecosystems, Effects of Fire on Flora,” Chapter 2: Fire Autoecology. Minshall, G.W., D.A. Andrews, J.T. Brock, C.T. Robinson, and D.E. Lawrence. 1990. Changes in Wild Trout Habitat Following a Forest Fire. In: F. Richardson and R.H. Hamre, eds. Wild Trout IV: Proceedings of the Symposium. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Moseley, C. and S. Shankle. 2001. Who Gets the Work? An Analysis of Contracting on National Forest Lands in the Pacific Northwest. College of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Florida. Murphy, M.L. and K.V. Koski. 1989. Input and Depletion of Woody Debris in Alaska Streams and Implications for Streamside Management. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 9:427-436. Nelson, J.R. 1985. Rare Plant Surveys: Techniques for Impact Assessment. Natural Areas Journal 5(3): 18-30. Niemi, E. and E. Whitelaw. 1999. Assessing Economic Tradeoffs in Forest Management. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-403. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board. 1999. Northwest Tribal Recruitment Projects. 1999. Burns Paiute Tribal Profile. www.npaihb.org/profiles/burns.html Novak, M.A., and R.G. White. 1990. Impact of a Fire and Flood on the Trout population of Beaver Creek, Upper Missouri Basin, Montana. In: Richardson, F. and R.H. Hamre, eds. Wild Trout IV: Proceedings of the Symposium. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Olsen, D., J. Richards and D.R. Scott. 1991. Existence and Sport Values for Doubling the Size of Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead Runs, Rivers 2(1): 44-56. Olson, D.L. 2000. Fire in Riparian Zones: a Comparison of Historical Fire Occurrence in Riparian and Upslope Forests in the Blue Mountains and Southern Cascades of Oregon. M.S. Theisis. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Oregon Department of Tourism. 2001. A Study: The Economic Value of Scenic Byways. Presentation at Oregon Scenic Byways Workshop. Bend, Oregon: Scenic Byways Resource Center. 321 Glossary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Oregon Department of Transportation. 2001. Official State Map. Salem, Oregon. Oregon Employment Department. 1998. Hispanics in Oregon’s Workforce. Salem, Oregon: Workforce Analysis. Oregon Employment Department. 2000. Oregon Employer Survey. Oregon Employment Department. 1999-2003. Oregon Labor Market Information System. www.olmis.org Oregon Employment Department. 2003. Eastern Oregon Labor Trends (March). Salem, Oregon. 11 pp. Oregon Employment Department. 2003a. Eastern Oregon Labor Trends. Salem, Oregon (April). 14 pp. Oregon Natural Heritage Program. 2001. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Animals of Oregon. Portland, Oregon: Oregon Natural Heritage Program. 94 pp. Otani, W. and others. 1996. Bridging the Communication Gap: The APAEA Demonstration (video). Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Parker, P.L. and T.F. King. 1998. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin 38. Washington D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places. Parks, C.G. and C.L. Schmitt. 1997. Wild Edible Mushrooms in the Blue Mountains: Resource and Issues. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-393. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 22 pp. Perkins, R. 1999. Malheur River Bull Trout Population Status: 1999. ODFW Special Report, Southeastern Fisheries District, Ontario, Oregon. Perkins, R. 1998. Malheur River Bull Trout Population Status: 1998. ODFW Special Report, Southeastern Fisheries District, Ontario, Oregon. Peterson, G. and C. Sorg. 1987. Toward the Measurement of Total Economic Value. Fort Collins, Colorado: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Powell, D. 1999. Suggested Stocking Levels for Forest Stands in Northeastern Oregon and Southeastern Washington: An Implementation Guide for the Umatilla National Forest. General Technical Report, F14-SO-TP-03-99. Pendleton, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Umatilla National Forest. Quigley, T.M. and S.J. Arbelbide, eds. Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Volume IV. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Raettig, T.L. 1999. Trends in Key Economic and Social Indicators for Pacific Northwest States and Counties. PNW-GTR-474. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Randall, A. 1992. A Total Value Framework for Benefit Estimation. In Peterson, G.L., C.S. Swanson, D.W. McCollum and M.H. Thomas eds.Valuing Wildlife Resources in Alaska. Boulder CO: Westview Press. pp. 87-111. Ratliff, D.E. and P.J. Howell. 1992. The Status of Bull Trout Populations in Oregon. In Howell, P.J. and D.V. Buchanan, eds. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull 322 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS References Trout Workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, Oregon. pp. 10-17. Reiman, B.E., and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and Habitat Requirements for Conservation of Bull Trout. General Technical Report, INT-302. Boise, Idaho: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Reyna, N.E., R.H. Phillips, G.W. Williams. 1998. Economic and Social Conditions of Communities: Economic and Social Characteristics of Interior Columbia Basin Communities and an Estimation of Effects on Communities from the Alternatives of the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin Draft Environmental Impact Statements. Walla Walla, Washington: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. Rinne, J.N. 1996. Short-Term Effects of Wildfire on Fishes and Aquatic Macroinvertebrates: Southwestern United States. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:653-658. Rose, C. L., B. Marcot, K. Mellen, J. Ohmann, K. Waddell, D. Lindley and B. Schreiber. 2001. Decaying Wood in Pacific Northwest Forests: Concepts and Tools for Haibtat Management in Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. 736 pp. Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO. Rothermel, R.C. 1983. How to Predict the Spread and Intensity of Forest and Range Fires. Genteral Technical Report, INT-143. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: Ogden, Utah, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 161 p. Rudzitis,G., C. Watrous and H. Johansen. 1995. Public Views on Public Lands: A Survey of Interior Columbia River Basin Residents. The Migration, Regional Development, and Changing American West Project. Moscow, Idaho: University of Idaho. Ruggiero, Leonard F., K.G. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the Western United States. General. Technical. Report, RM-254. U.S. Fort Collins, Colorado: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station. Sanders, K.D. 2000. [Unpublished report]. How Long Should Rangelands be Rested from Livestock Grazing Following Fire: A Viewpoint. Moscow, Idaho: University of Idaho. Schlosser, W.E. and K.A. Blatner. 1994. Special Forest Products: An Eastside Perspective. Prepared for Eastside Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. Schmitt, C.L., L.H. Spiegel. 2002. Technical Assistance: Flagtail Fire Tree Recovery Potential Review. Code 3420. John Day, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur National Forest. Scott, D., C.L Schmitt, L.H. Spiegel. 2002. Factors Affecting Survival of Fire Injured Trees: A Rating System for Determining Relative Probability of Survival of Conifers in the Blue and Wallowa Mountains. BMPMSC-03-01. LaGrande, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Lab. 323 Glossary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Scott, D., Szymoniak and Rockwell. 1996. Entomological Concerns Regarding Burn Characteristics and Fire Effects on Tree Species During Prescribed Landscape Burns: Burn Severity Guidelines and Mitigation Measures to Minimize Fire Injuries. BMZ-97-1. Shepard, B., K.L. Pratt and P. Graham. 1984. Life History of Westslope Cutthroat and Bull Trout in the Upper Flathead River Basin, Montana. Kalispell, Montana: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Skinner, C.E., J.J. Thatcher, and M.K. Davis. 1997. X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis and Obsidian Hydration Rim Measurement of Artifact Obsidian from 35-DS-193 and 35-DS-201, Surveyor Fire Rehabilitation Project, Deschutes National Forest, Oregon. Report 1996-33 prepared for the Deschutes National Forest, Bend, Oregon, by Northwest Research Obsidian Studies Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon. Society of American Foresters. 1989. Community Stability. Bethesda, Maryland: Society of American Foresters Resource Policy Series. 42. pp. Soucie, M. 1990-1998. Burns Paiute Tribe [Personal communication]. On file in the administrative record. Southwick and Associates. Undated. Value of Roadless Areas. Steel, B.S., P. List and B. Shindler. 1994. Conflicting Values About Federal Forests: A Comparison of National and Oregon Publics. Society and Natural Resources 7: 137-153. Steffen, Anastasia. 2002. The Dome Fire Pilot Project: Extreme Obsidian Fire Effects in the Jemez Mountains. In J. Loyd, T. Origer and D. Fredrickson, eds. The Effect of Fire and Heat on Obsidian. Suphan, R. J. 1974. Ethnological Report on the Umatilla, Walla Walla, and Cayuse Indians. In Oregon Indians II. Garland, New York, and London. pp. 88-182. Swanson, C. and J.B. Loomis. 1996. Role of Nonmarket Economic Values in Benefit- Cost Analysis of Public Forest Management. General Technical Report, PNW- GTR-361. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Talberth J. and K. Moskowitz. 1999. The Economic Case against National Forest Logging. Santa Fe, New Mexico: National Forest Alliance. Thiesfield, S.L., A.M. Stuart, D.E. Ratliff and B.D. Lampman. 1996. Migration patterns of adult bull trout in the Metolius River and Lake Billy Chinook, Oregon. Informational Report. Portland, Oregon: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Thomas, S. 1991. Malheur National Forest Cultural Resource Inventory Plan. John Day, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Malheur National Forest. Traylor, D., L. Hubbell, N. Wood, and B. Fiedler. Southwest Cultural Resources Center Professional Paper No. 28. Santa Fe, New Mexico: United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. pp. 174-180. Trembour, F.N. 1990. Appendix F: A Hydration Study of Obsidian Artifacts, Burnt vs. Unburnt by the La Mesa Forest Fire. In the 1977 La Mesa Fire Study: Investigation of Fire and Fire Suppression Impacts on Cultural Resources in Bandelier National Monument. USDA, Forest Service. 1967. Fish Habitat Management Plan: Prairie City, Oregon: Malheur National Forest USDA, Forest Service. 1988. Economic and Social Analysis Handbook, FSH 1909.17. Washington, D.C. 324 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS References USDA, Forest Service. 1990. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan, Appendices-Volume 1, Malheur National Forest; Malheur Forest Plan as amended by the Regional Forester’s Amendment No. 2 (June 1995). USDA, Forest Service. 1990. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan, Appendices-Volume 1, Umatilla National Forest. USDA, Forest Service. 1990. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan, Appendices-Volume 1, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. USDA, Forest Service. 1990. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Primer and Field Guide. USDA, Forest Service. 1990. Timber Sale Preparation Handbook, FSH 2409.18. Washington, D.C. USDA, Forest Service. 1990. Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA, Forest Service. 1993. FEMAT Report, Forest Ecosystem Management: Ecological, Economic and Social Assessment. Portland, Oregon. USDA, Forest Service. 1993. Social Impact Analysis Course 1900-3. Washington, D.C. USDA, Forest Service. 1996. Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Portland, Oregon: Pacific Northwest Research Station. USDA, Forest Service. 1997. Monitoring and Evaluation Report, Fiscal Year 1996, Umatilla National Forest, Forest Plan. USDA, Forest Service. 1998. 1997 Monitoring and Evaluation Report for the National Forests of the Blue Mountains, Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. USDA, Forest Service. 1998. Economic and Social Conditions of Communities: Economic and Social Characteristics of Interior Columbia Basin Communities and an Estimation of Effects on Communities from the Alternatives of the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin Draft Environmental Impact Statements. USDA, Forest Service. 1999. A Social Assessment for the Proposed Mill Creek Timber Sales and Related Projects. Umpqua National Forest. USDA, Forest Service. 1999. Demographics and Natural Resources. Washington, D.C.: Programs and Legislation. USDA, Forest Service. 1999.Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant List. Portland, Oregon: Pacific Northwest Region. USDA, Forest Service. 2000. Socioeconomic Specialist Report, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Roadless Area Conservation. Washington D.C. USDA, Forest Service. 2000. Strategic Plan. Washington, D.C. USDA, Forest Service. 2001. Contract Summary for Malheur National Forest FY 2000. John Day, Oregon: Malheur National Forest. USDA, Forest Service. 2001. Employment, Income, Program Level Account Timber Sale Program (TSPIRS). USDA, Forest Service. 2001. Malheur National Forest Local Contractor Economic Overview 1998-2000 (Grant & Harney Counties). John Day, Oregon: Malheur National Forest. USDA, Forest Service. 2001. Restoration Strategy. LaGrande, Oregon: Blue Mountains Demonstration Area. 325 Glossary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS USDA, Forest Service. 2002. Blue Mountains Demonstration Area. Assessment of Timber Availability from Forest Restoration within the Blue Mountains of Oregon. 25 pp. USDA, Forest Service. 2002. Malheur National Forest BAER team specialist report: soils, hydrology, and fisheries. Malheur National Forest, John Day, OR. www.fs.fed.us/bluemountains/docs/veg-assess/vegetative-assessment-results.pdf USDA, Forest Service. 2002. Final Report, Land Management Recommendations Related to the Value of Low Road Density Areas in the Conservation of Listed Salmon, Steelhead, and Bull Trout and the FS Memorandum, Road Density Analysis Team Final Report, April, 3, 2002. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2001. Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics 2000. Economic and Statistics Administration. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2003. www.census.gov U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2003. American Fact Finder [Electronic Database]. www.factfinder.census.gov Volk, T. 1991. Commercial Picking in Eastern Oregon. Mushroom: The Journal of Wild Mushrooming 34: 10 (1): 19. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 2003. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Monument Fire Recovery Project. Walstad, J.D., S.R. Radosevich and D.V. Sandberg. 1990. Natural and Prescribed Fire in Pacific Northwest Forests. OSU Press: 27. Ward, F.R., G.J. Lettman and B.A. Hiserote. 2000. Oregon’s Forest Products Industry: 1998. Portland, Oregon: Oregon Department of Forestry and United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Weaver, T.M. and R.G. White. 1985. Coal Creek fisheries monitoring study No. III. Quarterly progress report. Montana State Cooperative Fisheries Research Unit, Bozeman, Montana. Weigand, J.F., E. Jones and R. McLain. 1999. [Unpublished draft]. U.S. Non-Timber Forest Products Assessment: Introduction/Assessment Themes. Draft. www.ifcae.org/ntfp/publications/assessments/introductions.html Wilde, J.D. 1985. Prehistoric Settlements in the Northern Great Basin: Excavations and Collections Analysis in the Steens Mountain Area, Southeastern Oregon. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon. Williams, D.R.; and S.I. Stewart. 1998. Sense of Place, An Elusive Concept that is Finding a Home in Ecosystem Management. Journal of Forestry 98 (5): 18-23. Yohannan, J. 2001. Grant County Economic Overview, presentation to Oregon Rural Development Council. LaGrande, Oregon: Oregon Department of Employment. References Analyzed Amaranthus, M.P., D.S. Parris and D.A. Perry. 1989. Decaying Logs as Moisture Reservoirs after Drought and Wildfire. Proceedings from Watershed 1989: A Conference on the Stewardship of Soil, Air and Water Resources. U.S. Department of Agriculture: Forest Service, Alaska Region. Belksky, A.J and J. Gelbard. 2000. Livestock Grazing and Weed Invasions in the Arid West. Oregon Natural Desert Association. 326 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS References Beschta, R. L. and others. 1995, Cumulative effects of forest practices in Oregon: literature and synthesis, Report to the Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon. Beschta, R.L., J.R. Karr, C.Frissell, and others. 2002. [unpublished] Letter to the US House of Representatives: Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health. July 3. Biological Opinion for Effects of Malheur National Forest’s 2001 Grazing Management Program on Bull Trout. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull, E. and A. Blumton. 1999. Effects of Fuels Reduction on American Martens and their Prey. General Technical Report, PNW-RN-539. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Duncan, S. 1999. Dead and Dying Trees: Essential for Life in the Forest. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Franklin, J.F. and others. 1981. Ecological Characteristics of Old-Growth Douglas-Fir Forests. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-118. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Henjum, M.G, D.L. Karr, D.A. Bottom, J.C. Perry, S.G. Bedarz, S.A. Wright and E. Beckwitt. 1994. Interim Protection for Late-Succcessional Forests, Fisheries, and Watersheds: National Forests East of the Cascade Crest, Oregon and Washington. A Report to the Congress and President of the United States. Ingham, E. The Soil Foodweb: It’s Importance in Ecosystem Health. http://www.rain.org/~sals/ingham.html Johnson, C.G. 1994. Forest Health in the Blue Mountains: A Plant Ecologist’s Perspective on Ecosystem Processes and Biological Diversity. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-339. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Johnson, D.H. and T.A. O’Neil. 2001. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University Press. Kellog, L., H.S. Han, J. Mayo and J. Cissel. Residual Stand Damage from Thinning- Young Stand Diversity Study. Cascade Center for Ecosystem Management. Kim, H.M. 2001. Chopping Down the Birds: Logging and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Environmental Law. 31. Langston, N. 1995. Forest Dreams, Forest Nightmares: The Paradox of Old Growth in the Inland West. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Ohmann, J.L. and K.L. Waddell. 2002. Regional Patterns of Dead Wood in Forested Habitats of Oregon and Washington. General Technical Report, PSW-GTR-181. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Rhodes, J.J., D.A. McCullough and F.A. Espinosa. 1994. A Coarse Screening Process for Potential Application in ESA consultations. General Technical Report 94-4. Prepared for National Marine Fisheries Service. Riggs. 2000. Modification of Mixed Conifer Forests by Ruminanat Herbivores in the Blue Mountain Ecological Province. General Technical Report, PNW-RP-527. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Riverwind, A. [unpublished] Minimum Mandatory Guidelines for all Projects Purporting to be Restoration, Forest Health, and/or Recovery Projects with Interior Pacific Northwest Forest. http://www.or.blm.gov/Prineville/LCM/alternatives/Web%20- %20Alternative%20B.pdf. Rose ,C.L., B.G. Marcot, T.K. Mellen, J.L. Ohmann, K.L. Waddell, D.L. Lindely and B. Schriber. 2001. In D.H. Johnson and O’Neil, managing directors, Wildlife Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Decaying Wood in Pacific Norwest 327 Glossary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Forests: Concepts and Tools for Habitat Management. Regon State University Press: Corvallis, Oregon. pp580-623. Rothermel, R.C.1991. Predicting behavior and size of crown fires in the northern Rocky Mountains. USDA Forest Service, Research Paper. INT-438. USDA, Forest Service. 2002. Final Report, Land Management Recommendations Related to the Value of Low Road Density Areas in the Conservation of Listed Salmon, Steelhead, and Bull Trout and the FS Memorandum, Road Density Analysis Team Final Report, April, 3, 2002. USDA, Forest Service. 2000. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Washington DC: Washington Office.. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Management of Canada Lynx in the Cascades Ceopgraphic Areeas of Oregon and Washington. White Paper prepared by the Offices of Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Weikel, J.M. and J.P. Hayes. 2001. Habitat Use by Snag-Associated Species: A Bibliography for Species Occuring in Oregon and Washington. Research Contribution 33, Forest Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University. 328 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Index INDEX 303, 22, 128, 132, 151, 183 amendment, 19, 20, 39, 41, 43, 45 Analysis Area, 26 Base Flows, 155 biophysical environment, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 76 Biophysical Environments, 64, 67 black-backed woodpecker, 43 bull trout, 22, 128, 131, 151, 158, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 175, 176, 177, 179, 180, 181, 183, 316, 318, 319, 320, 322, 323, 324 Burn Severity Rating, 73 cattle grazing, 64, 289 dead and dying, 6, 12, 13, 16, 25, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42, 262 decommissioning, 7, 11, 12, 17, 18, 24, 35, 37, 38, 40, 43, 48, 56, 107, 160, 161, 162, 163, 165, 170, 171, 172, 173, 175, 179, 180, 181, 184, 263, 267, 268, 269, 278, 281, 282, 283, 284, 287, 292 Dedicated Old Growth, 6, 10, 13, 19, 33, 36, 38, 41, 43, 45, 246 economics, 21, 39, 273, 282 Economics, 13, 23, 30, 35, 36, 39, 42, 44, 300, 320, 321 Fire, 106 fire suppression, 4, 9, 35, 64, 66, 84, 86, 92, 93, 105, 107, 242, 258, 261, 287, 288 Firewood, 34, 51 Fisheries, 301 Forest Plan, 5, 6, 7, 10, 13, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 31, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 63, 82, 83, 84, 97, 105, 108, 128, 129, 130, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141, 146, 147, 149, 156, 158, 159, 160, 169, 170, 179, 181, 183, 210, 211, 215, 216, 219, 220, 221, 225, 227, 245, 247, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 257, 258, 259, 270, 282, 285, 286, 288, 290, 308, 309, 325 Gopher, 81 grazing, 7, 20, 25, 34, 35, 149, 155, 157, 308, 309, 323 helicopter, 12, 15, 16, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 49, 144, 155, 290 logging, 11, 12, 22, 24, 25, 34, 39, 42, 47, 48, 49, 52, 53, 144, 148, 156, 286, 287, 289, 290, 291, 315 lynx, 24 management requirements, 27 neotropical migratory bird, 24 noxious weeds, 17, 25, 52, 55, 106, 289, 311 obliteration, 18, 35, 37, 38, 40, 42, 44, 48, 145, 150, 160, 170, 292 Peak Flows, 154 Pileated Woodpecker, 19, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 45, 246 Planting, 5, 12, 57 primary cavity excavator, 39, 41 recreation, 28 reforestation, 14, 17, 24, 35, 36, 37, 40, 42, 213, 288, 289, 311 Reforestation, 10, 17, 24, 38, 40, 43, 45, 56, 57, 289, 311 Replacement Old Growth, 13, 19, 33, 36, 246 resiliency, 6, 23, 26, 36, 41, 42, 74, 75, 76, 82, 83, 93, 211, 228, 251, 272, 309, 311 RHCA, 6, 8, 14, 15, 18, 22, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 48, 49, 56, 57, 59, 131, 150, 152, 311 roadless, 25, 219, 229, 285, 290 roads, 106, 250, 285 salvage, 4, 6, 13, 14, 16, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42, 44, 50, 58, 136, 138, 144, 145, 146, 149, 150, 160, 161, 163, 167, 168, 170, 171, 173, 177, 178, 181, 212, 286, 289, 290, 291, 315 sedimentation, 11, 39, 147, 280, 283, 284, 288 329 Index Monument Fire Recovery FEIS skid trail, 11, 18, 37, 38, 40, 42, 44, 47, 48, 156 snag habitat, 22, 39, 41, 42, 43, 51, 242, 252, 291 snags, 191, 193, 197, 212, 213 soil erosion, 23, 141, 144 soils, 301 timber, 5, 6, 7, 12, 15, 23, 26, 27, 28, 36, 39, 40, 42, 44, 47, 52, 53, 143, 153, 156, 258, 285, 288, 290, 299, 300, 308 water quality, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 17, 23, 25, 27, 33, 39, 81, 128, 129, 130, 134, 152, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 179, 180, 181, 183, 184, 279, 285, 288, 290, 308, 311, 318 Whitman, 2, 4, 34, 69, 108, 211, 212, 254, 264, 315, 320, 325 Whitman Unit., 4 330 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Glossary GLOSSARY A Access — The mode by which activities are pursued and how well users can travel to or within the setting. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) — An independent Federal agency that provides a forum for influencing Federal activities, programs, and policies as they affect historic resources. Aquatic (and riparian) health — Aquatic and riparian habitats that support animal and plant communities that can adapt to environmental changes and follow natural evolutionary and biogeographic processes. Healthy aquatic and riparian systems are resilient and recover rapidly from natural and human disturbance. They are stable and sustainable; they maintain their organization and autonomy over time and are resilient to stress. In a healthy aquatic/riparian system, there is a high degree of connectivity from headwaters to downstream reaches, from streams to floodplains, and from subsurface to surface. Floods can spread into floodplains, and fish and wildlife populations can move freely throughout the watershed. Healthy aquatic and riparian ecosystems also maintain long-term soil productivity. Mineral and energy cycles continue without loss of efficiency. Archaeological site — A place that has the potential to yield information important to scientific or scholarly studies of history or prehistory. Area of Potential Effect (APE) — An Area of Potential Effect is the area that contains cultural resources that may reasonably be expected to be impacted by an undertaking. Effects may be physical, visual, auditory, or socio-cultural (King 1998). B Biophysical environment or Bioenvironment — The interaction of climatic factors (moisture and temperature) and soil conditions on the expression of vegetation types and associated habitats. Climatic and soil conditions that result in similar successional pathways, disturbance processes, and associated vegetative/habitat characteristics are referred to as a biophysical environment. C Canopy — In a forest, the branches from the upper-most layer of trees; on rangeland, the vertical projection downward of the aerial portion of vegetation. Canopy closure — The amount of ground surface shaded by tree canopies as seen from above. Used to describe how open or dense a stand of trees is, often expressed in 10% increments. Channel (stream) — The deepest part of a stream or riverbed through which the main current of water flows. Closure — A road management term indicating the road cannot be used by motorized traffic. This limitation can be accomplished by regulation, barricade, or blockage devices. The road can be available for emergency use or permitted use, such as firewood cutting, during dry periods. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) — A codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the Executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government. Competition — An interaction that occurs when two or more individuals make demands of the same resources that are in short supply. Connectivity — The arrangement of habitats that allows organisms and ecological processes to move across the landscape; patches of similar habitats are either close together or linked by corridors of appropriate vegetation; the opposite of a fragmented condition. Corridor (landscape) — Landscape elements that connect similar patches of habitat through an area with different characteristics. For example, streamside vegetation may create a corridor of willows and hardwoods between meadows or through a forest. Cover — (1) Trees, shrubs, rocks, or other landscape features that allow an animal to partly or fully conceal itself. (2) The area of ground covered by plants of one or more species. Cover type — A vegetation classification depicting a genus, species, group of species, or life form of tree, shrub, grass, or sedge; in effect, the present vegetation of an area. Crown — The part of a tree containing live foliage; treetops. Cryptocrystalline silicates (CCS, chert, flint) — Rock with texture consisting of crystals that is too small to be recognized and distinguished under an ordinary microscope. 307 Glossary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS D Decommissioning — Activities to permanently remove a road from the transportation system. The management objective of the activities is to restore the hydrologic function. These activities include, as needed: the removal of drainage structures such as culverts, re-contouring cut and fill slopes, subsoiling, and re-vegetating the old road beds. Density (stand) — The number of trees growing in a given area; usually expressed in terms of trees per acre. Diameter at breast height (DBH) — Diameter of a tree in inches, measured at 4 ½ feet above the root collar on the uphill side of the tree. Disturbance — Refers to events that alter the structure, composition, or function of terrestrial or aquatic habitats. Natural disturbances include, among others, drought, floods, wind, fires, wildlife grazing, and insects and diseases. Human-caused disturbances include, among others, actions such as timber harvest, livestock grazing, roads, and the introduction of exotic species. Down wood — A tree or part of a tree that is dead and laying on the ground. Duff — The partially decomposed organic material of the forest floor that lies beneath freshly fallen leaves, needles, twigs, stems, bark, and fruit. Detrimental soil impacts: - A Forest Plan Standard limits the amount of detrimental soil impacts to 20% of a unit. Detrimental Compaction – An increase in soil bulk density of 20 percent, or more, over the undisturbed level for volcanic ash soils. For all other soils it is an increase in soil bulk density of 15 percent, or more, over the undisturbed level. Assess changes in compaction by sampling bulk density, macro porosity, or penetration resistance in the zone in which change in relatively long term and that is the principal root development zone. This zone is commonly between 4 to 12 inches in depth. Detrimental Displacement – The removal of more than 50 percent of the topsoil or humus enriched horizon from an area of 100 square feet, or more, which is at least 5 feet in width. Detrimental Puddling – When the depth of ruts or imprints is 6 inches or more. Soil deformation and loss of structure are observable and usually bulk density is increased. Detrimental Surface Erosion – Visual evidence of soil loss in areas greater than 100 square feet, rills or gullies and/or water quality degradation from sediment or nutrient enrichment. Detrimental Burned Soil – Top layer of mineral soil has been significantly changed in color, oxidized to a reddish color, and the next one-half inch blackened from organic matter charring by heat conducted through the top layer. The detrimentally burned soil standard applies to an area greater than 100 square feet, which is at least 5 feet in width. E Ecosystem — A complete, interacting system of living organisms and the land and water that make up their environment; the home places of all living things, including humans. Endangered species — Species listed under the Endangered Species Act, that are likely to become extinct within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their range. Environment — The combination of external physical, biological, social, and cultural conditions affecting the growth and development of organisms and the nature of an individual or community. Erosion — The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, gravity, or other geological activities; can be accelerated or intensified by human activities that reduce the stability of slopes or soils. Ethnography — A descriptive, non-interpretive, non-comparable study of another culture. Even-aged stand — Stand of trees in which all the trees are within one year of having been established, or have a narrow range of age classes. F Fire-dependent systems — Forests, grasslands, and other ecosystems historically composed of species of plants that evolved with and are maintained by fire regimes. Fire-intolerant species — Species of plants that do not grow well with or die from the effects of too much fire. Generally these are shade-tolerant species. 308 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Glossary Fire regime — The characteristics of fire in a given ecosystem, such as the frequency, predictability, intensity, and seasonality of fire. Fire return interval — The average time between fires in a given area. Fire-tolerant species — Species of plants that can withstand certain frequency and intensity of fire. Generally these are shade-intolerant species. Floodplain — The portion of river valley or level lowland next to streams, which is covered with water when the river or stream overflows its banks at flood stage. Forage — Vegetation (both woody and non-woody) eaten by animals, especially grazing and browsing animals. Forbs — Broad-leafed plants; includes plants that commonly are called weeds or wildflowers. Forest health — The condition in which forest ecosystems sustain their complexity, diversity, resiliency, and productivity to provide for specified human needs and values. It is a useful way to communicate about the current condition of the forest, especially with regard to resiliency, a part of forest health that describes the ability of the ecosystem to respond to disturbances. Forest health and resiliency can be described, in part, by species composition, density, and structure. Forest Plan (Forest Land and Resource Management Plan) — A document that guides natural resource management and establishes standards and guidelines for a national forest; required by the National Forest Management Act. Fragmentation (habitat) — The break-up of a large land area (such as a forest) into smaller patches isolated by areas converted to a different land type; the opposite of connectivity. Fuel (fire) — Dry, dead parts of trees, shrubs, and other vegetation that can burn readily. Fuel ladder — Vegetative structures or conditions such as low-growing tree branches, shrubs, or smaller trees that allow fire to move vertically from a surface fire to a crown fire. Fuel load — The dry weight of combustible materials per unit area; usually expressed as tons per acre. G Ground fire — A fire that burns the organic material in the soil layer, and the decayed material or peat below the ground surface. H Habitat — A place that provides seasonal or year-round food, water, shelter, and other environmental conditions for an organism, community, or population of plants or animals. Habitat type — A group of plant communities having similar habitat relationships. Harvest — (1) Felling and removal of trees from the forest. (2) Removal of game animals or fish from a population, typically by hunting or fishing. Headwaters — Beginning of a watershed; un-branched tributaries of a stream. Historical Range of Variability (HRV) — The natural fluctuation of ecological and physical processes and functions that would have occurred during a specified period of time. Refers to the range of conditions that are likely to have occurred prior to settlement of the project area by Euro-Americans (approximately the mid 1800s), which would have varied within certain limits over time. HRV is discussed in this document only as a reference point, to establish a baseline set of conditions for which sufficient scientific or historical information is available to enable comparison to current conditions. Historic Property — As defined in the National Historic Preservation Act, any “district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places, including artifacts, records, and material remains related to such a property or resource.” Historic site — A type of cultural resource associated with the historic-era that may possess archaeological values; or may be valued in light of its ability to convey its association with important historic events, people, or architectural/engineering techniques. Historic sites usually must be 50 years of age or more. Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) – The 2- to 8-digit classification dividing the levels of hydrology in the United States. The largest HUC is a region, divided hierarchically into subregions, accounting units, cataloging units, watersheds, and subwatersheds. (Watersheds are fifth-field HUCs; subwatersheds are sixth-field HUCs.) Hunter-gatherers — A term for members of small-scale mobile or semi-sedentary societies, whose subsistence is dependent upon hunting game and gathering wild plants. Hydrophobic Soil - Soil that does not readily absorb water. Hydrophobic soil is highly erodible. It is sometimes formed during sever fire on coarse textured soils. Hydrophobic soil usually returns to a non- hydrophobic condition after one or two winters. 309 Glossary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS I Indicator species — A species that is presumed to be sensitive to habitat changes. Population changes of indicator species are believed to best indicate the effects of land management activities. Intermittent stream — A stream that flows only at certain times of the year, when it receives water from other streams or from surface sources such as melting snow. L Landscape — All the natural features such as grass-lands, hills, forest, and water, which distinguish one part of the earth’s surface from another part; usually that portion of land which the eye can comprehend in a single view, including all its natural characteristics. Large down wood — Logs on the forest floor with a large end diameter of at least 21 inches. Large woody debris (LWD) — Pieces of wood that are of a large enough size to affect stream channel morphology. Late and Old Structural (LOS) Forest — (a) Single stratum with large tree (SSWL) forest refers to mature forest characterized by a single canopy layer consisting of large or old trees. Understory trees are often absent, or present in randomly spaced patches. SSWL generally consists of widely spaced, shade- intolerant species, such as ponderosa pine and western larch, adapted to a low-severity, high-frequency fire regime. (b) Multi-stratum with large tree (MSWL) forest refers to mature forest characterized by two or more canopy layers with generally large or old trees in the upper canopy. Understory trees are also usually present, as a result of a lack of frequent disturbance to the understory. MSWL can include both shade- tolerant and shade-intolerant species, and is generally adapted to a mixed fire regime of both high-severity and low-severity fires. Other characteristics of old forests include: variability in tree size; increasing numbers of snags and coarse woody debris; increasing appearance of decadence, such as broken tops, sparse crowns, and decay in roots and stems; canopy gaps and understory patchiness; and old trees relative to the site and species. Lithic Scatter — A type of archaeological site that consists of surface or buried concentrations of stone waste flakes and tools (Keyser et. al. 1988). Litter — The uppermost layer of organic debris on the soil surface, which is essentially the freshly fallen or slightly decomposed vegetation material such as stems, leaves, twigs, and fruits. M Management direction — A statement of goals and objectives, management prescriptions, and associated standards and guidelines for attaining them. N National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) — A list of significant cultural resources that is maintained by the National Park Service. A “significant” site is a site that has been evaluated as eligible for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places, or its eligibility status is undetermined. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 — “An act to establish a national policy for the environment, to provide for the establishment of a Council on Environmental Quality, and for other purposes.” O Obsidian Hydration — A process in which a volcanic glass absorbs moisture in ever-thickening bands over time. Measurements of hydration bands on archaeological obsidian can indicate how long a surface has been exposed. Obsidian hydration analysis is usually considered a relative dating technique. Ongoing actions — Those actions that have been implemented, or have contracts awarded or permits issued. On-site recreation development — The degree and appropriateness of recreation facilities provided within the setting. P Prescribed fire — Intentional use of fire under specified conditions to achieve specific management objectives. Prescription — A management pathway to achieve a desired objective(s). Productivity — (1) Soil productivity: the capacity of a soil to produce plant growth, due to the soil’s chemical, physical, and biological properties (such as depth, temperature, water-holding capacity, and mineral, nutrient, and organic matter content). (2) Vegetative productivity: the rate of production of vegetation within a given period. (3) General: the innate capacity of an environment to support plant and animal life over time. Proposed Action — A proposal by a federal agency to authorize, recommend, or implement an action. 310 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Glossary R Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) — The Forest Service developed the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) system to help identify, quantify, and describe the variety of recreational settings available in National Forests. The ROS system provides a framework for planning and managing recreation resources. The ROS settings are classified on a scale ranging from primitive to urban. Seven elements are used to determine where the setting belongs on the scale: Recreation Visitor Day (RVD) — One visitor day equals 12 hours (one person for 12 hours, or 12 people for 1 hour, or any combination thereof). Reforestation — Treatments or activities that help to regenerate stands of trees after disturbances such as harvest or wildfire. Typically, reforestation activities include preparing soil, controlling pests, and planting seeds or seedlings. Regeneration — The process of establishing new plant seedlings, whether by natural means or artificial measures (planting). Rehabilitate — To repair and protect certain aspects of a system so that essential structures and functions are recovered, even though the overall system may not be exactly as it was before. Remoteness — The extent to which individuals perceive themselves removed from the sights and sounds of human activity. Resilient, resilience, resiliency — (1) The ability of a system to respond to disturbances. Resiliency is one of the properties that enable the system to persist in many different states or successional stages. (2) In human communities, refers to the ability of a community to respond to externally-induced changes such as larger economic or social forces. Restoration — Holistic actions taken to modify an ecosystem to achieve desired, healthy, and functioning conditions and processes; generally refers to the process of enabling the system to resume acting or continue to act following disturbance, as if the disturbances were absent. Restoration management activities can be either active (such as control of noxious weeds, thinning of over-dense stands of trees, or redistributing roads) or more passive (more restrictive, hands-off management direction that is primarily conservation-oriented). Riparian area — Area with distinctive soil and vegetation between a stream or other body of water and the adjacent upland; includes wetlands and those portions of floodplains and valley bottoms that support riparian vegetation. Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) — Portions of watersheds where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis, and management activities are subject to specific standards and guidelines. Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas include traditional riparian corridors, wetlands, intermittent streams, and other areas that help maintain the integrity of aquatic ecosystems by (1) influencing the delivery of coarse sediment, organic matter, and woody debris to streams; (2) providing root strength for channel stability; (3) providing shading for streams; and (4) protecting water quality. Roaded Modified — A natural environment substantially modified, particularly by vegetation and landform alterations. There is strong evidence of roads and /or highways. Frequency of contact is low to moderate. Roaded Natural — A natural-appearing environment with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of humans. Such evidence usually harmonizes with the natural environment. Interaction between users may be moderate to high, with evidence of other users prevalent. Motorized use is allowed. Rockshelter — A small cave or overhang of rock that affords some degree of protection from the elements, either as a permanent camp or temporary location of activity. S Scoping — The early stages of preparation of an environmental impact statement/ environmental assessment; used to solicit public opinion, receive comments and suggestions, and determine the issues to be considered in the development and analysis of a range of alternatives. Scoping may involve public meetings, telephone conversations, mailings, letters, or other contacts. Sediment — Solid materials, both mineral and organic, in suspension or transported by water, gravity, ice, or air; may be moved and deposited away from their original position and eventually will settle to the bottom. Semi-Primitive Motorized — A natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. Interaction between users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. The opportunity exists to use motorized equipment. 311 Glossary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized — A natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. Concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. Use of local roads for recreational purposes is not allowed. Sensitive species — Species identified by a Forest Service regional forester or BLM state director for which population viability is a concern either (a) because of significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, or (b) because of significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution. Seral — Refers to the stages that plant communities go through during succession. Developmental stages have characteristic structure and plant species composition. Early seral refers to plants that are present soon after a disturbance or at the beginning of a new successional process (such as seedling or sapling growth stages in a forest); mid-seral in a forest would refer to pole or medium sawtimber growth stages; late or old seral refers to plants present during a later stage of plant community succession (such as mature and old forest stages). Seral stage — The developmental phase of a forest stand or rangeland with characteristic structure and plant species composition. Shade-intolerant species — Species of plants that do not grow well in or die from the effects of too much shade. Generally these are fire-tolerant species. Shade-tolerant species — Species of plants that can develop and grow in the shade of other plants. Generally these are fire-intolerant species. Silviculture — The practice of manipulating the establishment, composition, structure, growth, and rate of succession of forests to accomplish specific objectives. Site — A specific location of an activity or project, such as a campground, a lake, or a stand of trees to be harvested. Snag — A standing dead tree, usually larger than five feet tall and larger than six inches in diameter at breast height. Snags are important as habitat for a variety of wildlife species and their prey. Social encounters — The degree of solitude or social opportunities provided. Soil — The earth material that has been so modified and acted upon by physical, chemical, and biological agents that it will support rooted plants. Soil disturbance — Describes effects of the alternatives on soil productivity. Stand — A group of trees in a specific area, that is sufficiently alike in composition, age, arrangement, and condition so as to be distinguishable from the forest in adjoining areas. Stand density — Refers to the number of trees growing in a given area; usually expressed in trees per acre. Stand structure — The size and arrangement, both vertically and horizontally, of vegetation. Forested vegetation is classified into 7 different structural stages: Stand Initiation – When land is occupied by trees following a stand-replacing disturbance. Stem Exclusion Open Canopy – Forested areas where the occurrence of new trees is predominantly limited by moisture. Stem Exclusion Closed Canopy – Forested areas where the occurrence of new trees is predominately limited by light. Understory Reinitiation – When a second generation of trees is established under an older, typically seral, overstory. Young-Forest Multistory – Stand development resulting from frequent harvest or lethal disturbance to the overstory. Old-Forest Multistory – Forested areas lacking frequent disturbance to understory vegetation. Old-Forest Single-Story – Forested areas resulting from frequent non-lethal prescribed or natural underburning, or other management. The abundance and distribution of these forest structures provides the basis for evaluation of the historic range of variability (HRV) of structural conditions, providing insight to the interaction of disturbance processes and associated structural and compositional conditions of forested landscapes. 312 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Glossary State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) — The agency that represents the interests of the state in historic preservation and cultural resources. Federal land managers are required by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, to consult with the SHPO during land management planning. Structure — The size and arrangement, both vertically and horizontally, of vegetation. Structural stage — A stage of development of a vegetation community, that is classified on the dominant processes of growth, development, competition, and mortality. Subwatershed — A drainage area of approximately 20,000 acres, equivalent to a 6th-field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC). Hierarchically, subwatersheds (6th-field HUC) are contained within a watershed (5th- field HUC), which in turn is contained within a subbasin (4th-field HUC). T Terrestrial — Pertaining to the land. Terrestrial communities — Groups of cover types with similar moisture and temperature regimes, elevational gradients, structures, and use by vertebrate wildlife species. Thermal cover — Cover used by animals to protect them against weather. Thinning — An operation to remove stems from a forest for the purpose of reducing fuel, maintaining stand vigor, regulating stand density/composition, or for other resource benefits. Although thinning can result in commercial products, thinning generally refers to non-commercial operations. Threatened species — Species listed under the Endangered Species Act, that are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their range. U Underburn — To burn by a surface fire that can consume ground vegetation and ladder fuels. Understory — Plants that grow beneath the canopy of other plants. Usually refers to grasses, forbs, and low shrubs under a tree or shrub canopy. Uneven-aged stand — Stand of trees in which there are considerable differences in the ages of individual trees. Upland — The portion of the landscape above the valley floor or stream. V Viability — In general, viability means the ability of a population of a plant or animal species to persist for some specified time into the future. For planning purposes, a viable population is one that has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals, to ensure that its continued existence will be well-distributed in the planning area. Visitor impacts — The degree of impact on both the attributes of the setting and other visitors within the setting. Visitor management — The degree and appropriateness of how visitor actions are managed and serviced. Visual quality — The degree of apparent modification of the natural landscape. W Watershed — (1) The region draining into a river, river system, or body of water. (2) A watershed also refers specifically to a drainage area of approximately 50,000 to 100,000 acres, which is equivalent to a 5th-field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC). Hierarchically, subwatersheds (6th-field HUC) are contained within a watershed (5th-field HUC), which in turn is contained within a subbasin (4th-field HUC). Wetland — In general, an area soaked by surface or groundwater frequently enough to support vegetation that requires saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction; generally includes swamps, marshes, springs, seeps, bogs, wet meadows, mudflats, natural ponds, and other similar areas. Legally, federal agencies define wetlands as possessing three essential characteristics: (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology. The three technical characteristics specified are mandatory and must all be met for an area to be identified as a wetland. Hydrophytic vegetation is defined as plant life growing in water, soil, or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content. Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic (without oxygen) conditions in the upper part of the soil profile. Generally, for soil to be considered hydric, it must be saturated at temperatures above freezing for at least seven days. Wetland hydrology is defined as permanent or periodic inundation, or soil saturation to the surface, at least seasonally. Wildfire — A human-caused or naturally-caused fire that does not meet land management objectives. 313 Glossary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS 314 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS References REFERENCES References Cited Amaranthus, M.P., D.S. Parris and D.A. Perry. 1989. Decaying Logs as Moisture Reservoirs after Drought and Wildfire. Proceedings from Watershed 1989: A Conference on the Stewardship of Soil, Air and Water Resources. U.S. Department of Agriculture: Forest Service, Alaska Region. Amaranthus, M.P.; Molina R.; and Trappe J. M. 1990. Long-Term Forest Productivity and the Living Soil. Chapter 3. In D.A. Perry, eds. Maintaining Long-Term Forest Productivity in the Pacific Northwest Forest Ecosystem. Timber Press. Portland, Oregon 97208. Bailor, T. 1993. The Awake Cultural Resource Inventory Survey Report. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur National Forest. Beckley, T. 1998. The (F)utility of “Community Sustainability” in an Inter-dependent World. Ecoforestry: 34-40. Beechie, T.J. and T.H. Sibley. 1997. Relationships Between Channel Characteristics, Woody Debris, and Fish Habitat in Northeastern Washington Streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126: 217-229. Bengston, D.N; D.P. Fan and D.N. Celarier. 1999. A New Approach to Monitoring the Social Environment for Natural Resource Management and Policy: The Case of U.S. National Forest Benefits and Values. Journal of Environmental Management 56: 181-193. Bergstrom, J.C. and J.B. Loomis. 1999. Economic Dimensions of Ecosystem Management. In Cordell, H.K. and J.C. Bergstrom, eds. Integrating Social Sciences in Ecosystem Management. Sagamore Press. Beschta, R.L. and others. 1995. Wildfire and Salvage Logging: Recommendations for Ecologically Sound Post-Fire Salvage Logging and Other Post-Fire Treatments on Federal Lands in the West. Oregon State University. Booth, D.B. and C. R. Jackson. 1997. Urbanization of Aquatic Systems: Degradation Thresholds, Stormwater Detention, and the Limits of Mitigation. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 22(5): 1-19. Botkin, D.B. 1990. Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-First Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bowers, W.L., P.A. Dupee, M. L. Hanson and R.R. Perkins. 1993. [Unpublished Report]. Bull Trout Population Summary Malheur River Basin. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Hines, Oregon. Brady, N.C. 1974. The Nature and Properties of Soils. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc. 341 pp. Bright, A.D.,K.H. Cordell, A.P. Hoover and M.A. Tarrant. 1999. Guidelines for Conducting Social Assessments Within the Human Dimension Framework. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Brooks, P. K. Urban and G. Yates. 1991. Sensitive Plants of the Malheur, Ochoco, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. General Technical Report, R6- 315 Glossary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS WAW-TP-040-92. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Brown, J.K., E.D. Reinhard, and K.A. Kramer. 2003. Coarse Woody Debris: Managing Benefits and Fire Hazard in the Recovering Forest. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Brown, J.K., E.D. Reinhardt and KA. Kramer. 2001. Coarse Woody Debris and Succession in the Recovering Forest. Internal Memorandum, USDA Forest Service. Brown, J.K., K. Snell and D.L. Bunnell. 1977. Handbook for Predicting Slash Weight of Western Conifers. General Technical Report, INT-37. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 35pp. Brown, J.K. and J.K. Smith, eds. 2000. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Flora. General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 257 pp. Brunson, M.W. and J.J. Kennedy. 1995. Redefining “Multiple Use”: Agency Response to Changing Social Values. In: Knight, R.L. and S.F. Bates, eds. A New Century for Natural Resource Management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Buchanan, D.V. and S.V. Gregory. 1997. Development of Water Temperature Standards to Protect and Restore Habitat for Bull Trout and Other Cold Water Species in Oregon. In W.C. Mackay, M.K. Brewinand and M. Monita eds, Proceedings of the Friends of the Bull Trout Conference. Calgary, Alberta pp. 119-126. Buchanan, D.V., M. L. Hanson and R. M. Hooten. 1997. Status of Oregon's Bull Trout. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, Oregon. Buckman, R.C., W.E. Hosford, and P.A. Dupee. 1992. Malheur River Bull Trout Investigations. In Howell, P.J. and D.V. Buchanan, eds. Proceedings of the Gearheart Mountain Bull Trout Workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, Oregon. Pp. 45-57. Bull, E.L. and R. Holthausen. 1993. Habitat Use and Management of Pileated Woodpeckers in Northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 57 (2): 335-345. Burns Paiute Tribe. 2001. Comment Letter on the Silvies Canyon Watershed Restoration Project Draft EIS. Natural Resource Programs. Burns, Oregon. Burns Paiute Tribe Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2000. Evaluation of the life history of native salmonids in the Malheur River basin (BPA project 9701900/9701901): FY1999 annual report. Burns, OR. Burtchard, G.C. 1998. Environment, Prehistory, and Archaeology of John Day Fossil Beds National Monument. General Technical Report, Seattle Washington: United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Seattle. Prepared by Honolulu: International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc Blue Mountain Region, North Central Oregon. Caton, E. 1998. Effects of Fire and Salvage Logging on a Cavity-Nesting Bird Community in Fire and Wildlife in the Pacific Northwest: Research, Policy, and Management. The Wildlife Society Symposium, Northwest Secion. p. 78. Cinnamon, S.K., N.C. Johnson, G. Super, J. Nelson and D. Loomis. 1999. Shifting Human Use and Expected Demands on Natural Resources. In Sexton, W.T, A.J. 316 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS References Malk, R.C. Szaro and N.C. Johnson, eds. Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference for Ecosystem Management. 3: 327-343. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. 2000. Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit (Spirit of the Salmon). The Columbia River Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan of the Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Yakima Tribes. www.critfc.org/text/TRP.HTM Committee of Scientists. 1999. Sustaining the People’s Lands: Recommendations for Stewardship of the National Forests and Grasslands into the Next Century. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture. Cordova, J.J. 1995. Streamside Forests, Channel Constraint, Large Woody Debris Characteristics, and Pool Morphology in Low Order Streams, Blue Mountains, Oregon. M.S. Theis. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University. Couture, M.D. 1986. Foraging Behavior of a Contemporary Northern Great Basin Population. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 8: 150-160. Crone, L.K. and R.W. Haynes. 1999. Revised Estimates for Direct-Effect Recreational Jobs in the Interior Columbia River Basin. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR- 483. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Crone, L.K., R.W. Haynes, and N.E. Reyna. 1999. Different Perspectives on Economic Base. General Technical Report, PNW-RN-538. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Dambacher, J.M., K.K. Jones [In Press]. Benchmarks and Patterns of Abundance of Redband Trout (Oncorhyncus mykiss ssp.) in Oregon Streams. Proceedings of the 1996 Redband Trout Workshop, Malheur Field Station, Oregon, Washington. Danks, C. and L. Jungwirth. 1999. Community-Based Socioeconomic Assessment and Monitoring of Activities Related to National Forest Management. Hayfork, California: Watershed Research and Training Center, Working Paper Series. Davis, Hibbitts, & McCaig, Inc. 2001. What Do Oregonians Value about Their Forests? Salem, Oregon: Oregon Department of Forestry. Dean Runyan Associates. 2001. Oregon Travel Impacts. Vol. 1991-2000. Prepared for the Oregon Tourism Commission. Salem, Oregon. DeBano, L.F., D.G. Neary and P.F. Folliott. 1998. Fire’s Effects on Ecosystems. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Driver, B.L., D. Dustin, T. Baltic, G. Elsner and G. Peterson. 1996. Nature and the Human Spirit: Overview. In Nature and the Human Spirit: Toward an Expanded Land Management Ethic. State College, Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing, Inc. Ehringer, P.F. & Associates. 2001. Columbia Basin Socio-Economic Assessment – Phase II Forest Products Data: 1989-2000. Idaho Rural Partnership, Montana Department of Commerce, Oregon Economic & Community Development Department, Washington Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development. Elliot, W.J., D.L. Scheele and D.E. Hall. 2000. The Forest Service WEPP Interfaces. ASAE Paper No. 005021. Presented at the 2000 ASAE Annual International Meeting, July 9-12, 2000. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. St. Joseph, Michigan: American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 8p. Emery, M.R. 1999. Social Values of Specialty Forest Products to Rural Communities. In S. Josiah, ed. Proceedings of the North American Conference on Enterprise 317 Glossary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Development Through Agroforestry: Farming the Forest for Specialty Products. St. Paul, Minnesota: University of Minnesota. 11 pp. Environmental Assessment for the Interim Strategies for Managing Fish-Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, Western Montana, and Portions of Nevada (INFISH). 1995. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. EPA Region 10 guidance for Pacific Northwest State and Tribal Temperature Water Quality Standards. General Technical Report, EPA 910-B-03-002. Seattle, Washington: Region 10 Office of Water. Everett, R. 1995. Review of Beschta Document. Internal Memorandum, USDA Forest Service. Ewert, A.W. 1999. Managing for the New Forest Visitor: The Impact of Changing Demographic Variables. In: Aley, J, W.R. Burch, B. Conover and D. Field, eds. Ecosystem Management: Adaptive Strategies for Natural Resources Organizations in the Twenty-First Century. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Taylor and Francis. pp. 25-32. Fight, D.R., L.E. Kruger, C. Hansen-Murray, A. Holden and D. Bays. 2000. Understanding Human Uses and Values in Watershed Analysis. General Technical Report, GTR-PNW-489. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Fire Effect Information System (FEIS). 2002. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (2002, April). Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [01 April 2002]. Flather, C.H.; and T.W. Hoekstra, 1989. An Analysis of the Wildlife and Fish Situation in the United States: 1989-2040. General Technical Report, RM-178. Fort Collins, Colorado: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Floyd, D.W., ed. 1999. Forest of Discord. Bethesda, Maryland: Society of American Foresters. Fraley, J.J. and B.B. Shepard. 1989. Life History, Ecology and Population Status of Migratory Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Flathead Lake river System, Montana. Northwest Science 63(4): 133-143. Galliano, S.J. and G. Loeffler. 1999. Place Assessment: How People Define Ecosytems. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Garcia, M.T. 1999. Hispanic Perspectives and Values. In Driver, B.L, D. Dustin, T. Baltic, G. Elsner and G. Peterson, eds. Nature and the Human Spirit: Toward an Expanded Land Management Ethic. State College, Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing, Inc. Gilligan, J., M.D. Smith and D. Rogers. 1994. Birds of Oregon Status and Distribution. Portland Oregon: Cinclus Publications. 330pp. Goetz, F. 1989. Biology of the Bull Trout, Salvelinus Confluentus: A Literature Review. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Willamette National Forest. Graham, R.T, A.E. Harvey, T.B. Jain, and J.R. Tonn. 1999. The Effects of Thinning and Similar Stand Treatments on Fire Behavior in Western Forests. General 318 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS References Technical Report, PNW-GTR-463. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Hadfield, J.S., R.W. Magelssen, R.W. 1996-2000. Wood Changes in Fire-Killed Eastern Washington Tree Species- First through Fifth Year Progress Reports. Wenatchee, WA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest, Wenatchee Service Center. Hanson, M.L., R.C. Buckman, W.E. Hosford and others. 1990. Malheur River Basin Fish Management Plan. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Hines, Oregon. Hanzel, D.A. 1986. Seasonal Area and Depth Distribution of Cuthroat, Bull Trout (Dolly Varden) and Lake Trout in Flathead Lake. Progress Report, F-33-R-20, Job I-a. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Kalispell, Montana. Harney County Chamber of Commerce. 1998-2000. Visitor Logs. Harris, C., G. Brown and B. McLaughlin. 1996. Rural Communities in the Inland Northwest: Characteristics of Small Towns in the Interior and Upper Columbia River Basins: An Assessment of the Past and Present. Final Report Parts 1 & 2 Submitted to the Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Harvey, A.E., M.J. Larsen, and M.F. Jurgensen. 1979. Fire-decay: Interactive roles regulating wood accumulation and soil development in the Rocky Mountains. Haynes, R.W. and A.L. Horne. 1997. Economic Assessment of the Basin. In Quigley, T.M. and S.J. Arbelbide, eds. An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great basins: Volume IV. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Hemmingsen, A.R.B., B.L. Bellerud, S.L.Gunckel, and P.J. Howell. 2001. Bull Trout Life History, Genetics, Habitat Needs, and Limiting Factors in Central and Northeastern Oregon, 1998 Annual Report. Project Number 199405400, Bonneville Power Adminstration, Portland, Oregon. Heyerdahl, E.K. and J.K. Agee. 1996. Historical Fire Regimes of Four Sites in the Blue Mountains, Oregon and Washington. University of Washington: MA Thesis. Hitchcock, C.L.; A. Cronquist, M. Ownbey and J.W. Thompson. 1969. Vascular Plants of the Pacific Northwest, Parts 1-5. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington Press. Horne, A.L. and R.W. Haynes. 1999. Developing Measures of Socioeconomic Resiliency in the Interior Columbia Basin. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-453. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Hovee, E.D. and Company. 1995. Eastside Ecosystem Management Project: Communities of Interest and Their Social Values. Walla Walla Washington: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Eastside Ecosystem Management Project. Johnson, C. 1999. Participation Differences Among Social Groups. In Cordell, H.K., principal investigator. Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends. Champaign, Illinois: Sagamore Press. pp. 248-268. 319 Glossary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Johnson, C.G., Jr. 1998. Vegetation Response After Wildfires in National Forests of Northeastern Oregon. General Technical Report, R6-NR-ECOL-TP-06-98. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Johnson, C.G., Jr. and. R.R. Clausnitzer. 1992. Plant Association of the Blue and Ochoco Mountains. R6-ERW-TP-036-92. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Keyser, J.D., T.L. Burge and D.M. Fleming. 1988. Management Strategy for Treatment of Lithic Scatter Sites. Studies in Cultural Resource Management No. 7. Oregon and Washington: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region and United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. King, T.F. 1998. Cultural Resource Laws and Practice, An Introductory Guide. Alta Mira Press. Kline, J.D. 2001. Tourism and Natural Resource Management: A General Overview of Research and Issues. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-506. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Klock, G.O. 1975. Impact of Five Postfire Salvage Logging Systems on Soils and Vegetation. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 30(2): 78-81. Kohrman, E.B. 2003. Recovery Efforts 2002 Fires – Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Social and Economic Conditions. John Day, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur National Forest. 42 pp. Kreisel, K.J. and S.J. Stein. 1998. Effects of Fire and Salvage Logging on a Cavity- Nesting Bird Community in Fire and Wildlife in the Pacific Northwest, Research, Policy, and Management. The Wildlife Society Symposium, Northwest Secion. pp. 79-84. Laverty, L. and J. Williams. 2000. Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire- Adapted Ecosystems: A Cohesive Strategy. The Forest Service Management Response to the General Accounting Office Report, GAO/RCED-99-65, October 13, 2000. LeVan, S.L. 1998. Biomass Utilization for Forest Health and Community Development. BioEnergy’98: Expanding BioEnergy Partnerships. www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf1998/levan98a.pdf Linderman, C.A. 1992. [Unpublished] The Effects of Fire on Obsidian Artifacts: A Problem in Hydration Dating in a Woodland Environment. Eugene, Oregon: Senior Honors Paper, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon. Lipsey, R. and P. Steiner. 1981. Economics (6th ed.). New York, New York: Harper and Row Publishers. Loomis, J.B. and R. Richardson. 2000. Economic Values of Protecting Roadless Areas in the United States. Washington, D.C.: The Wilderness Society and Heritage Forest Campaign. Ludlow, K, Recreation Staff. 2001. [Personal communication]. On file in the administrative record. Martin, A. 1985. Reproduction of Bull Trout. In D.D. MacDonald ed, Proceedings of the Flathead River Basin Bull Trout Biology and Population Dynamics Modeling Information Exchange. Fisheries Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Cranbrook, British Columbia. pp. 99-101. 320 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS References McArthur, W.L. 2002. Noxious Weeds. Specialist Report, Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation, Monument Fire. John Day, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur National Forest. McAvoy, L. and Lais, G. 1999. Hard-To-Define Values and Persons with Disabilities. In Driver, B.L., D. Dustin, T. Baltic, G. Elsner and G. Peterson. 1996. Nature and the Human Spirit: Toward an Expanded Land Management Ethic. State College, Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing, Inc. McConnell, L. 1991. Forest Service Desk Guide to Tribal Government Relations. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. McGinnis, W.J., R.H. Phillips and K.P. Connaughton. 1996. County Portraits of Oregon and Northern California. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. McGranahan, D.A. 1999. Natural Amenities Drive Rural Population Change. Agricultural Economic Report No. 781. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Food and Rural Economics Division. Miller, M. 2000. RMRS-GTR-42-vol 2. “Wildland Fire in Ecosystems, Effects of Fire on Flora,” Chapter 2: Fire Autoecology. Minshall, G.W., D.A. Andrews, J.T. Brock, C.T. Robinson, and D.E. Lawrence. 1990. Changes in Wild Trout Habitat Following a Forest Fire. In: F. Richardson and R.H. Hamre, eds. Wild Trout IV: Proceedings of the Symposium. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Moseley, C. and S. Shankle. 2001. Who Gets the Work? An Analysis of Contracting on National Forest Lands in the Pacific Northwest. College of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Florida. Murphy, M.L. and K.V. Koski. 1989. Input and Depletion of Woody Debris in Alaska Streams and Implications for Streamside Management. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 9:427-436. Nelson, J.R. 1985. Rare Plant Surveys: Techniques for Impact Assessment. Natural Areas Journal 5(3): 18-30. Niemi, E. and E. Whitelaw. 1999. Assessing Economic Tradeoffs in Forest Management. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-403. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board. 1999. Northwest Tribal Recruitment Projects. 1999. Burns Paiute Tribal Profile. www.npaihb.org/profiles/burns.html Novak, M.A., and R.G. White. 1990. Impact of a Fire and Flood on the Trout population of Beaver Creek, Upper Missouri Basin, Montana. In: Richardson, F. and R.H. Hamre, eds. Wild Trout IV: Proceedings of the Symposium. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Olsen, D., J. Richards and D.R. Scott. 1991. Existence and Sport Values for Doubling the Size of Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead Runs, Rivers 2(1): 44-56. Olson, D.L. 2000. Fire in Riparian Zones: a Comparison of Historical Fire Occurrence in Riparian and Upslope Forests in the Blue Mountains and Southern Cascades of Oregon. M.S. Theisis. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Oregon Department of Tourism. 2001. A Study: The Economic Value of Scenic Byways. Presentation at Oregon Scenic Byways Workshop. Bend, Oregon: Scenic Byways Resource Center. 321 Glossary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Oregon Department of Transportation. 2001. Official State Map. Salem, Oregon. Oregon Employment Department. 1998. Hispanics in Oregon’s Workforce. Salem, Oregon: Workforce Analysis. Oregon Employment Department. 2000. Oregon Employer Survey. Oregon Employment Department. 1999-2003. Oregon Labor Market Information System. www.olmis.org Oregon Employment Department. 2003. Eastern Oregon Labor Trends (March). Salem, Oregon. 11 pp. Oregon Employment Department. 2003a. Eastern Oregon Labor Trends. Salem, Oregon (April). 14 pp. Oregon Natural Heritage Program. 2001. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Animals of Oregon. Portland, Oregon: Oregon Natural Heritage Program. 94 pp. Otani, W. and others. 1996. Bridging the Communication Gap: The APAEA Demonstration (video). Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Parker, P.L. and T.F. King. 1998. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin 38. Washington D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places. Parks, C.G. and C.L. Schmitt. 1997. Wild Edible Mushrooms in the Blue Mountains: Resource and Issues. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-393. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 22 pp. Perkins, R. 1999. Malheur River Bull Trout Population Status: 1999. ODFW Special Report, Southeastern Fisheries District, Ontario, Oregon. Perkins, R. 1998. Malheur River Bull Trout Population Status: 1998. ODFW Special Report, Southeastern Fisheries District, Ontario, Oregon. Peterson, G. and C. Sorg. 1987. Toward the Measurement of Total Economic Value. Fort Collins, Colorado: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Powell, D. 1999. Suggested Stocking Levels for Forest Stands in Northeastern Oregon and Southeastern Washington: An Implementation Guide for the Umatilla National Forest. General Technical Report, F14-SO-TP-03-99. Pendleton, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Umatilla National Forest. Quigley, T.M. and S.J. Arbelbide, eds. Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Volume IV. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Raettig, T.L. 1999. Trends in Key Economic and Social Indicators for Pacific Northwest States and Counties. PNW-GTR-474. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Randall, A. 1992. A Total Value Framework for Benefit Estimation. In Peterson, G.L., C.S. Swanson, D.W. McCollum and M.H. Thomas eds.Valuing Wildlife Resources in Alaska. Boulder CO: Westview Press. pp. 87-111. Ratliff, D.E. and P.J. Howell. 1992. The Status of Bull Trout Populations in Oregon. In Howell, P.J. and D.V. Buchanan, eds. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull 322 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS References Trout Workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, Oregon. pp. 10-17. Reiman, B.E., and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and Habitat Requirements for Conservation of Bull Trout. General Technical Report, INT-302. Boise, Idaho: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Reyna, N.E., R.H. Phillips, G.W. Williams. 1998. Economic and Social Conditions of Communities: Economic and Social Characteristics of Interior Columbia Basin Communities and an Estimation of Effects on Communities from the Alternatives of the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin Draft Environmental Impact Statements. Walla Walla, Washington: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. Rinne, J.N. 1996. Short-Term Effects of Wildfire on Fishes and Aquatic Macroinvertebrates: Southwestern United States. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:653-658. Rose, C. L., B. Marcot, K. Mellen, J. Ohmann, K. Waddell, D. Lindley and B. Schreiber. 2001. Decaying Wood in Pacific Northwest Forests: Concepts and Tools for Haibtat Management in Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. 736 pp. Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO. Rothermel, R.C. 1983. How to Predict the Spread and Intensity of Forest and Range Fires. Genteral Technical Report, INT-143. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: Ogden, Utah, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 161 p. Rudzitis,G., C. Watrous and H. Johansen. 1995. Public Views on Public Lands: A Survey of Interior Columbia River Basin Residents. The Migration, Regional Development, and Changing American West Project. Moscow, Idaho: University of Idaho. Ruggiero, Leonard F., K.G. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the Western United States. General. Technical. Report, RM-254. U.S. Fort Collins, Colorado: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station. Sanders, K.D. 2000. [Unpublished report]. How Long Should Rangelands be Rested from Livestock Grazing Following Fire: A Viewpoint. Moscow, Idaho: University of Idaho. Schlosser, W.E. and K.A. Blatner. 1994. Special Forest Products: An Eastside Perspective. Prepared for Eastside Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. Schmitt, C.L., L.H. Spiegel. 2002. Technical Assistance: Flagtail Fire Tree Recovery Potential Review. Code 3420. John Day, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur National Forest. Scott, D., C.L Schmitt, L.H. Spiegel. 2002. Factors Affecting Survival of Fire Injured Trees: A Rating System for Determining Relative Probability of Survival of Conifers in the Blue and Wallowa Mountains. BMPMSC-03-01. LaGrande, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Lab. 323 Glossary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Scott, D., Szymoniak and Rockwell. 1996. Entomological Concerns Regarding Burn Characteristics and Fire Effects on Tree Species During Prescribed Landscape Burns: Burn Severity Guidelines and Mitigation Measures to Minimize Fire Injuries. BMZ-97-1. Shepard, B., K.L. Pratt and P. Graham. 1984. Life History of Westslope Cutthroat and Bull Trout in the Upper Flathead River Basin, Montana. Kalispell, Montana: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Skinner, C.E., J.J. Thatcher, and M.K. Davis. 1997. X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis and Obsidian Hydration Rim Measurement of Artifact Obsidian from 35-DS-193 and 35-DS-201, Surveyor Fire Rehabilitation Project, Deschutes National Forest, Oregon. Report 1996-33 prepared for the Deschutes National Forest, Bend, Oregon, by Northwest Research Obsidian Studies Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon. Society of American Foresters. 1989. Community Stability. Bethesda, Maryland: Society of American Foresters Resource Policy Series. 42. pp. Soucie, M. 1990-1998. Burns Paiute Tribe [Personal communication]. On file in the administrative record. Southwick and Associates. Undated. Value of Roadless Areas. Steel, B.S., P. List and B. Shindler. 1994. Conflicting Values About Federal Forests: A Comparison of National and Oregon Publics. Society and Natural Resources 7: 137-153. Steffen, Anastasia. 2002. The Dome Fire Pilot Project: Extreme Obsidian Fire Effects in the Jemez Mountains. In J. Loyd, T. Origer and D. Fredrickson, eds. The Effect of Fire and Heat on Obsidian. Suphan, R. J. 1974. Ethnological Report on the Umatilla, Walla Walla, and Cayuse Indians. In Oregon Indians II. Garland, New York, and London. pp. 88-182. Swanson, C. and J.B. Loomis. 1996. Role of Nonmarket Economic Values in Benefit- Cost Analysis of Public Forest Management. General Technical Report, PNW- GTR-361. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Talberth J. and K. Moskowitz. 1999. The Economic Case against National Forest Logging. Santa Fe, New Mexico: National Forest Alliance. Thiesfield, S.L., A.M. Stuart, D.E. Ratliff and B.D. Lampman. 1996. Migration patterns of adult bull trout in the Metolius River and Lake Billy Chinook, Oregon. Informational Report. Portland, Oregon: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Thomas, S. 1991. Malheur National Forest Cultural Resource Inventory Plan. John Day, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Malheur National Forest. Traylor, D., L. Hubbell, N. Wood, and B. Fiedler. Southwest Cultural Resources Center Professional Paper No. 28. Santa Fe, New Mexico: United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. pp. 174-180. Trembour, F.N. 1990. Appendix F: A Hydration Study of Obsidian Artifacts, Burnt vs. Unburnt by the La Mesa Forest Fire. In the 1977 La Mesa Fire Study: Investigation of Fire and Fire Suppression Impacts on Cultural Resources in Bandelier National Monument. USDA, Forest Service. 1967. Fish Habitat Management Plan: Prairie City, Oregon: Malheur National Forest USDA, Forest Service. 1988. Economic and Social Analysis Handbook, FSH 1909.17. Washington, D.C. 324 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS References USDA, Forest Service. 1990. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan, Appendices-Volume 1, Malheur National Forest; Malheur Forest Plan as amended by the Regional Forester’s Amendment No. 2 (June 1995). USDA, Forest Service. 1990. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan, Appendices-Volume 1, Umatilla National Forest. USDA, Forest Service. 1990. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan, Appendices-Volume 1, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. USDA, Forest Service. 1990. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Primer and Field Guide. USDA, Forest Service. 1990. Timber Sale Preparation Handbook, FSH 2409.18. Washington, D.C. USDA, Forest Service. 1990. Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA, Forest Service. 1993. FEMAT Report, Forest Ecosystem Management: Ecological, Economic and Social Assessment. Portland, Oregon. USDA, Forest Service. 1993. Social Impact Analysis Course 1900-3. Washington, D.C. USDA, Forest Service. 1996. Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Portland, Oregon: Pacific Northwest Research Station. USDA, Forest Service. 1997. Monitoring and Evaluation Report, Fiscal Year 1996, Umatilla National Forest, Forest Plan. USDA, Forest Service. 1998. 1997 Monitoring and Evaluation Report for the National Forests of the Blue Mountains, Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. USDA, Forest Service. 1998. Economic and Social Conditions of Communities: Economic and Social Characteristics of Interior Columbia Basin Communities and an Estimation of Effects on Communities from the Alternatives of the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin Draft Environmental Impact Statements. USDA, Forest Service. 1999. A Social Assessment for the Proposed Mill Creek Timber Sales and Related Projects. Umpqua National Forest. USDA, Forest Service. 1999. Demographics and Natural Resources. Washington, D.C.: Programs and Legislation. USDA, Forest Service. 1999.Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant List. Portland, Oregon: Pacific Northwest Region. USDA, Forest Service. 2000. Socioeconomic Specialist Report, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Roadless Area Conservation. Washington D.C. USDA, Forest Service. 2000. Strategic Plan. Washington, D.C. USDA, Forest Service. 2001. Contract Summary for Malheur National Forest FY 2000. John Day, Oregon: Malheur National Forest. USDA, Forest Service. 2001. Employment, Income, Program Level Account Timber Sale Program (TSPIRS). USDA, Forest Service. 2001. Malheur National Forest Local Contractor Economic Overview 1998-2000 (Grant & Harney Counties). John Day, Oregon: Malheur National Forest. USDA, Forest Service. 2001. Restoration Strategy. LaGrande, Oregon: Blue Mountains Demonstration Area. 325 Glossary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS USDA, Forest Service. 2002. Blue Mountains Demonstration Area. Assessment of Timber Availability from Forest Restoration within the Blue Mountains of Oregon. 25 pp. USDA, Forest Service. 2002. Malheur National Forest BAER team specialist report: soils, hydrology, and fisheries. Malheur National Forest, John Day, OR. www.fs.fed.us/bluemountains/docs/veg-assess/vegetative-assessment-results.pdf USDA, Forest Service. 2002. Final Report, Land Management Recommendations Related to the Value of Low Road Density Areas in the Conservation of Listed Salmon, Steelhead, and Bull Trout and the FS Memorandum, Road Density Analysis Team Final Report, April, 3, 2002. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2001. Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics 2000. Economic and Statistics Administration. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2003. www.census.gov U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2003. American Fact Finder [Electronic Database]. www.factfinder.census.gov Volk, T. 1991. Commercial Picking in Eastern Oregon. Mushroom: The Journal of Wild Mushrooming 34: 10 (1): 19. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 2003. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Monument Fire Recovery Project. Walstad, J.D., S.R. Radosevich and D.V. Sandberg. 1990. Natural and Prescribed Fire in Pacific Northwest Forests. OSU Press: 27. Ward, F.R., G.J. Lettman and B.A. Hiserote. 2000. Oregon’s Forest Products Industry: 1998. Portland, Oregon: Oregon Department of Forestry and United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Weaver, T.M. and R.G. White. 1985. Coal Creek fisheries monitoring study No. III. Quarterly progress report. Montana State Cooperative Fisheries Research Unit, Bozeman, Montana. Weigand, J.F., E. Jones and R. McLain. 1999. [Unpublished draft]. U.S. Non-Timber Forest Products Assessment: Introduction/Assessment Themes. Draft. www.ifcae.org/ntfp/publications/assessments/introductions.html Wilde, J.D. 1985. Prehistoric Settlements in the Northern Great Basin: Excavations and Collections Analysis in the Steens Mountain Area, Southeastern Oregon. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon. Williams, D.R.; and S.I. Stewart. 1998. Sense of Place, An Elusive Concept that is Finding a Home in Ecosystem Management. Journal of Forestry 98 (5): 18-23. Yohannan, J. 2001. Grant County Economic Overview, presentation to Oregon Rural Development Council. LaGrande, Oregon: Oregon Department of Employment. References Analyzed Amaranthus, M.P., D.S. Parris and D.A. Perry. 1989. Decaying Logs as Moisture Reservoirs after Drought and Wildfire. Proceedings from Watershed 1989: A Conference on the Stewardship of Soil, Air and Water Resources. U.S. Department of Agriculture: Forest Service, Alaska Region. Belksky, A.J and J. Gelbard. 2000. Livestock Grazing and Weed Invasions in the Arid West. Oregon Natural Desert Association. 326 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS References Beschta, R. L. and others. 1995, Cumulative effects of forest practices in Oregon: literature and synthesis, Report to the Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon. Beschta, R.L., J.R. Karr, C.Frissell, and others. 2002. [unpublished] Letter to the US House of Representatives: Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health. July 3. Biological Opinion for Effects of Malheur National Forest’s 2001 Grazing Management Program on Bull Trout. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull, E. and A. Blumton. 1999. Effects of Fuels Reduction on American Martens and their Prey. General Technical Report, PNW-RN-539. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Duncan, S. 1999. Dead and Dying Trees: Essential for Life in the Forest. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Franklin, J.F. and others. 1981. Ecological Characteristics of Old-Growth Douglas-Fir Forests. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-118. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Henjum, M.G, D.L. Karr, D.A. Bottom, J.C. Perry, S.G. Bedarz, S.A. Wright and E. Beckwitt. 1994. Interim Protection for Late-Succcessional Forests, Fisheries, and Watersheds: National Forests East of the Cascade Crest, Oregon and Washington. A Report to the Congress and President of the United States. Ingham, E. The Soil Foodweb: It’s Importance in Ecosystem Health. http://www.rain.org/~sals/ingham.html Johnson, C.G. 1994. Forest Health in the Blue Mountains: A Plant Ecologist’s Perspective on Ecosystem Processes and Biological Diversity. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-339. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Johnson, D.H. and T.A. O’Neil. 2001. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University Press. Kellog, L., H.S. Han, J. Mayo and J. Cissel. Residual Stand Damage from Thinning- Young Stand Diversity Study. Cascade Center for Ecosystem Management. Kim, H.M. 2001. Chopping Down the Birds: Logging and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Environmental Law. 31. Langston, N. 1995. Forest Dreams, Forest Nightmares: The Paradox of Old Growth in the Inland West. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Ohmann, J.L. and K.L. Waddell. 2002. Regional Patterns of Dead Wood in Forested Habitats of Oregon and Washington. General Technical Report, PSW-GTR-181. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Rhodes, J.J., D.A. McCullough and F.A. Espinosa. 1994. A Coarse Screening Process for Potential Application in ESA consultations. General Technical Report 94-4. Prepared for National Marine Fisheries Service. Riggs. 2000. Modification of Mixed Conifer Forests by Ruminanat Herbivores in the Blue Mountain Ecological Province. General Technical Report, PNW-RP-527. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Riverwind, A. [unpublished] Minimum Mandatory Guidelines for all Projects Purporting to be Restoration, Forest Health, and/or Recovery Projects with Interior Pacific Northwest Forest. http://www.or.blm.gov/Prineville/LCM/alternatives/Web%20- %20Alternative%20B.pdf. Rose ,C.L., B.G. Marcot, T.K. Mellen, J.L. Ohmann, K.L. Waddell, D.L. Lindely and B. Schriber. 2001. In D.H. Johnson and O’Neil, managing directors, Wildlife Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Decaying Wood in Pacific Norwest 327 Glossary Monument Fire Recovery FEIS Forests: Concepts and Tools for Habitat Management. Regon State University Press: Corvallis, Oregon. pp580-623. Rothermel, R.C.1991. Predicting behavior and size of crown fires in the northern Rocky Mountains. USDA Forest Service, Research Paper. INT-438. USDA, Forest Service. 2002. Final Report, Land Management Recommendations Related to the Value of Low Road Density Areas in the Conservation of Listed Salmon, Steelhead, and Bull Trout and the FS Memorandum, Road Density Analysis Team Final Report, April, 3, 2002. USDA, Forest Service. 2000. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Washington DC: Washington Office.. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Management of Canada Lynx in the Cascades Ceopgraphic Areeas of Oregon and Washington. White Paper prepared by the Offices of Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Weikel, J.M. and J.P. Hayes. 2001. Habitat Use by Snag-Associated Species: A Bibliography for Species Occuring in Oregon and Washington. Research Contribution 33, Forest Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University. 328 Monument Fire Recovery FEIS References Additional References Cited Altman, B. 2000. Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Northern Rocky Mountains of Eastern Oregon and Washington. American Bird Conservancy and Oregon- Washington Partners in Brooks, P., K. Urban, and G. Yates. 1991. Sensitive Plants of the Malheur, Ochoco, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, R6-WAW-TP-040-92, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Brown, J.K., J.A.K. Snell , and K.L. Bunnell. 1977. Handbook for Predicting Slash Wight of Western Conifers. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT- 37. Brown, J.K., E.D. Reinhard, and K.A. Kramer. 2001. Coarse Woody Debris and Succession in the Recovering Forest. White Pater USDA Forest Service. Brown, J.K., E.D. Reinhard, and K.A. Kramer. 2003. Coarse Woody Debris: Managing Benefits and Fire Hazard in the Recovering Forest. Rock Mountain Research Station. Bliss, T.M. USDA Forest Service, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 2004 [Personal Communication]. January 14. On file in the project file. Csuti B., A. J. Kimerling, T. A. O'Neil, M. M. Shaughnessy, E. P. Gaines, and M. M. P. Huso. 1997. Atlas of Oregon Wildlife, Distribution, Habitat and Natural History. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. Daw, Sonia K. 1996. Northern Goshawk Nest Site Selection and Habitat Associations at the Post-fledging Family Area Scale in Oregon. Masters Thesis for Master of Science, Wildlife Science. Oregon State University. 55 pgs. Elliot, W.W., D.E. Hall, and D.L. Hall, Disturbed WEPP (Draft 2000). WEPP inter face for Disturbed Forest and Range Runoff, Erosion, and Sediment Delivery. Rock Mountain Research Station. Garrett, Kimball L., Martin G. Raphael, and Rita D. Dixon. 1996. White-headed Woodpecker. In The Birds of North America, No. 252 (A. Poole and F. Gill eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 24 pgs. Harvey, A.E., M.J. Larsen, and M.F. Jurgensen. 1979. Fire-decay: Interactive roles regulating wood accumulation and soil development in the Rock Mountains. Hutto, R.L. 1995. Composition of Bird Communities Following Stand Replacement Fires in Northern Rocky Mountain (U.S.A.) Conifer Forests. Conservation Biology 9(5): 1041-1058. Johnson, D.H. and T. A. O'Neil, ed. 2001. Wildlife-habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis OR. 736 pp. Knotts, L. 1998. Reanalysis of Snag Management Indicator Species. In: Summit Fire Recovery Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix H. Kotliar, N.B, S. Heil, R.L. Hutto, V.A. Saab, C.P. Melcher, and M.E. McFadzen. 2002. Effects of Fire and Post-fire Salvage Logging On Avian Communities in Conifer- Dominated Forests of the Western United States. Studies in Avian Biology No. 25: 49-64. Matz, F.A. 1928. Descriptive Report: Malheur River Timber Survey Project, Malheur National Forest 1927. USDA Forest Service. 328-Add 1 References Monument Fire Recovery FEIS McNeil, R.H. USDA Forest Service, Malheur National Forest. 2004 [Personal Communication]. On file in project file. Mellen, K., B.G. Marcot, J.L. Ohmann, K. Waddell, S.A. Livingston, E.A. Willhite, B.B. Hostetler, C. Ogden, T. Dreisbach. 2003. In Prep. DecAID, the Decayed Wood Advisor for Managing Snags, Partially Dead Trees, and Down Wood for Biodiversity in Forests of Washington and Oregon. Beta test version. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station and Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. Murphey, E.V.A. 1959. Indian uses of native plants. Mendocino County Historical Society, Fort Bragg, CA. Raphael, M.G., and M. White. 1984. Use of Snags by Cavity Nesting Birds in the Sierra Nevada. Wildlife Monographs, 86: 1-66. Rowland, M.M.; Wisdom, M.J.; Johnson, B.K. and Kie, J.G. 2000. Elk Distribution and Modeling in Relation to Roads. Journal of Wildlife Management. 64(3):672-684. Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22: 169-199. Ruggiero, Leonard F., K.G. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the Western United States. General. Technical. Report, RM-254. U.S. Fort Collins, Colorado: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station. Saab, V. and J. Dudley. 1997. Bird Responses to Stand Replacement Fire and Salvage Logging in Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-Fir Forests of Southwestern Idaho. Progress Report 94-96 of Study No. 4202-1-7-7. Unpublished Report, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Boise, ID. 34 p. Saab, V., R. Brannon, J. Dudley, L. Donohoo, D. Vanderzanden, V. Johnson, and H. Lachowski. 2002. Selection of Fire-Created Snags at Two Spatial scales by Cavity-nesting Birds. USDA Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181. Sallabanks, R. 1995. Effects of Wildfire on Breeding Bird Communities in Coniferous Forests of Northeastern Oregon. Unpublished annual report to the Blue Mountains Natural Resources Institute. Thomas, J.W., Tech. Ed. 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forest of the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Ag. Handbook No. 553, USDA, in cooperation with: Wildlife Management Institute, USDI Bureau of Land Management. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Birds of Conservation Concern 2002. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99 pp. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1995. Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) Environmental Assessment: Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. Interim Strategies for Managing Fish-Producing Watershed in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, Western Montana, and portion of Nevada. Wisdom, M.J.; Cimon, N.J.; Johnson, B.K.; Garton, E.O.; Bryant, L.D.; Thomas, J.W. and Kie, J.G. 1999. Distribution and Spatial Partitioning of Mule Deer and Elk in Relation to Traffic. University of Idaho. Moscow, Idaho. 52 p. 328-Add 2