a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · For More Information Contact: Ed Guzman Amy Mathis. District Ranger NEPA Planner . Prairie City Ranger District

United States Department of Agriculture

Final Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Summit Creek Landscape Restoration Project and Forest Plan Amendment Grant County, Oregon

Forest Service Malheur National Forest

Prairie City Ranger District

September 2017

For More Information Contact:

Ed Guzman Amy Mathis District Ranger NEPA Planner Prairie City Ranger District Prairie City Ranger District Malheur National Forest Malheur National Forest 327 SW Front Street 327 SW Front Street P.O. Box 337 P.O. Box 337 Prairie City, OR 97869 Prairie City, OR 97869 Phone: 541-820-3800 Phone: 541-820-3800 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Fax: 541-820-4844 Fax: 541-820-4844

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

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

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

Cover photo: Summit project area – overlooking Summit Prairie.

mailto:[email protected]

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


Summit Creek Landscape Restoration Project Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

i

Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 2

Project Location ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Purpose and Need for Action .................................................................................................................... 4

Decision and Rationale for the Decision ....................................................................................................... 5 Decision .................................................................................................................................................... 5 Rationale ................................................................................................................................................... 8

Detailed Description of My Decision ......................................................................................................... 17 Silviculture Treatments ........................................................................................................................... 17 Fuels Treatments..................................................................................................................................... 23 Riparian Habitat Conservation Area Treatments .................................................................................... 26 Wildlife Habitat Enhancement ............................................................................................................... 27 Associated Road Activities ..................................................................................................................... 29 Forest Plan Amendments ........................................................................................................................ 31 Alternatives and Treatments Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ...................................... 35 Public Involvement and Consultation with Government Agencies and Tribes ...................................... 35 Forest Plan Amendment Findings under the 2012 Planning Rule .......................................................... 36

Finding of No Significant Impact ............................................................................................................... 50 Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations ................................................................................... 54 Implementation ........................................................................................................................................... 55 Contact for Further Information .................................................................................................................. 55 Responsible Official .................................................................................................................................... 56 References ................................................................................................................................................... 57

List of Tables

Table 1. Forest plan management area allocations and goals ....................................................................... 4 Table 2. Prescription density guidelines for ponderosa pine and mixed conifer restoration ...................... 18 Table 3. Acres of non-commercial thinning in riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) by stream

category for the selected alternative .................................................................................................... 27 Table 4. Old growth in the project area – forest plan minimum requirements, existing acres, and adjusted

acres for the selected alternative ......................................................................................................... 29 Table 5. Changes in management area (MA) allocations resulting from old growth additions in the

Summit project area ............................................................................................................................ 33

List of Figures

Figure 1. Summit Project vicinity map. ........................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2. Location of late and old structure (LOS) stands within ponderosa pine and mixed conifer

restoration prescription units in the selected alternative. LOS stands are shown as areas of modified treatment where trees greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. will not be removed. .......................... 7


2

Introduction The Prairie City Ranger District of the Malheur National Forest proposed the Summit Creek Landscape Restoration Project (Summit Project or project) to: restore the ecological structure and function of forest ecosystems to improve forest health; restore riparian vegetation, including aspen and other hardwood vegetation; reduce fuel loading and fire hazard across the landscape; and reduce road related impacts on approximately 38,000 acres of National Forest System lands.

The project area has been altered by past management activities including livestock grazing, timber harvest, and fire suppression. The combination of timber harvest and fire suppression gradually converted warm dry forests from primarily early seral species (ponderosa pine and western larch) to late seral species (grand fir and Douglas-fir). These late seral, shade-tolerant trees are less resistant to insects, disease, and fire. Stand densities have also increased across the forest. Densely stocked stands have heavy fuel loads on the ground, multiple canopy layers, and crowns that are close together, which all contribute to an increased fire hazard in portions of the project area.

This decision notice (DN) documents my decisions and rationale for the Summit Project based on the analysis completed in the final environmental assessment. The Summit Creek Landscape Restoration Project Final Environmental Assessment is incorporated by reference, and documents and analyzes a proposal to apply silviculture and fuels treatments, underburning, and associated road activities in the project area.

Project Location The 38,000-acre Summit project area is located in the Malheur River watershed, approximately 20 miles southeast of Prairie City, Oregon, in eastern Grant County. The project boundary is located a few miles south of the Strawberry Wilderness, and is bounded by the Elk 16 Landscape Restoration Project to the east, Logan Valley to the west, and the Emigrant Creek Ranger District boundary to the south. Grant County Road 62 and Forest Service Road 16 pass through the project area (Figure 1).

The Summit project area encompasses the Bosonberg Creek–Malheur River and Summit Creek subwatersheds. The project area contains tributaries to the Malheur River and the Malheur River itself, which is designated as wild and scenic. The approximately 6 mile section of the Malheur River within the project boundary is congressionally designated as scenic. The Summit Project is within all or parts of the following township and ranges: Township 15 S, Range 35 E; Township 16 S, Range 35 E; Township 16 S, Range 34 E; Township 16 S, Range 33 E; Township 17 S, Range 34 E; and, Township 17 S, Range 331/2 E, Willamette Meridian.

Based on forest plan management area delineations, the Summit Project includes areas managed for general forest, rangeland, old growth habitat, riparian habitat conservation areas, semi-primitive motorized recreation, visual corridors, and a segment of the Malheur River scenic corridor (Table 1). The northeast corner of the project area includes 31 acres of the Glacier Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area, which is designated as management area 11, semi-primitive motorized recreation area. This management area is excluded from scheduled timber harvest and classified as “unsuitable” for timber management.


3

Figure 1. Summit Project vicinity map.


4

Table 1. Forest plan management area allocations and goals

Forest plan management area allocations

Acres in project area Forest plan goals

General Forest (MA 1) 38,010 Emphasize timber production on a sustained yield basis while providing for other resource values.

Rangeland (MA 2) Included in MA 1

Emphasize forage production on non-forested areas on a sustained yield basis while providing for other resources and values.

Old Growth (MA 13) 390 Provide “suitable” habitat for old growth dependent wildlife species, ecosystem diversity, and preservation of aesthetic qualities.

Riparian Areas (MA 3A)/riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs)

3,957 Manage riparian areas to protect and enhance their values for wildlife, resident fish, and water quality.

Acres for this MA are measured using RHCA buffers.

Semi-Primitive Motorized Recreation (MA 11)

Note: The 31 acres of MA 11 are located within the Glacier Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area

31 Protect, enhance, and maintain the natural beauty and character of the undeveloped areas through effective visitor use and resource management.

Manage to provide a wide range of semi-primitive motorized recreation opportunities while protecting the environmental quality.

Visual Foreground (MA 14F) 5,101 Manage viewshed corridors with primary consideration given to scenic quality and growth of large diameter trees. Visual quality objectives such as retention, partial retention, and modification would be applied while providing for other uses and resources.

Visual Middleground (MA 14M) 19,822

Wild and Scenic River (MA 22B) Scenic Corridor

531 Protect, enhance, and maintain the natural beauty, character, outstandingly remarkable values and water quality. Preserve the free flowing condition of wild and scenic rivers and their corridors for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

Management areas overlap; therefore, total acres presented above is greater than the total acres in the project area.

Purpose and Need for Action The purpose and need for action is derived from the differences between existing conditions and desired conditions in the project area. The desired conditions are based on management direction in the 1990 Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (USDA Forest Service 1990a), reference conditions for vegetation in the project area, and where forest plan information was not explicit, best available science and local research developed in a collaborative setting with stakeholders were used. The historical range of variability (HRV) is the reference condition toward which the landscape is being managed, and refers to historical pattern and abundance of structural stages found in the area pre-European Settlement. Each resource discussion in chapter 3 of the Summit Project final EA begins with a description of existing conditions. The existing and desired conditions are fully described in resource specialist reports in the project record and posted on the project website.

The purpose and need is to: • Restore the ecological structure and function of forest ecosystems within the project area landscape

to; improve and maintain forest health and increase resilience to drought, fire, insects and diseases, and other disturbances. Restore characteristic levels of within-stand and between-stand spatial


5

complexity across the landscape that mimics natural patch size and distribution as well as connectivity.

• Restore riparian vegetation, including aspen and other hardwood vegetation. Restore meadow processes where conifers are encroaching and negatively affecting condition and trend.

• Reduce fuel loading and fire hazard across the landscape, including riparian habitat conservation areas, the Malheur Wild and Scenic River corridor, inventoried roadless areas, and lands near forest evacuation routes/corridors identified for communities at risk in the Grant County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. In addition, reduce fuel loadings to aid in fire suppression efforts along strategic fuel break roads identified by Malheur National Forest fire managers. Move overly dense stands toward desired riparian and upland vegetation communities, as appropriate based on plant association group, historical fire regime, stream type (intermittent or perennial), elevation, aspect, slope, and microclimate.

• Improve resiliency of the landscape to future disturbances by restoring forest ecosystems to appropriate ecological structure, composition, and density.

• Reduce fuel loading (surface, ladder, and crown fuels), and thereby reduce the potential for undesirable fire behavior across the landscape.

• Improve terrestrial and aquatic habitat and water quality.

• Contribute to the social and economic vitality of local communities by providing forest products from National Forest System lands.

See Summit Project final EA chapter 1 (pages 4-6) for a full description of the purpose and need.

Decision and Rationale for the Decision Decision As Forest Supervisor for the Malheur National Forest, I make decisions in full consideration of the land resources, national interests, and the local communities that will be affected. When I make decisions regarding forest management, I search for a balance among the ecological, economic, and socio-political considerations. My decision is based on consideration of best available science and how it relates to current resource conditions and the stated purpose and need for restoration of the landscape as identified in this specific project.

I have listened to presentations and discussions with collaborative groups and comments during meetings with our county leaders. I have reviewed public comments on the preliminary EA and those received during scoping. Your comments have voiced concerns about protection of riparian areas, forest plan amendments to allow removal of trees greater than or equal to 21inches d.b.h., and road access to enjoy the Malheur National Forest. You also expressed concerns about management of the Malheur Wild and Scenic River Corridor, and timber supply to support the local mill and add jobs to the local economy. I thank those who participated during collaborative meetings, field trips, and County Court meetings. I thank those that offered comments and thoughts on the management of this project area. Your issues are summarized in the final EA (FEA pages 13-16).

To be responsive to your scoping comments, I modified the original proposed action presented to you during scoping and added alternative 3. The resulting modified proposed action (alternative 2) and alternative 3 were described in the preliminary EA. After consideration of public and internal comments received on the preliminary EA, the modified proposed action and alternative 3 were further modified for


6

the final EA. Table 3 in the final EA (pages 18-20) summarizes the modifications made between the preliminary and final environmental assessments.

I evaluated all environmental consequences of the alternatives analyzed in the Summit final EA (FEA chapter 3), including the no-action alternative, to determine which alternative will best meet the purpose and need for the project while minimizing environmental impacts. I have decided to select alternative 2 with some adjustments from the modified proposed action as described on pages 17-51 of the final EA. Throughout this document my decision is referred to as the “decision,” “selected alternative,” or as “alternative 2 with alterations.”

The selected alternative in the draft decision notice included only those road actions listed in the final EA in Appendix A – Road Activities, Table A 3 under the Alternative 2 column. In the final decision, I am altering the road actions for 3 road segments (1410368, 1410372, and 1651323). For those 3 segments, I am choosing the action described in the Alternative 3 column of Table A 3, i.e., leaving them open. For the remaining road segments listed in the final EA in Table A 3, I am choosing the action described in the Alternative 2 column. I am making these changes because of public comments on the preliminary EA.

Public comments identified cutting of trees greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. and loss of late and old structure (LOS) as concerns. To address these concerns, I have decided to eliminate cutting of trees greater than or equal to 21 inches within designated LOS stands. I am willing to make this change primarily because of public comments. The Summit project area is adjacent to the Elk 16 project area where I made a decision in 2015 to not remove trees greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. within LOS stands. Combined, the two decisions maintain a larger block where trees greater than 21 inches d.b.h. will be retained within LOS stands, which addresses a strong public concern over the short-term loss of habitat for cavity excavators. Not cutting trees greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. in LOS stands eliminates the need for a forest plan amendment for potential loss of LOS in the selected alternative. Thinning and fuels restoration treatments will still occur within LOS in the selected alternative to address the purpose and need, with the exception that trees greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h will not be cut within designated LOS stands.

The final EA estimated 2,359 acres of LOS treated with the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer restoration prescription within the Warm Dry plant association group where trees greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h could potentially be removed (FEA page 50). This estimate of LOS acres was made prior to the preliminary EA and was based on a combination of modelling and field verification. The estimate was not recalculated when alternative 2 was modified and proposed commercial treatments within RHCAs and the Wild and Scenic River corridor were removed in the final EA.

While considering this decision, it was important to specifically know where LOS is located within the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer restoration prescription units. Therefore, I had field crews re-examine units that were known to contain LOS to better determine the location and extent of LOS stands within these units. Through this field exercise, it was determined that 1,616 acres of LOS exist within ponderosa pine and mixed conifer restoration prescription units in the selected alternative. Figure 2 below indicates the location of these LOS stands. The LOS stands shown on this map are the specific areas where my decision will not remove trees greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. to address public comments and retain habitat for cavity excavator species.


7

Figure 2. Location of late and old structure (LOS) stands within ponderosa pine and mixed conifer restoration prescription units in the selected alternative. LOS stands are shown as areas of modified treatment where trees greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. will not be removed.


8

The selected alternative in the draft decision notice allowed removal of young (less than 150 years old), relatively large (greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h.) grand fir and Douglas-fir. Grand fir and Douglas-fir trees have become a major species component within stands across the Summit project area. Historically, these species were not a major component within dry forest types but were present on the landscape. Past management practices, including the exclusion of fire, have allowed the ingrowth of these species, which has increased the risk of mortality to old ponderosa pine and western larch from competition-induced stress, wildfire, and insect attacks. My decision will address this need by removing grand fir and Douglas-fir outside of LOS, which will result in a forest plan amendment to the Eastside Screens standard 6(d)(2)(a) to allow removal of trees greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. More discussion regarding this amendment is provided in the rationale below.

Rationale The final EA presents a large body of science and site-specific data supporting the effects analysis. I feel the science and data referenced in the final EA and decision notice strongly support the selected alternative. This section details the rationale for my decision and is based on how the selected alternative meets the purpose and need for the project, and addresses key issues identified during scoping, as well as other public comments and input. I selected alternative 2 with alterations because it provides the best option to meet the purpose and need and address key issues identified during scoping.

Purpose and Need

Improve resiliency of the landscape to future disturbances by restoring forest ecosystems to appropriate ecological structure, composition, and density The Forest Vegetation section in the final EA (pages 92-102) shows that approximately 97 percent of the forested vegetation in the Summit project area is classified as dry forest. Dry forests are of greatest concern in this project area because of their current high susceptibility to stand-replacing fire, western spruce budworm activity (Hessburg et al. 1994, Agee 2003, Hessburg et al. 2005), and bark beetles. Historically, frequent low-severity and mixed-severity fire regimes maintained ponderosa pine as the dominant species in the dry forests (Agee 2003, Hessburg et al. 2005). The greatest changes in species composition have occurred in the Douglas-fir, grand fir, and subalpine fir series, especially in the grand fir series where there has commonly been a complete reversal in species dominance from ponderosa pine to grand fir and Douglas-fir due to the effects of fire exclusion and selective logging of overstory pine.

In a 2012 study, tree data collected in the adjacent watershed east of the Summit project area shows the change in species composition since the establishment of the Blue Mountain Forest Reserves in 1891, and national forests in 1905. This study documents the encroachment of lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, and grand fir into stands that have either been pure ponderosa pine stands or Douglas-fir/ponderosa pine stands. Along with the change in species composition, the historical stand structure has changed from a single-strata structure to a multi-strata structure. The stand structure in the Warm Dry plant association group within the project area has moved from a historical range of being well distributed throughout the different structural stages to a distribution that would be hard to naturally maintain into the future.

The overly dense stands in the project area have made them susceptible to drought, insects, and disease. Information collected in 1910 by Thornton Munger and compiled by David Powell, retired Forest Silviculturist of the Umatilla National Forest, suggested that pure ponderosa pine stands would historically average 47 trees per acre (Powell 2004). This sample was taken in Wheeler County just one mile south of the Umatilla National Forest, in a hot, dry, south slope at 3300 feet. By comparison, 91 percent of the representative stand exam data collected in the Summit project area displayed average trees per acre greater than 117 in the ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir/ponderosa pine climax communities.


9

Stand density index (SDI) is a common measure of density that allows comparisons across units independent of individual tree age or size (Powell 1999). For any given average tree size for each species there is a limit to the number of trees per acre that may coexist in a stand. This limit is known as the maximum SDI (Max SDI). Of all forested stands in the project area, 78 percent are above the maximum zone as described by Powell (1999) and Cochran et al. (1994), with high stand densities that are susceptible to competition induced mortality, insect and disease infestation, and high-severity fires.

In July 2012, the project area was visited by Craig Schmitt and Don Scott of the Blue Mountains Forest Health Protection Service Center. This report noted Western spruce budworms and Douglas-fir tussock moth have infested true firs and Douglas-fir stands in the Summit Project. Defoliation on the Malheur National Forest has been and continues to be a problem. Continual defoliation could increase stress and weaken trees, which would then make them more susceptible to bark beetles. It also noted that western pine beetle and mountain pine beetle have infested ponderosa and lodgepole pine in numerous stands in the project area. In dense lodgepole pine stands located in visual corridors along Forest Service Road 16 and County Highway 62, mountain pine beetle activity is at epidemic levels. As stand densities of ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine continue to increase, bark beetle activity would continue to increase. With this increase, old trees would die as they begin to decline in vigor from age and competition. Continuing on the present course of stand development would assure an increase in stand vulnerability to defoliators, bark beetles, and mistletoe in the future. Competition with a dense understory of vegetation that has developed beneath the canopy of large, overstory pines in the absence of regular low-intensity underburning by surface fires is a major factor contributing to increased susceptibility to bark beetle infestation.

Based on the existing condition, I selected alternative 2 with alterations because restoration thinning that includes removal of young, equal to or greater than 21 inch d.b.h. fir trees will better release ponderosa pine and western larch from competition, resulting in larger average size trees, average basal area that is in the historical range of variability, species composition that has a higher proportion of early seral species and is less fire susceptible, and trees that have variability of spacing across the landscape (FEA page 110). The change in species composition toward ponderosa pine and western larch will have a profound effect of reducing the chronic western spruce budworm/root disease/fir engraver complex on grand fir, and will help move the stand structure and species composition more closely in line with the historical range of variability more quickly than alternative 3. By contrast, alternative 3 does not include an amendment to allow removal of young, equal to or greater than 21 inches d.b.h. fir trees. The selection of alternative 3 would have allowed fir to continue overtaking ponderosa pine and western larch and would have done less to move the stands toward the old forest single-strata structure that is the desired condition and is currently lacking in the project area. The continued encroachment of large fir on sunlight and other nutrients would make ponderosa pine and western larch less healthy and more susceptible to insects and disease (FEA page 113).

Thinning prescriptions will bring stand density index (SDI) levels to within desired ranges (approximately 25–50 percent of Max SDI). Under the selected alternative, in 2026 an estimated total of 55 percent of forested stands will be within or below their management zone, compared to a total of 15 percent of stands being within or below their management zone by taking no action. The selected alternative will help increase stand resilience to natural disturbances such as insects, disease, and wildfire (FEA page 109).

The Warm Dry plant association group (PAG) is the largest PAG in the project area, comprising 63 percent of the total area. One of the largest changes that will occur over time is the increase in old forest single stratum (OFSS) forest structure in the Warm Dry PAG. This structure is currently lacking, and below historical ranges within the project area (less than 1 percent). Over a 30 year time period,


10

alternative 2 with alterations will help move the project area into the historical range of OFSS (15–55 percent), with 22 percent of the Warm Dry PAG attaining OFSS. Under alternative 1, only 6 percent of the Warm Dry PAG would attain OFSS (FEA page 104).

Reduce fuel loading (surface, ladder, and crown fuels), and thereby reduce the potential for undesirable fire behavior across the landscape For the last century, fire suppression has altered the natural disturbance regime in this landscape resulting in heavy fuel loads, multiple canopy layers, and crowns that are close together in some areas, contributing to an increased fire hazard.

The current condition of the Summit project area is in such a state that if a fire were to start and escape suppression efforts, the fire behavior and potential severity could potentially be outside of historical thresholds and have adverse effects to other resources.

The departure from a natural fire regime has been attributed to a combination of historical and continued land use objectives such as logging and grazing, improvement of fire suppression, and increased access from roads. Tree densities are higher and species composition has shifted to a higher proportion of shade tolerant, fire susceptible fir species. Surface fuel loading has increased in all size classes. The transition of tree composition and increased surface fuel loading and ladder fuels has resulted in a project area less resilient to natural disturbances such as fire.

My selection of alternative 2 with alterations will break up continuity of surface and crown fuels and raise the canopy base height. This will increase the likelihood that any unplanned ignitions will remain surface fire, increasing the rate of success for suppression efforts, protection of life and property, as well as moving the project area toward a more resilient state (FEA page 126).

Upon completion of the treatments approximately 22 percent more of the project area will classify as having a light fuel load of 10 tons per acre or less when compared to alternative 1 (no action). Surface fuels will be dominated by grasses and light timber litter in treated stands (FEA page 128).

The reduction in moderate and heavy surface fuel loads modeled for the selected alternative will improve suppression efficiency under extreme fire weather, decrease unplanned ignitions resistance to control, and decrease effects of fire severity to soil and vegetation (FEA page 128). Removal of trees equal to or greater than 21 inches d.b.h. will have no additional impact on surface fuel loading (FEA page 128).

Upon completion of the fuel reduction treatments approximately 32 percent of project area will have less than 4 foot surface flame lengths compared to 47 percent of the project area under alternative 1 (no action) (FEA page 129).

By selecting alternative 2 with alterations, I am insuring flame lengths are anticipated to be less than four feet in the wildland-urban interface escape corridors and strategic road buffers, RHCAs, designated old growth areas, and wildlife corridors. This reduced flame length will increase the success of suppression efforts and decreases fire risk and hazard to private property (FEA page 129).

Following implementation of the selected fuel reduction treatments, approximately 19 percent of the project area will have the potential for crown fire, compared to 38 percent of the project area under alternative 1 (no action) (FEA page 130). After all treatments are completed, the selected alternative will increase the potential for surface fire to 82 percent of the project area, and reduce the potential for crown fire to 11 percent. Under alternative 1 only 24 percent of the project area would have the potential for active or passive crown fire (FEA page 130).


11

Resource sensitive areas such as RHCAs and old-growth areas will receive the greatest benefit from the selection of alternative 2 with alterations. The greatest improvement of fire type are anticipated to be in Keystone Gulch Creek, Larch Creek, and Conroy Creek. After completion of treatments, the fire type in these areas will predominantly be surface fire with pockets of passive crown fire (FEA page 130).

In contrast to alternative 3, removal of some grand fir and Douglas-fir trees equal to or greater than 21 inches d.b.h. in the selected alternative will increase the resiliency of stands by reducing crown bulk density and ladder fuels in the canopy. This reduction of crown bulk density will also decrease the amount of ladder fuels that could interact with surface fire and transition to crown fire (FEA page 130).

Compared to the no-action alternative, if unplanned ignition were to occur, the selected alternative increases the percentage of the project area with potential for less than 25 percent basal area mortality, while decreasing the percentage of the project area with potential to have 25 to 75 percent basal area mortality (FEA page 130). This increase of less mortality will occur in Keystone Gulch Creek, Larch Creek, Conroy Creek, along identified wildland-urban interface escape corridors, and in close proximity to strategic roads.

The selected alternative will also improve watershed resiliency by increasing opportunities for wildfire to provide desirable fire effects more consistent with past fire disturbance regimes in the Summit and Bosonberg-Malheur subwatersheds, the Malheur Wild and Scenic River Corridor, and the Glacier Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area.

Improve terrestrial and aquatic habitat and water quality Thinning and underburning included in my decision will mimic and promote the recovery of fire-based natural disturbance regimes. Treatments will meet the purpose and need of this project to improve the long-term buffering ability of the RHCA by moving toward historical stand conditions and setting up the system to benefit from wildfire or prescribed fire (FEA page 169).

As a result of my decision to select alternative 2 with alterations, watershed resiliency will be improved for both subwatersheds in the project area by:

• moving fire disturbance cycles away from the present condition of high severity, low frequency, high suppression effort toward the historical condition of high frequency and low-mixed severity,

• reducing likelihood of post-fire soil erosion and sediment delivery to streams,

• reducing competition for water resources through lower stand densities and conversion to single-stratum stands, and

• reducing fuels continuity between the uplands and RHCAs and the likelihood that wildfires and/or suppression efforts could affect streams (FEA page 169).

The non-commercial RHCA thinning in my decision will enhance growth of larger trees in the future and benefit wildlife habitat and improve the size, volume, and quality of future large wood. Enhancing future large wood will have long-term will benefit fisheries by improving stream habitat and restoring sediment processes. Thinning treatments will enhance the health and productivity of remaining large trees, which will improve the size, volume, and quality of future large wood in the long term (FEA page 170).

Over time, treatments will move more stands toward old growth structures with a higher proportion of large mature trees and reduce the abundance of small diameter trees. Water flows will also slightly increase at the reach or drainage level as evapotranspiration rates are reduced as trees mature and competition is decreased (FEA page 170).


12

Under the selected alternative, non-commercial silviculture treatments in 55 percent of Category 4 streams, 63 percent of Category 1 streams, and 44 percent of Category 2 streams will move toward site potential vegetation by increasing large diameter conifers throughout the RHCAs and enhancing hardwoods at springs and wet areas, setting streams on a trajectory toward the historical or desired conditions. Non-commercial thinning in RHCAs will move riparian areas toward site potential vegetation along approximately 28 miles of stream in the Bosonberg-Malheur subwatershed and 53 miles of stream in the Summit subwatershed through non-commercial thinning (FEA page 171) meeting the purpose and need of this project.

In the long term, treatments will move RHCAs toward site potential vegetation and improve stream shade, which will also improve habitat for aquatic species, most notably bull trout.

With implementation of the selected alternative, stream shade will not be reduced at any scale in the short term or long term. In the long term, treatments will move RHCAs toward site potential vegetation and improve stream shade. Stream temperatures are expected to respond similarly, with minimal effects at reach level in the short term, but with reductions in the long term. Improving site potential vegetation and reducing stream temperatures in the long term in my decision will benefit water quality limited streams, such as Summit Creek and the Malheur River (FEA page 172).

While in the short term prescribed underburning may produce small amounts of sediment into the project area tributaries, groundcover will return to or exceed pre-burn levels within 3 to 5 years, and sediment yields are not expected to measurably increase at the stream scale. Additionally, the selected alternative’s roads activities will reduce chronic sediment delivery to streams in 20 of 34 roads in the project area with observed sediment delivery, which will reduce turbidity, improving habitat for aquatic species.

In the long term, these RHCAs will benefit from a shift toward historical fire regime and the associated sediment inputs that naturally occur under characteristic wildfire (FEA page 173). The increase in the proportion of surface fire and decrease in the proportion of crown fire resulting from the implementation of the selected alternative will benefit watershed function because surface fires are typically lower in severity and mortality and more consistent with historical regimes (DeBano 2000, Doerr et al. 2006). This will benefit fish and aquatic habitat, and promote a natural fire regime that benefits fish populations overall.” This is particularly important where fish populations are isolated and in decline in the Malheur River bull trout population (FEA page 169).

Through implementation of silvicultural and fuels treatments my decision will improve range conditions, reducing tree and shrub density and allowing more sunlight to reach the forest floor, thus benefiting herbaceous understory species and ungulates by extension. Reducing the density of trees and shrubs provides more areas for livestock and other ungulates to graze, allowing for better distribution and reduced potential for overgrazing (FEA page 313). With implementation of the selected alternative, forage will increase in the Summit Creek and Bosonberg Creek-Malheur River subwatersheds. Cover (HEI values) will also increase within summer range in both watersheds (FEA page 235). Wildlife habitat enhancement projects will create forage openings; expand upland meadows by removing encroaching conifers; and change the structure of existing ceanothus habitat into a more ideal forage to cover ratio for deer and elk (FEA page 41). Forage will increase as a result of actions in both subwatersheds. Where road densities are reduced, elk security may increase, allowing animals to utilize increased forage (FEA page 237).

As noted above, implementing roads activities as described in the selected alternative will reduce chronic sediment delivery to streams in 20 of 34 roads in the project area, improving water quality overall, and thereby improving habitat for aquatic species such as bull trout and Columbia spotted frog (FEA page 178). Retention of old forest multi strata stands within the historical range will benefit all wildlife species


13

dependent on old forest structure stands, including pileated woodpeckers. White-headed woodpeckers in particular will benefit from the increase in abundance of open stand structure with ponderosa pine contributing a relatively larger percentage of the species composition. White-headed woodpeckers will experience a 15 percent increase in source habitat as a result of the implementation of the Summit Project (FEA page 211).

Contribute to the social and economic vitality of local communities by providing forest products from National Forest System lands The selected alternative will provide economic benefits to local communities including a variety of wood products and forest management employment opportunities. I live in the community of John Day and know how important wood products are to the overall economy of the area. It is estimated that my selected alternative will provide approximately 91,087 ccf (hundred cubic feet of timber), with 20 to 30 percent of this volume coming in the form of biomass and 60 to 70 percent in the form of saw logs. This is about 12,600 ccf more than alternative 3. Through the processing of this timber, the selected alternative will provide up to 221 direct and 133 indirect jobs, about 50 more jobs than alternative 3 (FEA page 319). I chose the selected alternative in part due to the greater economic benefit it will provide to local communities.

Key Issues Alternatives were developed to address the following key issues. See final EA pages 15-16 for a complete discussion of the key issues identified during scoping.

Key Issue 1. Commercial Harvest in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas Concerns regarding commercial removal of overstory conifers in riparian habitat conservation areas was one key issues identified during scoping. Public comments voiced concerns that harvest activities could increase stream sedimentation, reduce stream shade, and reduce large wood recruitment. Additional comments received during the preliminary EA review and comment period resulted in my reexamining commercial harvest within RHCAs. I have decided the need to reduce fuel loading and improve ecosystem health in RHCAs can be met through non-commercial thinning using a combination of hand-thinning and non-mechanical fuel treatments. These tools will simulate natural disturbance and restore stand densities and species composition in RHCAs.

Project design criteria will be used to protect soil properties, future large wood, stream shade, and bank stability. Riparian habitat conservation area treatments will not occur continuously along a stream but will occur in 1–3 mile reaches to mimic natural patterns of heterogeneity and to provide strategic breaks in fuels continuity (FEA page 38).

• There will be no commercial harvest or biomass removal activities within RHCAs.

• Because all RHCA thinning treatments will be non-commercial, there will be no use of the haul routes within RHCAs to bring harvest material to the road for extraction (landings, skidding, etc.).

• Fuel treatments will consist of handpiling and underburning with no heavy equipment used (FEA page 39).

The selected alternative is consistent with the Malheur Forest Plan Aquatic Habitat standards as amended by Amendment 29 and INFISH (FEA pages 188-189). The selected alternative is consistent with habitat elements and riparian management objectives in Amendment 29 and INFISH, respectively. These include:

• Stream shade/canopy closure – Non-commercial thinning treatments within the RHCA will not affect stream shade along streams because thinning will 1) only cut smaller trees that comprise


14

the understory canopy and, 2) not cut within no-cut buffers near the stream channel (FEA page 171).

• Stream Temperature – Stream shade will not be reduced measurably at any scale in the short term or long term. In the long term, treatments will move RHCAs toward site potential vegetation and improve stream shade. Stream temperatures are expected to respond similarly, with minimal effects at reach level in the short term, but with reductions in the long term. Improving site potential vegetation and reducing stream temperatures in the long term will benefit water-quality-limited streams, such as Summit Creek and the Malheur River (FEA page 172).

• Sediment/cobble embeddedness – No landings or skid trails will occur in RHCAs. Hand-falling treatments maintain soil integrity and have no effect on sediment delivery. Therefore, there is no potential mechanism for sediment delivery to streams as a result of thinning treatments. As a result of road activities, there will be no measurable increases in sediment at the drainage level in the short term in either subwatershed due to best management practices to control and minimize sediment delivery (FEA pages 172-173).

• Large woody debris/Pool frequency – There will be no activities within stream channels. Standing large trees in RHCAs that could provide future large wood recruitment will be maintained in non-commercial thinning units in RHCAs (FEA page 170).

• Bank stability (undercut banks) – There will be no direct effect to streambank stability as there will be no activities within stream channels or the inner riparian area. There will be no indirect effects on stream channels from timber harvest in the uplands in either subwatershed because there will be no measurable increases in peak flow; processes of bank erosion and sediment deposition would not be pushed outside the natural cycle of stream evolution (FEA page 170).

Key Issue 2. Commercial Harvest of Trees Greater Than or Equal to 21 Inches Diameter at Breast Height Another key issue I identified from public comments was removal of trees 21 inches d.b.h. or greater. As previously stated, one alteration of alternative 2 as selected is to not remove trees 21 inches d.b.h. within late and old structure (LOS), which eliminates the need for a forest plan amendment to Regional Forester’s Eastside Forest Plan Amendment 2, standard 6 (d) scenario A to allow a short-term loss of LOS within the Warm Dry plant association group.

My decision will retain trees 150 years old or greater in age in all stand structures and will result in a forest plan amendment to the Eastside Screens standard 6(d)(2)(a) to allow removal of trees greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. outside of LOS stands. One of the needs identified for the project area is to transition to more fire-resistant tree species and historical stand structures. Past management including fire exclusion has allowed the ingrowth of younger grand fir and Douglas-fir trees which has increased the risk of mortality to old ponderosa pine, western larch, and aspen due to competition induced stress insect attacks, and uncharacteristic wildfire. Studies completed within or near the project area show that the dry forest landscapes were historically dominated by ponderosa pine. Historically, frequent low-severity and mixed severity fire regimes maintained ponderosa pine as the dominant species. The purpose of the amendment to remove trees 21 inches d.b.h. or greater is to move the landscape toward its historical condition as a fire-adapted ecosystem. Restoration treatments will reduce stand densities and favor a transition to more historically present and fire-resistant trees species while retaining a fir component historically endemic to these dry forest types.

Some recent information was provided by James Johnston and Professor John Bailey at Oregon State University summarizing findings from research into successional and disturbance dynamics on the Malheur National Forest relevant to management of grand fir in the Summit project area (Johnston et al.


15

2016). This research supports my decision for removing larger but younger grand fir. Findings from Johnston et al. (2016) show many of the grand fir that have grown in since the suppression of fire on the Malheur National Forest are 21 inches d.b.h. or greater. In the three sites sampled, the percentage of grand fir that exceeded 21 inches d.b.h. ranged from 8 to 32 percent depending on site productivity. Although these grand fir are large, they are not old and are threatening the survival of fire-resistant long-lived early-seral ponderosa pine and western larch, some of which are true old-growth trees. I have decided that it is necessary to remove these large yet young grand fir to preserve both old-growth and young ponderosa pine and western larch trees. Maintaining a consistent and sustainable long-lived early-seral presence on the landscape will improve forest heterogeneity and restore resiliency.

My decision to thin and remove grand fir trees greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. and less than 150 years old will begin changing stand composition toward the reference condition for the Warm Dry plant association group, which is 70 percent ponderosa pine and 30 percent other species including western larch, Douglas-fir, and grand fir. Restoration thinning removing trees up to 20.9 inches d.b.h., and grand fir that are 21 inches d.b.h. and greater and less than 150 years old will increase the proportion of ponderosa pine forest type from 49 to 53 percent, while increasing the proportion of ponderosa pine in stands already within this forest type (FEA page 112).

Key Issue 3. Water Quality – Road Closures Public comments identified a concern that roads in riparian areas may cause long term damage to streams by increasing sediment delivery and degrading fish habitat. To address the purpose and need, approximately 27 miles of road in the project area will be closed to motorized access in my decision (approximately 10 and 17 miles in the Bosonberg-Malheur and Summit subwatersheds, respectively). This will reduce sediment delivery in both subwatersheds; studies have shown that driven roads consistently have higher sediment delivery than non-drivable roads (Al-Chokhachy et al. 2016). Activities associated with road closure involve hydrologically stabilizing roads by adding erosion control such as water bars and eliminating motorized access. Closed roads will be left in a hydrologically stable condition per adherence with project design criteria (FEA chapter 2). Sediment delivery from closing roads will not increase measurably at the drainage scale, and in the long term, streams will benefit from reduced motorized access on these roads (FEA page 175).

With the implementation of my decision, 20 of 34 roads with observed sediment delivery will be improved as a result of haul maintenance or road closure, including 10 roads in the Bosonberg-Malheur and 10 roads in the Summit subwatersheds. These road closures will also reduce chronic sediment delivery from streams in the short term and the long term by improving drainage and reducing motorized access. Summit Creek and the Malheur River, which are water-quality-limited for biocriteria and sediment, will benefit from road improvements within the subwatersheds that will reduce long term sediment inputs meeting the purpose and need of the project (FEA page 175-176).

All haul roads are maintained prior to use and will be monitored to assure they are hydrologically functional and are only utilized during dry and or frozen conditions. All perennial stream crossings (Category 1and 2 RHCAs), along with intermittent (Category 4) stream crossings within ¼ mile from perennial streams, will follow project design criteria for crossings to assure fine sediment inputs from these crossing are not meaningfully measurable (FEA page 176-177).

Road densities in the project area will be further reduced when considered with the cumulative effects of projects implemented in the aquatic restoration project. Under the aquatic restoration project, an additional 10.6 miles of road will be decommissioned in the Bosonberg-Malheur subwatershed and an additional 6.1 miles of road will be decommissioned in the Summit subwatershed. These roads are all located in RHCAs and will improve the capacity of the RHCA buffer to infiltrate water and support


16

vegetation. This will cumulatively reduce system road density in both subwatersheds by approximately 0.2 and 0.4 miles/square mile in the Summit and Bosonberg-Malheur subwatersheds, respectively.

Key Issue 4. Road Closures – Access In contrast to the key issue of road closures to improve water quality, the public expressed concerns that closing roads would reduce motorized access within the project area. My decision will maintain access to all developed recreation sites and trailheads, and will keep snowmobile routes open. Overall, approximately 162 miles of road will remain open for use in the project area. This includes the 158 miles reported in the final EA on page 275, plus the approximately 4 miles of road (1410368, 1410372, and 1654323) I have decided to leave open in selecting alternative 2 with alterations.

My decision includes providing recreation and public access on approximately 0.4 miles of roads that will be re-opened permanently. These two road segments will provide access to the Malheur River from the west side and access to dispersed campsites and an old fire lookout point (FEA page 275).

My decision also ensures danger trees will be felled along haul roads. This will result in increased user safety during project activities as well as increased public safety on roads that are open to public access after treatments are complete (FEA page 285).

Other Public Comments

Malheur Wild and Scenic River and Glacier Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area During the public comment period on the preliminary EA, concern was expressed about treatments in roadless areas and within the wild and scenic river corridor. Based on these comments, I modified both action alternatives to remove commercial treatments and biomass removal within the Malheur Wild and Scenic River corridor. The Malheur Wild and Scenic River was designated as a scenic river in the Omnibus Oregon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1988. The Summit project area contains 531 acres within the Malheur Scenic River corridor. The selected alternative includes underburning, non-commercial thinning, and pre-commercial thinning with no biomass removal. Non-commercial treatments will include hand thinning of conifer trees less than 11 inches d.b.h. Slash will be disposed of by handpiling and underburning. Under the pre-commercial treatments (without biomass removal) a majority of trees cut will be less than 11 inches d.b.h. but the maximum diameter of trees cut may vary by species. In both treatment types, species compositions will be shifted toward more drought and fire-tolerant species, such as ponderosa pine and western larch, and away from less drought and fire-tolerant species such as grand fir (FEA page 27). The objective of these treatments is to restore natural ecological conditions and decrease the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire that could threaten the outstandingly remarkable scenic, geologic, wildlife habitat, and historical values of the river corridor.

My decision is in compliance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and with the 1993 Malheur Wild and Scenic River Management Plan. The outstanding and remarkable values of the Malheur River are: scenic, geologic, historic, and wildlife habitat. The Summit Creek Landscape Restoration Project Environmental Assessment includes analysis of the effects of the project to those outstanding and remarkable values that may be impacted by the activities of the project. Scenery is discussed on pages 294 and 295, geologic values will not be altered because this project does not propose mining or road construction within the wild and scenic river (FEA page 295), historical impacts are discussed on pages 326 and 327, and impacts to wildlife habitat is analyzed for sensitive species with Endangered Species Act findings of either no impact, may impact individuals or habitat by will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population of species, and beneficial impact (FEA page 218). Impacts for specific species include: management indicator species (FEA pages 228, 233, 238-239), old growth


17

network and associated species (FEA pages 246, 249, 255), featured species (FEA pages 260, 262, 264, 265), landbirds and neotropical migratory birds (FEA pages 267-268). Impacts for specific habitats include: dead and defective habitat (FEA page 228) and connectivity (FEA page 269). My decision includes project design criteria specific to protecting wildlife species and the habitat (FEA pages 76-79).

The selected alternative will maintain or enhance all outstandingly remarkable values. No actions will affect the flow of water or the river channel, therefore the free-flowing conditions of the Malheur River will not be affected.

In terms of the forest plan visual quality objective standards (see forest plan page IV-108, standard 2), the long-term benefit of restoring the forest composition to historical characteristics will help meet the objective of high scenic integrity (retention) and will maintain or enhance scenery and the old growth and ecosystem values, and outstandingly remarkable value of wildlife habitat in the wild and scenic river corridor.

The Summit Project also includes 31 acres within the Glacier Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). The IRA overlaps forest plan management area 11. While commercial treatments were not proposed within the IRA in the preliminary EA, based on comments received during the 30-day public comment period, the proposed action was modified in the final EA to avoid tree cutting (non-commercial thinning) within the IRA to be consistent with the Roadless Area Conservation Rule adopted by the Department of Agriculture on 1/12/2001 (see final EA page 344). Underburning will occur in this small segment of the IRA to meet the purpose and need and reduce the fuel composition on the landscape.

Detailed Description of My Decision The following detailed description of my decision is excerpted from the final EA pages 17-51, with some edits to reflect alterations made to the selected alternative between my draft and final decisions, and I incorporate by reference the detailed description in that document (including maps, legal descriptors that denote locations of actions, and design criteria). All other project maps can be found in the appendices of the final EA (beginning on page 363).

Silviculture Treatments

Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer Restoration The ponderosa pine and mixed conifer restoration silvicultural treatments will improve forest heterogeneity by shifting the species composition, resulting in forested areas dominated by drought and fire-resistant, early-seral tree species with reduced surface fuel loads and less ladder fuel. Restoration treatments will be applied to stands in the ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and grand fir plant associations (ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and grand fir series), which together comprise the Warm Dry plant association group (PAG). Mixed conifer treatments will also occur in the Cold Dry and Cool Moist PAGs. Treatments should restore conditions that are ecologically resilient to fire, insects, and disease.

Treatments will reduce stand densities and favor a transition to more historically present fire-resistant species such as ponderosa pine and western larch. A fir component historically endemic to these dry forest types will be retained. Prescriptions will retain existing old trees and remove younger trees around each older tree to improve their retention and survivability. Approximately 3,321 acres of connectivity corridor are for commercial thinning under the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer restoration prescription. The residual basal areas left in connectivity corridors will be higher in order to maintain canopy closure. See final EA Appendix A for treatment summary tables and maps for alternative 2.


18

Prescription for Commercial and Follow-up Pre-commercial Thinning Commercial harvest will utilize ground-based and skyline methods; follow-up pre-commercial thinning will include ground-based methods only (hand piling, grapple piling). Surface fuels will be reduced by one or more of the following methods: whole tree yarding; hand piling and pile burning; machine piling and pile burning; underburning; or mastication. Residual tree densities will be variable depending on plant association group, topographic position, aspect, land management allocation or denser areas/connectivity corridors managed for movement of wildlife (Table 2), and number of old overstory trees.

Table 2. Prescription density guidelines for ponderosa pine and mixed conifer restoration

Prescription Ridges

Aspect Denser areas/ connectivity

corridors S, SE, SW, W

N, NW, NE, E

Ponderosa pine restoration (square feet of basal area per acre) 40–70 40–70 60–80 50–90

Mixed conifer restoration (square feet of basal area per acre) 60–100 60–100 80–100 70–110

The following prescription elements were developed during collaboration and are based on the restoration principles and concepts from Dr. Norman K. Johnson, Professor of Forest Resources at Oregon State University, and Dr. Jerry Franklin, Professor of Ecosystem Science at the University of Washington. This prescription will be applied to both ponderosa pine and mixed conifer restoration.

♦ Commercial thinning will generally be from below, starting with smaller diameter trees, but will include thinning throughout the diameter range (generally less than 21 inches diameter at breast height [d.b.h.]) where healthier trees can be favored. Species compositions will be shifted toward more drought and fire-tolerant species, such as ponderosa pine and western larch, and away from less drought and fire-tolerant species such as grand fir.

All ponderosa pine and western larch greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. will be retained.

Lodgepole pine, grand fir, subalpine fir, and Douglas-fir trees less than 21 inches d.b.h., which have tree canopies within twice the radius of the dripline distance of legacy ponderosa pine and western larch, will be removed. Legacy trees are the oldest trees in the project area, over 150-years old minimum. Legacy trees have survived past wildfire and timber harvest; they were leave trees in previously logged areas.

Ponderosa pine and western larch trees less than 21 inches d.b.h. and less than 150 years old, which have tree canopies within twice the radius of the dripline distance of legacy ponderosa pine and western larch will be removed. Twice the radius of the dripline is the distance from the tree’s bole to the edge of the foliage and that distance from the edge of the tree’s foliage out (i.e., a tree with a canopy that extends 20 feet from the bole will have adjacent trees thinned to a distance of 40 feet from the bole).

Grand fir and Douglas-fir trees greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h., but less than 150 years old, will be removed from within twice the radius of the dripline distance of legacy ponderosa pine and western larch outside of LOS. Trees greater than 150 years old will be determined by applying the guidelines from Identifying Old Trees and Forests (Van Pelt 2008).


19

♦ Leave trees will be retained in a patchy/clumpy distribution.

♦ Ladder fuels and competing trees in an area around each older tree will be removed based on site conditions – generally up to a distance of one to two canopy drip lines from the older tree.

♦ Trees 4 to 7 inches d.b.h., with the exception of ponderosa pine, may be removed for biomass where present and where it is desirable to remove them (e.g., dense, suppressed trees and/or heavy infection with dwarf mistletoe). Ponderosa pine trees up to 11 inches d.b.h. may be removed for biomass utilization.

♦ Follow-up pre-commercial thinning and slash treatment or mastication of unwanted advanced regeneration may be needed in commercially thinned units. Ground-based equipment may be utilized for these treatments.

♦ A mix of thinned and unthinned areas will be provided with variable densities. This will include skips (untreated areas) and gaps (openings) within treated areas.

Skips – Skips will generally range from ¼ to 1 acre in size and typically consist of about 5 to15 percent of the unit. Archeology sites should be used as skips and possibly buffered to greater than 1 acre in size to protect the site and meet the skip target of the unit. Other appropriate areas for skips include patches of denser forest containing primarily seedling or sapling sized trees that provide habitat diversity, hiding cover for animals, and create a patchy/clumpy condition without providing ladder fuels to the overstory.

Skips should be placed on areas more critical for hiding cover such as the flat topography and meadow fringes where practical. Where possible, skips should be located in areas with gentle topography (less than or equal to 20 percent slope) and areas containing early seral species with pockets of large decadent trees, large down wood and snags. Buffers around snags, springs, seeps, and rock outcrops should count as skips. To accommodate hiding cover, skips should be at or above the average characteristics of the parent stand in terms of basal area and canopy cover.

Gaps – Gaps or openings up to 2 acres in size will generally be created in 5 to 20 percent of the treatment area within each unit, with emphasis on gap placement in areas of heavy insect and disease activity, and areas previously dominated by ponderosa pine that are now primarily grand fir. Units consisting of primarily ridgetops, south, or west aspects should have more 2-acre gaps intermixed with smaller gaps of various size for diversity. Units comprised of mostly north and east aspects should have a relatively equal mix of small (0.5 acre), medium (1 acre), and large (2 acre) gaps. Connectivity corridors and late and old structure stands should have mostly small gaps, some medium gaps, and no large gaps.

♦ Protect and conserve all trees greater than 150 years old. These trees will be determined by applying the guidelines from Identifying Old Trees and Forest (Van Pelt 2008).

♦ Following pre-commercial thinning, cut trees may be utilized for biomass, piled and burned (hand or machine), or consumed in underburning. Biomass utilization is preferred and encouraged where possible.

Treatment Summary • Ponderosa pine restoration (commercial) – up to 3,637 acres

• Ponderosa pine restoration (commercial – connectivity corridor prescription) – up to 874 acres

• Mixed conifer restoration (commercial) – up to 4,698 acres

• Mixed conifer restoration (commercial – connectivity corridor prescription) – up to 2,447 acres


20

Stand Improvement Thinning (commercial) Because of the wildlife value of dead and dying trees in the Cool Dry PAG, no dead or dying trees 12 inches d.b.h. and above will be removed within the stand improvement prescription. Additionally, no more than 50 percent of the stand improvement treatment area will include removal of any dead material, and no removal of snags or downed wood will occur within connectivity corridors, resulting in no net loss of downed wood and snags for wildlife.

Lodgepole pine stands within the Cool Dry PAG that have an understory of young, sapling to pole sized trees will be treated with stand improvement thinning. There are varying levels of beetle-caused mortality in many of these stands and in others density is high enough that trees are likely to be attacked by beetles from adjacent stands. The objective of this prescription is to reduce density which will improve stand vigor. Reducing density will also change the microclimate within the stands such that it is not conducive to beetle activity. Thinning prescriptions will be as described for the ponderosa pine restoration thinning, however, no trees greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. will be felled under this treatment. On 50 percent of the area included in stand improvement thinning dead and dying lodgepole up to 12 inches d.b.h. will also be removed. All commercial thinning will utilize ground-based harvest methods. Most stand improvement thinning units will be located near existing roads, providing economical access to remove material by mechanized equipment or by hand. Acceptable fuel loadings for the Cool Dry PAG is 15 tons per acre. Fuel levels above that threshold will be treated to achieve the 15 tons per acre. Slash will be treated to Material cut will either be hauled to a local facility or left on site and burned if undesirable slash is at or above 15 tons per acre.

A conifer is considered “dying” if 50 percent or more of the foliage-bearing crown is recently dead (as indicated by a uniform change in color/no needles over that part of the crown). Dead tops that have no foliage do not count toward this 50 percent. A conifer is considered dead if a uniform change in foliage color throughout the entire crown of the tree, with no remaining green needles.

Treatment Summary • Stand improvement thinning (commercial) – up to 1,555 acres (may include removal of dead material

on up 777 acres, approximately 50 percent of treatment area).

• Stand improvement thinning (commercial – connectivity corridor prescription) – up to 896 acres (no removal of dead material in connectivity corridors).

Shrub Steppe Restoration Thinning (commercial) Shrub steppe (sagebrush and bitterbrush) restoration thinning will occur in Hot Dry plant association groups that were once void of a high percentage of trees. After thinning, residual trees will mimic historical conditions of 2 to 4 large, open-grown trees per acre. No trees greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. will be felled under this treatment. Ground-based harvest methods will be utilized on the shrub steppe restoration units.

Treatment Summary • Commercial shrub steppe restoration thinning – up to 69 acres

Aspen Restoration Thinning (commercial and non-commercial) Aspen restoration treatments in and around known aspen groves (clones) will enhance the survivability of aspen by decreasing competition from conifers, increasing incoming sunlight to the aspen stands, and protecting younger aspen from browsing by ungulates.


21

Live conifer trees will be removed to reduce competition with existing aspen and increase the potential for suckering. Conifers greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. and less than 150 years old will be removed outside of RHCAs. There will be no aspen treatment within RHCAs. The objective is to reduce conifer shade and stimulate sprouting of aspen while protecting sensitive soils and wet riparian areas from heavy machinery. Activity fuels in excess of resource needs (e.g., woody debris for wildlife) may be treated by hand piling and/or jackpot burning, dependent to site conditions. Ground-based logging machinery will not be used in non-commercial aspen restoration thinning.

Approximately 73 acres of commercial aspen restoration thinning, with conifer removal of trees less than 150 years old, will occur within aspen stands outside of RHCAs. Conifers may be hand or machine felled in commercial aspen restoration units and machine skidded or winched to landings. The objective is to reduce conifer shade and stimulate sprouting of aspen. Activity fuels in excess to resource needs may be treated by hand piling, grapple piling or jackpot burning, dependent to site conditions.

Additionally, up to 41 acres of non-commercial aspen thinning could also take place within the Summit Project. These 41 acres of non-commercial aspen are upland portions of RHCA non-commercial units. When the RHCA non-commercial portions of these units were removed from this project, these acres remained. In many cases it will not be feasible to access these acres for commercial treatment without impacting RHCAs.

Protection Measures to Minimize Aspen Browsing Post-treatment aspen protection measures will include fencing up to 73 acres of aspen (up to 12 miles of fence). Adaptive management allows for consideration of a variety of potential outcomes—both desirable and undesirable—and the actions needed to prevent or assist those outcomes. Adaptive management actions described below will be implemented for aspen protection:

If 3 years after completion of aspen restoration thinning, more than 75 percent of any treated aspen stand is showing high concentrations of browse (50 to 100 percent) on regenerating aspen seedlings and saplings, fencing will be constructed around these pockets to impede access by wild and domestic ungulates. Fencing will remain in place until aspen stand conditions met the following criteria: up to 1,000 trees per acre, approximately 8 feet tall and 4 inches d.b.h. (Swanson et al. 2010, Strong et al. 2010, Seager 2013).

Natural barriers will be used in place of fencing where appropriate. Natural barriers will consist of felled and/or existing material rearranged or constructed by hand or with the use of an all-terrain vehicle. Buck and pole fences will not be maintained after stand conditions meet the above criteria, and will be allowed to decay over time. If deteriorating fencing creates distribution issues for livestock, fences could be removed. Barbed wire or electric fences will be removed entirely.

Treatment Summary • Commercial aspen restoration thinning (outside RHCAs) – up to 73 acres

• Non-commercial aspen restoration thinning (outside RHCAs) – up to 41 acres

Pre-commercial Thinning and Biomass Utilization The objective of pre-commercial thinning is to reduce ladder fuels, increase early seral species, and increase the growth and vigor of remaining trees. Pre-commercial thinning, following commercial prescriptions described above, will occur on approximately 14,174 acres. Pre-commercial thinning, not associated with commercial prescriptions described above, will occur on approximately 10,764 acres to address recommendations received during collaboration and public comments received during scoping, and to address resource concerns identified by the interdisciplinary team. This pre-commercial thinning is


22

independent of the pre-commercial stand-alone fuels treatment (1,873 acres) described later in this section.

Understory conifer trees (ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, grand fir, western larch, lodgepole pine, and subalpine fir) will be cut with pre-commercial thinning and may be utilized for wood products, such as biomass, when economically feasible. A majority of trees cut under this prescription will be less than 11 inches d.b.h. The maximum diameter of trees cut may vary by species depending on the wood products market in John Day Valley and available wood processing facilities. Slash will be disposed of by hand piling, mechanical piling, or underburning with fire control line. Residual tree densities will be variable depending on plant association and number of residual, or overstory trees. Species compositions will be shifted toward more drought and fire-tolerant species, such as ponderosa pine and western larch, and away from less drought and fire-tolerant species such as grand fir. Pre-commercial thinning could be implemented by hand thinning with chainsaws, or by machines which may include mastication. Generally, 5 to 25 percent of the area will contain an equal amount of skips (unthinned clumps) and small (less than 1 acre) gaps.

Many units identified for the silvicultural treatments described above might have enough small diameter material to be considered for biomass utilization. The potential for biomass removal is analyzed for all treatment units. Biomass can be defined as pieces not large enough to have commercial sawlog value. Biomass removal from any specific unit will follow the guidelines of the designated prescription. This material may be used for pulp chips, co-generation of electricity, commercial fuel pellets, post and poles, and other non-traditional uses. This material may be removed during logging operations, by hand, or with small equipment such as all-terrain/utility-terrain vehicles, or small excavators or forwarders. For the most part, existing woody material on the ground is not suitable for biomass utilization and will be left on site for nutrient input to the soil, or will be piled and burned if in excessive amounts. Efforts will be made to stimulate local markets by utilizing woody biomass generated by this project rather than dispose of it by burning. Utilization is limited by the marginal economics of the products to areas accessible by ground-based skidding.

While portions of some pre-commercial units overlap with connectivity corridors, the Glacier Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA), or the Malheur River Wild and Scenic River corridor, no biomass removal will occur within these sensitive areas. Additionally, to be consistent with the Final Roadless Area Conservation Rule adopted by the Department of Agriculture on 1/12/2001 (FEA page 344), no pre-commercial thinning (no tree cutting) will take place within the 31 acres of the Glacier Mountain IRA located in the project area. Underburning will occur in this small segment of the IRA to meet the purpose and need and reduce the fuel composition on the landscape.

Treatment Summary • Pre-commercial thinning and biomass utilization (following commercial thinning) – up to 14,174

acres

• Pre-commercial thinning and biomass utilization (independent of commercial thinning) – up to 10,764 acres

Non-commercial Thinning in Dedicated Old Growth Areas Non-commercial thinning will occur in portions of dedicated old growth (DOG) areas with the goals of reducing competition to larger, older trees from understory trees, and breaking up fuel continuity. Trees cut will be 7 inches d.b.h. or less, and slash from thinning will be disposed of by pile burning (hand piling) or loping and scattering. This activity will not entail product removal. Generally, 5 to 15 percent of


23

the area will contain an equal amount of skips and small gaps, where available. Thinning will be done by hand with chainsaws. No other machinery will be used in these DOG units.

No biomass removal will occur within Dedicated Old Growth areas, the Malheur Wild and Scenic River Corridor, or the Glacier Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area.

Treatment Summary • Non-commercial thinning in DOGs – up to 1,048 acres

Fuels Treatments

Activity Fuels Treatment within Silviculture Treatment Units Activity fuels treatment associated with commercial thinning – up to 14,174 acres In units identified for commercial treatment harvest methods, activity fuels will be managed by whole-tree yarding or cut-to-length processing followed by piling. If feasible, the activity fuels piled either at a landing or piled in treatment units could be made available for biomass and removed from site either by hand or machine. Activity fuels not used for commercial product will be piled either by hand or machine, leaving a fuel loading of no more than 15 tons per acre in fuel size classes 9 inches or less. If deemed not feasible for biomass, the piled activity fuel will be burned. The commercial thinning treatments will reduce fire hazard by lowering the risk of sustained crown fire. Removing activity fuels from site as biomass or burning the piles of activity fuels will help meet the objective of managing surface fuel loading in the project area.

Activity fuels treatment associated with pre-commercial thinning – up to 10,764 acres Biomass consideration includes units that have been identified for commercial harvest with a follow-up pre-commercial thinning treatment. In commercial thinning and pre-commercial thinning units, activity fuels not used for commercial product will be piled either by hand or machine, lopped and scattered, and or masticated1, leaving a fuel loading of no more than 15 tons per acre in fuel size classes 9 inches or less. If the option of making the activity fuels available for biomass is not economically feasible, and the fuel loading is in excess of 15 tons per acre, activity fuels will be hand or machine piled to less than 15 tons per acre and piles will be burned.

Activity fuels in pre-commercial thinning (only) units will be considered for biomass and removed from site either by hand or machine. Activity fuels not used for commercial product will be managed using hand or machine piling then burn, lop and scatter, and/or mastication leaving a fuel loading of no more than 7 to 10 tons per acre fuel size classes of 9 inches and less.

Activity fuels treatment associated with non-commercial thinning – up to 3,289 acres: Activity fuels in non-commercial thinning units will be hand piled then burned. The management of the surface fuel loading will leave no more than 7 to 10 tons per acre in fuel size classes 9 inches and less. The objective in these areas is to manage surface fuel loading in such a way that fire behavior is of low intensity thus limiting tree mortality and/or soil burn severity. Areas that will have this type of surface fuel management include RHCAs, Malheur Wild and Scenic River corridor, dedicated old growth areas, and connectivity corridors. Use of mechanical ground-based equipment will not occur in these areas.

1 Mastication is the process of “chewing up” vegetation with machinery.


24

Stand-Alone Fuels Treatments – Pre-commercial Thinning Pre-commercial thinning independent of activity fuels treatments described above addresses public comments received during collaboration and scoping and resource concerns identified by the interdisciplinary team. This stand-alone fuels treatment fills gaps where silviculture treatments will not occur. The objective is to increase the growth and vigor of remaining trees, reduce ladder fuels, and improve site conditions along escape corridors and strategic roads to help increase fire suppression effort success.

Understory conifer trees will be cut with pre-commercial thinning and may be utilized for wood products, such as biomass, when economically feasible and resource objectives will be met (see design criteria). Pre-commercial thinning will be implemented by hand thinning with chainsaws, or by machine which may include mastication. A majority of trees cut under this prescription will be less than 11 inches d.b.h. The maximum diameter of trees cut may vary by species depending on the wood products market in John Day Valley and available wood processing facilities. All surface fuels (natural and activity) will be managed by hand piling, mechanical piling, lop and scatter, and/or mastication, leaving a surface fuel loading of no more than 7 to 10 tons per acre in the fuel size classes of 9 inches or less. Piles will be burned. Residual tree densities will be variable depending on plant association and designated management area objectives. Species compositions will be shifted toward more drought and fire-tolerant species, such as ponderosa pine and western larch, and away from less drought and fire-tolerant species such as grand fir.

While portions of some pre-commercial units overlap with connectivity corridors, the Glacier Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA), and the Malheur River Wild and Scenic River corridor, no biomass removal will occur within these sensitive areas. Additionally, within the 31 acres of IRA, no tree cutting will occur.

Treatment Summary • Pre-commercial thin and grapple pile, hand pile, lop and scatter, or mastication – up to 1,873 acres

Stand-Alone Fuels Treatments – Non-commercial Thinning Non-commercial thinning will occur in dedicated old growth areas (DOGs), RHCAs, the Malheur Wild and Scenic River corridor, and connectivity corridors. This stand-alone fuels treatment fills gaps where silviculture treatments will not occur. The objective is to increase growth and vigor of remaining larger trees and non-conifer species such as willow and aspen, reduce ladder fuels, and to manage surface fuels so fire behavior is of low intensity limiting tree mortality and/or soil burn severity.

Trees cut will be 7 inches d.b.h. or less within DOGs, 9 inches d.b.h. or less within connectivity corridors, and less than 11 inches d.b.h. in RHCAs. All surface fuels (activity and natural) will be piled to less than 10 tons per acre in the fuel size classes 9 inches and less and the piles will be burned. Neither use of mechanical ground-based equipment nor biomass removal will occur in non-commercial thinning units. Thinning and piling will be by hand only within RHCAs and DOGs. Anywhere the stand-alone fuels treatment overlaps with RHCAs, treatment will be completed by hand; no mechanical ground-based equipment allowed. Prescriptions discussed above under non-commercial thinning in DOGs and below under non-commercial thinning in RHCAs will be followed as well.

No biomass removal will occur within any non-commercial thinning units.

Treatment Summary • Non-commercial thin and hand pile – up to 427 acres


25

Underburning Underburning will occur in much of the Summit project area and will be scheduled to occur after mechanical thinning treatments are completed and activity surface fuel loadings are managed. The objective of underburning is to reduce surface fuel loading to an average of 10 tons per acre in the fuel size classes of 9 inches or less, reduce litter depth at least 50 percent, reduce ladder fuels, raise canopy base height to an average of 10 feet, and improve or maintain forage for wildlife. Underburning will result as a mosaic pattern across the project area. To meet these objectives, fire behavior will be low to moderate intensity and severity.

The project area is divided into 3 burn blocks:

♦ Burn Block A – up to 8,245 acres

♦ Burn Block B – up to 13,805 acres

♦ Burn Block C – up to 7,825 acres

Higher tree density is desired in riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs), connectivity corridors, goshawk core nesting areas, dedicated and replacement old growth areas, and pileated woodpecker feeding areas. In these areas, fire behavior will be low intensity in order to maintain the higher tree density. Direct ignition will not occur in old growth areas, goshawk core nesting areas, aspen treatment areas, and active floodplains of RHCAs; however, allowing prescribed fire to back into these areas is expected.

Underburning will occur under spring- or fall-like conditions that will meet resource objectives. Ignition of the burn blocks will be by hand, utility-terrain vehicle, and/or aerial ignition.

Treatment Summary • Underburning with other treatment – up to 24,769 acres

• Underburning only – up to 5,101 acres

Wildland-Urban Interface and Strategic Fuel Break Corridors Of the approximately 11,430 acres identified as wildland-urban interface (WUI) escape corridors and strategic fuel break corridors, up to 9,200 acres are identified for commercial, pre-commercial, and/or non-commercial thinning (see treatment summary below). The treatment acres described here include overlap between the stand-alone fuels treatments (pre-commercial and non-commercial thinning) and silvicultural treatments (commercial, pre-commercial, and non-commercial thinning). Total acreage classified as WUI escape corridors was calculated by multiplying 0.5 miles on either side of designated roads by the total length of the designated road. Total acreage classified as strategic fuel break corridors was calculated by multiplying 200 feet on either side of designated road by total length of designated road.

Corridors along both sides of Forest Service road (FSR) 16, FSR 1651 and County Road 62 have been identified as WUI escape routes/safety corridors by the Grant County Community Wildfire Protection Plan or by the Malheur National Forest. The objective along these routes is to manipulate the existing vegetation and surface fuel loading in a way that moderates fire behavior, allowing safe travel for the public and suppression forces should the need arise to escape from an emerging wildland fire.

All or portions of FSR1410, 1450, 1540, 1643, 1647, 1648, 1651, 1648064, 6200101, and 6200125 have been identified as potential strategic fuel break corridors by the Malheur National Forest. The objective


26

along these identified roads is to provide fuel breaks that moderate fire behavior by reducing ladder fuels and surface fuel loading, allowing for more successful wildland fire suppression strategies.

Treatment Summary • Commercial thinning – up to 4,720 acres

• Pre-commercial thinning – up to 2,760 acres

• Non-commercial thinning – up to 1,720 acres

Riparian Habitat Conservation Area Treatments Riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) are special management areas designated by the Pacific anadromous fish strategy (PACFISH) and the inland fish strategy (INFISH) to enhance and protect stream and riparian habitat. Based on stream type and presence of fish, RHCAs vary from 200 to 600 feet in width. Under a natural fire regime, riparian areas across the project area will be in different stages of natural recovery from wildfire and will have non-uniform patterns of stand density, canopy cover, and hardwood abundance. This heterogeneity provides habitat complexity to support desired fish and wildlife biodiversity. Currently, many RHCAs in the project area have uncharacteristically high stand densities, altered species composition and/or high fuel loadings.

The objective of RHCA treatments is to move overly dense stands toward desired riparian and upland vegetation communities, as appropriate for any given stream based on plant association group, historical fire regime, stream type (intermittent or perennial), elevation, aspect, slope, and microclimate. Thinning and fuels treatments will be used to reduce competition for water and sunlight between desired plant species. Desired plant species includes riparian hardwoods such as aspen and willow in the inner, or true, riparian area; and large conifers such as ponderosa pine, western larch, Douglas fir, and/or Engelmann spruce throughout the RHCA.

Thinning treatments will be designed to enhance the growth of large conifers in the outer RHCA, or upland transition area, by reducing competition, removing ladder fuels, and simulating natural disturbance. Treatments are also designed to reduce the probability and effects of uncharacteristic, high severity wildfire in the riparian area, improve the size of future large wood available to fall in the stream, and enhance riparian hardwoods (e.g., aspen, cottonwood, willows, alders, and dogwood) that are being outcompeted by encroaching conifers.

A combination of hand-thinning and/or fuels treatments may be used to:

♦ simulate natural disturbance,

♦ restore desired stand densities and species composition in the RHCA, and

♦ enhance future large wood recruitment

The following prescription elements are common to all RHCA treatments. The majority of trees providing primary shade, and all trees providing bank stabilization, will not be felled. Snags will be left for wildlife. Project design criteria will be used to protect soil properties, future large wood, stream shade, and bank stability. Riparian habitat conservation area treatments will not occur continuously along a stream but will occur in 1–3 mile reaches to mimic natural patterns of heterogeneity and to provide strategic breaks in fuels continuity.

• There will be no commercial harvest or biomass removal activities within RHCAs.

• Because all RHCA thinning treatments will be non-commercial, there will be no use of the haul routes within RHCAs to bring harvest material to the road for extraction (landings, skidding, etc.).


27

• There will be no heavy equipment use for non-commercial thinning and fuel treatment activities within the RHCA.

Non-commercial Thinning – Category 1 and 2 RHCAs (perennial streams) and Category 4 RHCAs (intermittent streams) Non-commercial hand thinning of conifer trees less than 11 inches d.b.h. will occur within RHCAs for Category 1, 2, and 4 streams (Table 3). Non-commercial thinning will focus on the outer RHCA (i.e., upland transition area) for treatment to protect stream shade and water quality. On perennial streams (Category 1 and 2 streams), no thinning will occur within 50 feet of the stream channel. On intermittent streams, no thinning will occur within 25 feet of the stream channel. A 20-foot spacing will be utilized to thin conifer species. Species preferred for retention will be western larch, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, grand fir, and lodgepole pine. Engelmann spruce will not be cut under this treatment. Hand piling will be utilized to protect sensitive soils and vegetation. In some cases, these RHCA non-commercial treatments overlap with other non-commercial treatments.

Smaller trees cut by hand during non-commercial thinning may be added to the stream channel to create small wood complexes, lopped and scattered, hand piled for burning, or used for fence construction around streams and riparian areas.

Table 3. Acres of non-commercial thinning in riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) by stream category for the selected alternative

Stream category Non-commercial treatment acres Category 1 RHCA 1,123 Category 2 RHCA 68 Category 4 RHCA 831

Treatment Summary • Non-commercial thinning in categories 1, 2, and 4 RHCAs – up to 2,021 acres

Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Wildlife habitat enhancements will expand upland meadows by removing encroaching conifers; change the structure of existing ceanothus habitat into a more ideal forage to cover ratio for deer and elk; and use decommissioned roadbeds to establish grass, forb, and flowering shrub habitat for wildlife and pollinators. To meet forest plan direction, 629 acres within the project area will be designated as old growth; 48 acres of dedicated old growth, 279 acres of replacement old growth, and 302 acres of pileated woodpecker feeding area.

The reduction in road densities for wildlife security is an additional habitat enhancement that will limit disturbance to big game (see FEA Appendix A – Road Activities for specific road system changes). Secure wildlife habitat can be defined as timbered stands a minimum of 250 acres in size and greater than 0.5 miles away from open motorized routes. Elk exposed to increased road density and traffic on roads exhibit higher levels of stress and increased movement rates (Millspaugh et al. 2001). The energetic costs of moving away from disturbance associated with roads may be substantial (Cole et al. 1997). In addition, elk may conserve energy by traveling on closed roads to avoid woody debris and downfall (Lyon and Christensen 2002).


28

Habitat Enhancement Patches The Summit Project includes the creation of approximately 10 openings, each up to five acres in size, and distributed throughout the project area. All conifers up to 21 inches d.b.h. will be removed, commercially, utilized in restoration activities or left on site. Conifer removal will expand existing upland dry forest openings to improve forage conditions for wildlife as well as restore dry meadows, with emphasis on the promotion of early seral palatable forage.

Ceanothus Treatment Ceanothus brush on 2,060 acres located in the general forest management area will be treated using prescribed fire to create a mosaic of forage and hiding cover in the area where the Sheep Fire burned in 1990. This area has become a monoculture of even-aged ceanothus, which appears to be limiting conifer establishment. No more than a 1,000 acres will be burned in a calendar year with the following ceanothus brush consumption rates:

• Up to 20 percent of the area with 60 percent consumption





By following this prescription, young palatable regenerating ceanothus will be available for wildlife forage, while also providing hiding cover in the untreated ceanothus.

Roadbed Restoration to Create Pollinator Habitat Approximately 6.7 miles of the roads closed by the Summit Project decision will be decommissioned through the aquatic restoration project instead of in this decision to reduce sediment delivery to streams along these roads. The decommissioned roads will be used to create long meadows by planting up to 20 acres of roadbeds with flowering shrubs and native grasses in an effort to promote pollinator use and provide forage for other wildlife. With declining pollinator populations, there is a need to increase pollinator habitat through habitat restoration. The Forest Service received direction in 2014 to increase and improve pollinator habitat on the Nation’s forests and grasslands by including native wildflowers that serve as food sources or host plants for native pollinators in restoration and wildlife habitat improvement projects.

Additions to Old Growth Existing old growth in the Summit Project totals 1,807 acres, approximately 5 percent of the project area (Table 4). All or part of four dedicated old growth (DOG) areas, and their associated replacement old growth (ROG) areas and pileated woodpecker feeding areas (PWFAs), are found within the Summit project area (Table 4). One existing DOG (04341), which provides habitat for pileated woodpecker, meets the minimum size requirement established by the forest plan. The three remaining DOGs (04325, 04335, and 04343), which provide habitat for pileated woodpecker and American martin, do not meet minimum forest plan requirements (Table 4).

The selected alternative will add old growth acres to meet forest plan direction. DOG 04325 is lacking an associated ROG and PWFA; through this project a 166 acre ROG and a 159 acre PWFA and will be designated for DOG 04325. DOG 04335 and associated ROG are undersized and the DOG lacks a PWFA; through this project 48 acres will be added to DOG 04335 and 107 acres added to the associated


29

ROG, and a 143 acres PWFA will be designated. DOG 04343 has a slightly undersized ROG; through this project 6 acres will be added to the ROG associated with DOG 04343 (Table 4). Adjusted old growth acres will meet forest plan direction.

Table 4. Old growth in the project area – forest plan minimum requirements, existing acres, and adjusted acres for the selected alternative

Dedicated old growth areas (DOGs) in Summit Project

Minimum acres required by forest

plan Existing

acres Acres added – alternatives 2 Adjusted acres

DOG 04325 pileated woodpecker Associated pileated woodpecker feeding area (PWFA) Associated replacement old growth area (ROG)

300 300

150

345 0

0

– 159

166

345 159

166

DOG 04335 pileated woodpecker Associated PWFA Associated ROG

300 300 150

260 0 76

48 143 107

308 143 183

DOG 04341 pileated woodpecker Associated PWFA Associated ROG

300 300 150

429 268 149

No adjustment needed

429 268 149

DOG 04343 American marten Associated ROG

160 80

205 75

– 6

205 81

Totals Total acres DOG Total acres PWFA

Total acres ROG Total acres

1,239 268 300

1,807

48 302 279 629

1,287 570 579

2,436

Treatment Summary • Habitat enhancement patches – 10 openings; approximately 5 acres each

• Ceanothus treatment – 2,060 acres

• Roadbed restoration (pollinator habitat improvement) – up to 20 acres

• Additions to old growth – 629 acres

Associated Road Activities Roads will be utilized in the project area to provide access for treatment activities. General road maintenance, temporarily opening closed roads, and temporary road construction will occur to provide adequate access for harvest and fuel reduction treatments. The selected alternative also includes closing currently open roads and re-opening closed roads.

Haul Routes – Road Maintenance and Temporary Road Construction Road maintenance will occur on forest system roads needed to provide access for thinning and product extraction. The maintenance will occur on up to 215 miles of road at varying degrees depending upon; severity of road damage, erosion and sediment production, and the designated maintenance level. The


30

miles of roads maintained or temporarily constructed will vary depending on existing road conditions, season of use, and other factors. See Appendix A – Road Activities for a list and map of haul roads.

Under the selected alternative, danger trees will be felled along haul roads. Danger trees could be removed if economically feasible outside of RHCAs and DOGs, if removal meets the project design criteria. This will result in increased user safety during project activities as well as increased public safety on roads that are open to public access after activities are complete. Trees felled within the RHCA and DOGs will be left on site.

Up to 38 miles of currently closed roads will be opened during thinning operations. These roads will be reclosed at the completion of project activities.

No new permanent road construction will occur. Up to 10 miles of temporary roads will be necessary to access several timber harvest units. The construction of approximately 10 miles of temporary road will avoid adverse effects to streams and provide access to about 500 acres of upland units. Temporary roads will be rehabilitated after use. Rehabilitation will eliminate future use of the road with the objective of restoring hydrological function. See final EA Appendix A – Road Activities for a list and map of temporary road construction. No temporary roads will be built within RHCAs.

Treatment Summary • Road maintenance for haul – up to 215 miles

• Closed roads to be temporarily opened for haul – up to 38 miles (included in “road maintenance for haul” and is not additive)

• Temporary road construction – up to 10 miles

Road System Changes Approximately 27 miles of open road will be closed. Closures occur when there is no short-term management need for the road and/or closing the road is needed to address other resource concerns or needs such as wildlife habitat security and watershed health.

Two (2) small segments (0.4 miles) of road currently designated as closed will be designated as open. Re-opening the 1643414 road will provide access to the Malheur River from the west side, where closure of roads in the project area will prevent river access. Re-opening the 1410047 road will provide access to dispersed campsites and an old fire lookout (Crane Point).

See final EA Appendix A – Road Activities, Table A 3 for a list and map of road system changes for alternative 2. That table includes the reason for proposing to close or re-open specific roads. For 3 road segments (1410368, 1410372 and 1651323), I am choosing the action described in the Alternative 3 column. For the remaining road segments listed in Table A 3, I am choosing the action described in the Alternative 2 column.

Treatment Summary • Road closure – 27 miles

• Road re-opening – 0.4 miles

Past Administratively Closed Roads Within the Summit project area, there are road segments identified in the road system database as closed by previous administrative actions. These roads were closed under administrative actions prior to the


31

establishment of the Malheur National Forest road systems database (over 20 years ago). A majority of these roads are currently effectively closed or not drivable. These maintenance level 1 road segments are included in Summit Project so they can be documented as closed through a NEPA process. The interdisciplinary team analyzed each road segment to determine its current use and future access needs for the public and administration. The existing condition of these road segments were found to be in one or more of the following conditions: overgrown with natural vegetation; physically blocked with a gate or earthen berm; the road prism is no longer visible; or the road prism has no physical closure barrier present. Through this analysis, approximately 44 miles of past administratively closed roads will be officially closed and placed in long-term storage, and are listed in appendix A of the final EA.

Forest Plan Amendments Two forest plan amendments are included in my selected alternative. The two amendments are described below.

Dedicated Old Growth Unit Changes The 1990 Malheur Forest Plan standards for old growth habitats are identified for management area 13 (USDA Forest Service 1990a, pages IV-105 and 106; Appendix G; and the Malheur Forest Plan FEIS), directing that old growth (MA 13) areas be distributed across the Malheur National Forest to provide for wildlife species dependent on this forest type.

There are two areas related to old growth forest habitat for which forest plan standards were set. These are dedicated old growth (DOG) habitat and replacement old growth (ROG) habitat. The forest plan states DOGs will be 300 acres and ROGs will be 150 acres for every 12,000 acres.

The forest plan describes MA 13 as being “composed of mature/overmature sawtimber (150 years old or older) which provides habitat for wildlife species dependent on mature/overmature forest conditions, provides for ecosystem diversity, and provides for the preservation of aesthetic qualities…These acres are evenly distributed across the forest…These acres reflect both designated old growth and old growth replacement…” (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-105).

A forest plan amendment is included to address MA 13 standards 4 through 8:

4. Inventory and validate all old growth areas. Correct previously dedicated old growth unit designations that are not meeting management requirement direction where possible. Utilize the interdisciplinary process to develop recommendations for boundary adjustments, or unit relocation. Changes will require approval by the Forest Supervisor. Unit relocation must analyze location in regards to the total old growth network, which in most cases would be a larger analysis area than that used for timber sale planning.

5. To counter possible catastrophic damage or probable deterioration of dedicated old growth, provide for replacement old growth in the future by managing at least one-third of this management area (25,000 acres) for a sustained yield of old growth. Locate replacement old growth areas within ¼ mile of dedicated areas, and designate and map these areas. Provide old growth replacement areas that are one-half the size of its corresponding dedicated old growth unit. Refer to Appendix G, FEIS for stand type, size and distribution criteria.

6. When locating replacement old growth areas, use interdisciplinary teams that evaluate and recommend replacement stands for District Ranger approval. Complete the location of replacement stands primarily in conjunction with the timber sale planning process. Record site-specific information in the TRI data base.


32

7. A dedicated old growth stands deteriorate beyond suitable old growth conditions, maintain at least two-thirds of this management area in dedicated stands by manipulating replacement and dedicated stand boundaries by: (a) changing the status of dedicated old growth to replacement habitat and take action to restore the habitat to suitable old growth conditions; and (b) changing the status of replacement old growth to dedicated old growth.

8. Utilize interdisciplinary teams to develop prescriptions and long-term management strategies for each replacement area with the principal responsibilities to silviculturists and wildlife biologists.

This direction provides for an iterative process where dedicated and replacement old growth areas (MA 13 designation) can be corrected over time in response to changing conditions on the ground (USDA Forest Service 1990a, pages IV-105–IV-106).

The forest plan, as amended, includes the programmatic analysis and direction to relocate old growth areas. Old growth areas have been inventoried and evaluated at the project planning level for the past 26 years following the current forest plan, this allows for site-specific analysis and response to changing conditions (e.g., wildfire and stand deterioration) to designate MA 13 where it currently existing for DOGs and where it is on the path to developing into ROGs (i.e., DOGs and ROGs may be shifted multiple times throughout the life of the 1990 Malheur Forest Plan in response to changing conditions on the ground).

Based on an interdisciplinary team review of old growth in the Summit project area, it was determined the area lacks replacement old growth for existing DOG 04325PW. Existing ROGs 04335PW and 04343MM were are also found to be lacking the correct acres as required in the forest plan. Forested stands within the project area that meet the habitat requirements for both pileated woodpecker and pine marten will provide suitable ROG. The interdisciplinary team also reviewed old growth and found that DOG 04335PW lacked the minimum acres required by forest plan standards. An area within the project meets the habitat requirements of this DOG and will provide suitable pileated woodpecker habitat.

A forest plan amendment is included to:

• Designate a ROG for DOG 04325PW

• Increase the size (increase acres) of ROGs 04335PW and 04343MM

• Increase the size of DOG 04335PW

Adding and expanding the boundaries of DOGs and ROGs will result in changes to other forest plan management area allocations within the Summit project area. See Table 5 below for specific number of acres that will be changed in each management area. See final EA page 44 for a map of the locations of existing old growth and additions to old growth.

It is important to note that management areas (including MA 13) overlap, and when a specific segment of land falls under the goals of several management areas, the acres are assigned to the higher priority management area (i.e., more restrictive standards and guidelines) (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-46). In other words, the corrections to MA 13 either overlay other management areas when the MA 13 designation is expanded, and “uncover” other management areas when the MA 13 designation is removed.


33

Table 5. Changes in management area (MA) allocations resulting from old growth additions in the Summit project area

Old growth area

General forest and rangeland MA 1 and 2

Riparian habitat conservation area (RHCA*)

Visual corridor foreground MA 14F*

Visual corridor middleground MA 14M*

Old growth MA 13

ROG 04325PW -166 acres 70 acre overlap 92 acre overlap +166 acres DOG 04335PW -48 acres 3 acre overlap 12 acre overlap +48 acres ROG 04335PW -107 acres 8 acre overlap 60 acre overlap +107 acres ROG 04343MM -6 acres 1 acre overlap 6 acre overlap +6 acres

Total change -327 acres 13 acre overlap 70 acre overlap 170 acre overlap +327 acres *RHCA and management areas 14F and 14M will not be altered by the designation of DOGs and ROGs because the management area allocations would overlay each other.

This amendment will meet MA 13 standards and applies to this project only and no standards or guidelines will be changed or modified. The changes in old growth designations will remain in place until future inventory or validation indicates these dedicated old growth designations are no longer meeting management requirements. In the event of catastrophic damage or deterioration these designations may be changed using an interdisciplinary process in the future (see forest plan MA 13 standards 4 through 8 on pages IV-105 and IV-106).

The designation/expansion of MA 13 old growth areas across the Summit project area will improve the agency’s ability to manage for pileated woodpecker and pine marten as well as other late and old successional dependent species. It is anticipated that habitat viability for these species will be maintained or increased via the MA 13 network expansion.

Removal of Trees Greater than or Equal to 21 Inches Diameter Breast Height The wildlife standard (standard 6) in the Eastside Screens identifies two possible scenarios to follow based on the historical range of variability for each biophysical environment (plant association group) within a given watershed. Scenario A (part d) of the wildlife standard states “if either one or both of the late and old structure (LOS) stages falls below historical range of variability in a particular biophysical environment within a watershed, then there should be no net loss of LOS from that biophysical environment.” LOS structural stages can be either old forest multi-strata (OFMS) with large trees or old forest single strata with large trees (OFSS). Scenario A specifically directs the following:

♦ Some timber sale activities can occur within LOS stands that are within or above historical range of variability in a manner to maintain or enhance LOS within that biophysical environment. It is allowable to manipulate one type of LOS to move stands into the LOS stage that is deficit if this meets the historical conditions.

♦ Outside of LOS, many types of timber sale activities are allowed. The intent is still to maintain and/or enhance LOS components in stands subject as to timber harvest as much as possible.

♦ Maintain all remnant late and old seral and/or structural live trees greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. that currently exist within stands proposed for harvest activities.

The selected alternative includes a forest plan amendment to Eastside Screens, standard 6(d)(2)(a): “Maintain all remnant late and old seral and/or structural live trees greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. that currently exist within stands proposed for harvest activities.” Within the Warm Dry plant association group in the Summit project area the old forest multi-strata structure is within the historical range of variability and the old forest single-stratum structure is below the historical range of variability.


34

The selected alternative will remove live trees greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. in stands not classified as LOS to allow the following:

• Removal of young (less than 150 years old), relatively large (greater than 21 inches d.b.h.) grand fir and Douglas-fir trees competing with older ponderosa pine, western larch, or aspen trees, causing competition stress and increasing the risk the older trees may die as a result of insects, drought, or wildfire outside of LOS (OFMS) structures. By reducing tree densities, the older trees will have greater access to water, nutrients, and sunlight, resulting in not only their continued existence, but allowing for increased growth, health, and vigor (McDowell et al. 2003). Specifically, competing grand fir and Douglas-fir located within twice the canopy distance of older legacy ponderosa pine and western larch will be removed. Twice the canopy drip line is the distance from the tree’s bole to the edge of the foliage and that distance from the edge of the tree’s foliage out (i.e., a tree with a canopy that extends 20 feet from the bole will have adjacent trees thinned to a distance of 40 feet from the bole). Based on modelling, an estimated one tree or less per acre greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. will be removed under this amendment with the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer restoration prescriptions (approximately 8,308 acres). This amendment to remove trees greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. was discussed extensively during collaboration and is based on restoration strategies by Dr. Norman Johnson and Dr. Jerry Franklin (Franklin and Johnson 2009). Johnson and Franklin observed:

♦ Trees in dry forests begin to exhibit some characteristics of old growth at 150 years.

♦ Use of diameter limits (such as 21 inches d.b.h.) fails to protect many older trees.

♦ Diameter limits can deter the harvest of young, relatively large trees that crowd older trees, greatly increasing the risk that the old trees would die as a result of either wildfire or insect attack.

Trees greater than 150 years old will be determined by applying guidelines presented in Identifying Old Trees and Forests (Van Pelt 2008). With application of these guidelines there will be a small potential for error in determining tree age.

To compensate for this amendment, all trees greater than 150 years old will be retained. Removal of young (less than 150 years old), relatively large (greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h.) grand fir and Douglas-fir trees will be limited to trees within twice the canopy distance of older legacy ponderosa pine and western larch in the Warm Dry plant association group (outside of LOS). Twice the canopy drip line is the distance from the tree’s bole to the edge of the foliage and that distance from the edge of the tree’s foliage out (i.e., a tree with a canopy that extends 20 feet from the bole will have adjacent trees thinned to a distance of 40 feet from the bole).

• Cutting and removal of conifer trees greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. (but less than 150 years old) within aspen stands, but outside riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs). Aspen restoration with potential for commercial product removal (timber) will occur in 15 aspen units covering approximately 73 acres. This amendment will result in better growing conditions for quaking aspen and promote their existence across the landscape. “Managers in our area agree that all conifers should be removed in treated aspen stands, except for those that must be retained to meet other management objectives (e.g., large-tree conservation or stream shading)” (Swanson et al. 2010). Over the entire 73 acres of commercial aspen restoration, approximately 16 conifer trees greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. will be felled and removed from the site. This was determined by site visits where tree data was collected in the summer months of 2015. Some trees were cored with an increment borer and some trees were estimated using the Van Pelt (2008) guidelines to determine age.

This amendment will apply only for the duration of, and to those actions in the selected alternative.


35

Alternatives and Treatments Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study Several alternatives and treatment strategies were considered during the planning process but were not included in the final EA for detailed study. These include 1) Full restoration – more intensive treatments, 2) No thinning in riparian habitat conservation areas, 3) No road closures or decommissioning, 4) No construction of temporary roads and no temporary opening of closed roads for haul, and 5) Establish a diameter limit on the size of trees that could be removed. The detailed rationale for eliminating these alternatives eliminated from detailed study is provided on final EA pages 85-89.

Public Involvement and Consultation with Government Agencies and Tribes

Collaboration The Summit Project was identified as a planning area for Collaborative Landscape Restoration funding, in conjunction with Blue Mountain Forest Partners. Early public involvement spanned several months in 2014, as fieldtrips and meetings were held with collaborators to discuss existing and desired conditions within the project area. The interdisciplinary team used this information along with direction in the Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan to develop proposals for the project. The modified proposed action was fully developed through a collaborative process involving the public, Blue Mountains Forest Partners, scientists, and Malheur National Forest staff. The collaborative efforts for this project are described in the “Public Involvement” section of the final EA (pages 13-14).

Public Scoping A scoping notice was published in the Blue Mountain Eagle (the newspaper of record) on August 19, 2015. At the same time the scoping notice was published, a letter and enclosure providing proposed action information and seeking public comment was mailed to approximately 187 interested parties. This included federal and state agencies, local Tribes, stakeholder groups, individuals, and other parties who had requested information on forest projects. This information was also provided to Blue Mountains Forest Partners collaborative group and grazing permittees in the project area. Comments letters were received from 36 parties, including individuals and groups.

Tribal Government Consultation Tribal consultation on a government-to-government basis is ongoing with the Burns Paiute Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation. This government-to-government consultation is being conducted under the terms of specific agreements with individual tribes and includes regular contact and meetings as appropriate. Letters were sent to the tribes previous to the initial public scoping period, as well as before the beginning of the 30-Day comment period for the preliminary EA and in advance of the final EA 45-day objection period.

30-Day Comment Period On December 21, 2016 a legal notice was published in the Blue Mountain Eagle, the newspaper of record for the Prairie City Ranger District. This notice announced the 30-day notice and comment period to the general public. The 30-day comment period was open through January 20, 2017.


36

A letter, similar in content to the legal notice, was mailed to approximately 190 entities, such as agencies, local governments, stakeholder groups, individuals, and other parties to offer an opportunity to comment on the Summit Creek Landscape Restoration Preliminary Environmental Assessment. This information was also provided to Blue Mountains Forest Partners collaborative group and grazing permittees in the project area.

Comments were received from 21 parties, including individuals and groups, and were in the form of letters, with some including scanned photos and field notes. These comments were catalogued, reviewed, and responded to in a response to comments document which is part of the project record and posted on the Malheur National Forest website with other analysis documents.

Based on the comments received, additional analysis was performed and appropriate changes were made in the final EA. Public comments were also considered in making this decision. Responses to your comments on the preliminary EA are available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=42450.

Objection Period The 45-day objection period for the Summit Creek Landscape Restoration Project began May 17, 2017 with publication of a legal notice in the Blue Mountain Eagle, the newspaper of record for the Prairie City Ranger District of the Malheur National Forest. The final environmental assessment and draft decision notice/finding of no significant impact were available for review and objection. Five eligible objections were received that had standing. A formal resolution meeting with objectors was held on August 2, 2017. The Malheur National Forest partially resolved the objections and made the alterations described in the Decision section of this Final Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact. The Reviewing Officer has responded in writing to all objections, and this decision is consistent with the instructions issued by the Reviewing Officer. Now that the objection process has concluded there will be no additional opportunity for administrative review or objection.

Listed Species Consultation Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on threatened bull trout has been completed. A final biological assessment regarding the effects of the project to threatened Snake River bull trout and designated critical habitats was submitted to USFWS in May of 2017. On June 5, 2017 a letter of concurrence was received documenting USFWS concurrence on the Summit Creek Landscape Restoration Project. The Malheur National Forest determined, and the USFWS concurs that the landscape restoration activities and project elements “may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect” bull trout and bull trout critical habitat within the Upper Malheur River subbasin. The completed biological assessment and letter of concurrence are located in the project record.

State and County Government Letters were sent to state and Grant County governments, inviting input and participation throughout the planning process. The Summit Project was presented to the Grant County Court on December 21, 2016.

Forest Plan Amendment Findings under the 2012 Planning Rule The project-specific forest plan amendments in my decision were prepared under the 2012 Planning Rule, which has different provisions than the 1982 Planning Rule under which the existing Malheur Forest Plan was developed. Although the existing plan is not changed, the exceptions that these amendments allow to the current plan’s MA 13 old-growth system, harvesting of young (less than 150 year old) trees 21 inches d.b.h. or greater must be evaluated based on the 2012 Planning Rule.


37

As explained below, these amendments comply with the procedural provisions of the 2012 Planning Rule and all the directly related substantive requirements in sections 219.8 through 219.11 of the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR Part 219).

These procedural provisions and how these forest plan amendments comply are detailed below:

• Using the best available scientific information to inform the planning process (§ 219.3) – The Summit final EA uses the best available scientific information to inform the planning process for the forest plan amendments. This included local science and data specific to the project area.

♦ The best available scientific information used for the old growth (MA 13) amendment includes stand exams, modeling results from forest Vegetation Simulator, and field checking of current and proposed MA 13 areas for old growth conditions. The stand exams and modeling results from the Forest Vegetation Simulator helped identify which stands are on old forest structural stages. Field checking was used to confirm the stand structural stages and old growth characteristics on the ground.

♦ The best available scientific information used to inform harvesting of young (less than 150 year old) trees 21 inches d.b.h. or greater amendment includes stand exams in the Summit project area, modelling results from Forest Vegetation Simulator, aspen inventories, and the several scientific studies applicable to the project area:

Johnston, J. D. 2016. Forest successional and disturbance dynamics in the southern blue mountains of Oregon. Doctoral dissertation. Oregon State University. 114 p.

July 2012, the project area was visited by Craig Schmitt and Don Scott of the Blue Mountains Forest Health Protection Service Center.

Hessburg, P.F., J.K. Agee, and J.F Franklin. 2005. Dry forests and wildland fires of the inland Northwest, USA: Contrasting the landscape ecology of the pre-settlement and modern eras. Forest Ecology and Management. 211(1): 117–139.

Powell, D.C. 1998. Historical range of variability for forest structure classes. Pendleton, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Region, Umatilla National Forest.

Munger, T.T. 1917. Western yellow pine in Oregon. Technical Bulletin 418, USDA-Forest Service, Washington, D.C. p. 47.

Johnston, J. D. 2017. Forest succession along a productivity gradient following fire exclusion. Forest Ecology and Management. 392 (2017) 45-57.

Johnston, J. D., J. D. Bailey and C. J. Dunn. 2016. Influence of fire disturbance and biophysical heterogeneity on pre-settlement ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests. Ecosphere. 7(11) 1-19.

Amell, L. 2016. Comparing forest type attributes derived from CVS non-harvested plot data to attributes from historical timber surveys. Prepared by: Larry Amell, Malheur Forest Silviculturist 3/25/2016.

Powell, D.C. 1998 (updated 2014). Range of variation recommendations for Dry, Moist, and Cold forests. WHITE PAPER F14-SO-WP-SILV-3. Pendleton, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Region, Umatilla National Forest.

♦ The data described is the best available information because it was collected within the Summit project area.


38

♦ The Summit Project was developed in a collaborative manner; the Blue Mountains Forest Partners provided science liaisons who shared current and developing science. The interdisciplinary team utilized this “best available science” provided by the Blue Mountains Forest Partners to aid in disclosing of effects.

• Providing opportunities for public participation (§ 219.4) – Opportunities for public participation were provided during the scoping and 30-day comment periods (FEA pages 13-14). Outreach included interested individuals and entities at local, regional, and national levels; private landowners whose lands are adjacent to the project area; other federal agencies, states, counties, and local governments; affected federally recognized Indian Tribes; and the local collaborative group (FEA pages 13-14). In addition, the Malheur National Forest hosted field trips held in conjunction with the Blue Mountains Forest Partners, presented the project to the Grant County Court, and had numerous stakeholder interactions and adjacent landowner discussions regarding the project. The scoping document and preliminary EA were made available on the Forest’s website and included opportunities to comment. Public comments and their responses are available on the project website. The final EA and draft decision notice were made available for a 45-day objection period which began on May 17, 2017.

• The plan amendment process (§ 219.13) – As the responsible official I have the discretion to determine whether and how to amend the Malheur Forest Plan. My decision includes changes to specific plan components for this project area and the specific activities proposed. These plan amendments are based on a preliminary identification of the need to change the plan (FEA pages 7-9). The analysis prepared in the Summit final EA for the project serves as the documentation of the need to change the Malheur Forest Plan. The plan amendment process included opportunities for public participation (see discussion above) and included public notification (see discussion below). The plan amendments follow Forest Service NEPA procedures (FEA pages 331-343, and this DN, pages 36-40 and 42-58).

• Including specific information in a decision document (§ 219.14) – My rationale for approving these plan amendments are documented in the “Rationale” section (see above). I have provided an explanation of how the plan components meet the sustainability requirements of § 219.8 through § 219.11 in the section below, along with a statement of how the plan amendment applies to the project. As I stated earlier, the best available scientific information, including project-specific data, was used to inform planning (see above). The effective date of the plan amendment is documented below, along with information on where the planning records are posted online or available through other means for the Summit Project (and include documents that support the analytical conclusions made and alternatives considered throughout the planning process).

• Giving public notice (§ 219.16) – Comments were invited on the plan amendment during two scoping periods, and on the preliminary EA. Since this plan amendment is approved in a decision document approving a project and the amendment applies only to the project, the notification requirements of 36 CFR part 218, subpart A, applies instead of this section (36 CFR 219.16(b)). A 30-day public comment period was provided starting on December 21, 2016, with the publication of a notice in the Blue Mountain Eagle, the newspaper of record for the Prairie City Ranger District. A 45-day public comment period was provided starting on May 17, 2017, with publication of a notice in the Blue Mountain Eagle.

• Setting the effective date for amendments (§ 219.17) – In accordance with 36 CFR 219.17(a)(3) a plan amendment that applies to only one specific project or activity is effective on the date the project may be implemented in accordance with administrative review regulations at 36 CFR part 218.(see 36 CFR Part 218.12 Timing of project decision). The effective date for amendments addressed in the


39

Summit Project will correspond to the date of the signing of the decision notice/finding of no significant impact (DN/FONSI).

• Providing an objection opportunity (subpart B) – A 45-day objection filing period was provided on the final EA and draft DN/FONSI (see 36 CFR Part 218.26 Objection time periods), per 36 CFR 219.59(b) which states that “when a plan amendment is approved in a decision document approving a project or activity and the amendment applies only to the project or activity, the administrative review process of 36 CFR part 215 or part 218, subpart A, applies instead of the objection process established in this subpart.”

Dedicated Old Growth Unit Changes

Scope, Scale, and Purpose of the Amendment I have determined the scope and scale of this amendment based on what is necessary for the project to meet its purpose and need. The overall purpose of the Summit Project is to improve and maintain forest resiliency by reestablishing and restoring forest structure and pattern, vegetation composition and diversity, and riparian communities to conditions more resilient to natural disturbance processes such as fire, insects, diseases, and drought. The restoration activities will improve forest resiliency and move the project area toward desired conditions while providing commercial timber products and supporting local employment.

It is necessary to amend the Malheur Forest Plan to address MA 13 standards 4 through 8 which provide direction to inventory, validate, and correct dedicated old growth unit designations at the project level to counter deterioration of old growth and designate replacement old growth areas. The Malheur Forest Plan provides direction to utilize the interdisciplinary process to develop recommendations for boundary adjustments, or unit relocation, in conjunction with the timber sale planning process. This provides for an iterative process where dedicated and replacement old growth areas (MA 13 designation) can be corrected over time in response to changing conditions on the ground (USDA Forest Service 1990a, pages IV-105–IV-106).

Most of the dedicated old growth areas identified in the Summit project area meet the correct acres as required in the forest plan. Based on an interdisciplinary team review it was determined the area lacks replacement old growth for existing DOG 04325PW. Existing ROGs 04335PW and 04343MM were are also found to be lacking the correct acres as required in the forest plan. Forested stands within the project area that meet the habitat requirements for both pileated woodpecker and pine marten will provide suitable ROG. The interdisciplinary team also reviewed old growth and found that DOG 04335PW lacked the minimum acres required by forest plan standards. An area within the project meets the habitat requirements of this DOG and will provide suitable pileated woodpecker habitat. MA 13 changes will designate a ROG for DOG 04325PW (166 acres); increase the size of ROGs 04335PW (107 acres) and 04343MM (6 acres); and increase the size of DOG 04335PW (48 acres). Adding these acres will provide a net gain of 327 MA 13 acres (FEA page 333). These minor changes are site-specific in nature and follow the specifications for meeting habitat requirements for pileated woodpecker and pine marten provided in the Malheur Forest Plan FEIS, Appendix G which include criteria for stand type, size, and distribution (USDA Forest Service 1990b, pages G-16 to G-24). See Summit final EA chapter 1, Need for Amending the Malheur Forest Plan section for more detail.

The Malheur Forest Plan, as amended, programmatically guides all natural resource management activities and establishes management standards and land allocations for the Malheur National Forest. The Summit Project MA 13 amendment is a site-specific amendment following Malheur Forest Plan direction to inventory, validate, and correct all old growth areas utilizing an interdisciplinary process. Old growth


40

areas across the Malheur National Forest have been inventoried and evaluated at the project planning level for the past 26 years following the current Malheur Forest Plan, this allows for site-specific analysis and response to changing conditions (e.g., wildfire and stand deterioration) to designate MA 13 where it currently existing for DOGs and where it is on the path to developing into ROGs (i.e., DOGs and ROGs may be shifted as needed throughout the life of the 1990 Malheur Forest Plan in response to changing conditions on the ground). Since the MA 13 amendment is following forest plan direction it will not alter the other multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land management on the Malheur National Forest.

It is important to note that management areas (including MA 13) overlap, and when a specific segment of land falls under the goals of several management areas, the acres are assigned to the higher priority management area (i.e., more restrictive standards and guidelines) (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-46). In other words, the changes to MA 13 either overlay other management areas when the MA 13 designation is expanded, and “uncover” other management areas when the MA 13 designation is removed.

This amendment will meet MA 13 standards and will result in changes to MA 13 within the Summit project area (see FEA chapters 1 and 2 for more detail). This amendment applies to this project only and no standards or guidelines will be changed or modified. The changes to MA 13 will remain in place until a future inventory or validation indicates these dedicated old growth designations are no longer meeting management requirements (as per current forest plan direction). In the event of catastrophic damage or deterioration these designations may be changed using an interdisciplinary process in the future (see forest plan MA 13 standards 4-8 on pages IV-105 and IV-106).

Directly Applicable Substantive Requirements of 36 CFR 219.8 through 219.11 I have reviewed the following specific substantive rule requirements contained in rule sections 219.8 through 219.11 and determined which requirements directly apply to this amendment. For each substantive requirement that applies, I have examined the effects of the amendment and concluded that those effects are not contrary to these requirements. My rationale is as follows:

The Malheur Forest Plan provides direction to inventory and validate all old growth areas during project planning, and correct previously dedicated old growth unit designations that are not meeting management requirements (USDA Forest Service 1990a, MA 13 standards 4-8, pages IV-105–IV-106). This allows DOGs and ROGs to be designated to provide old forest structure for wildlife species dependent on that habitat across the landscape of the Malheur National Forest through time (36 CFR § 219.8(a)(1)(ii)). Validation of these management areas provides the flexibility to move and designate DOGs in areas where old growth forest structure and composition currently exist, and ROGs in areas where it will potentially exist in the future. This promotes old forest structure and composition through time, and allows planning to be responsive to changes in stand structure and composition in a dynamic landscape driven by stand succession, drought, wildfire, insect and disease activity, or other ecological processes (36 CFR §219.8(a)(1)(iv) and § 219.10(a)(8)). Changes to MA 13 for the Summit Project include:

• A replacement old growth (ROG) area will be designated for DOG 04325PW to provide replacement old growth habitat for pileated woodpecker to counter possible catastrophic damage or probable deterioration of dedicated old growth.

• Minor changes to the boundaries of ROGs 04335PW and 04343MM to increase their size to meet the forest plan size requirement for pileated woodpecker and pine marten.

• DOG 04335PW will be increased to provide suitable old growth habitat for pileated woodpecker.


41

The goals of MA 13 are to “Provide suitable habitat for old growth dependent wildlife species, ecosystem diversity, and preservation of aesthetic qualities” (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-105) (36 CFR § 219.9(a)(1) and § 219.9(a)(2)). DOGs are designed to provide habitat for pileated woodpecker, pine marten, and three-toed woodpecker, which are forest plan management indicators species (USDA Forest Service 1990a, pages IV-32 and IV-105) (36 CFR § 219.9(a)(2)(i)). ROGs are designed to provide replacement habitat for these species in the future. Although MA 13 are specifically designed to provide habitat for these three species, old forest structure and composition provides habitat for many other wildlife species as well. These species are commonly enjoyed and used by the public for trapping (pine marten) and observing (pileated woodpecker and three-toed woodpecker), as well as many other activities (36 CFR § 219.10(a)(5)). Wildlife connectivity corridors are identified in the Summit project area to serve as connectivity between DOGs, ROGs, and other late and old structure (LOS) stands. These corridors allow for the dispersal and movement of wildlife species that use and are dependent on old forest structure.

Changes to MA 13 boundaries will have direct impacts to aesthetic values, fish and wildlife species, and habitat and habitat connectivity (36 CFR § 219.10(a)(1)). These impacts are addressed in the Summit final EA. Specifically:

• Aesthetic values related to MA 13 are provided through stands with large trees and old forest characteristics (see FEA chapter 3, Visuals section).

• MA 13 provides nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for pileated woodpeckers and three-toed woodpeckers, and denning, foraging, and dispersal habitat for pine marten. See Summit final EA chapter 3, wildlife section related to management indicator species for old growth (pileated woodpecker, pine marten, and three-toed woodpecker).

• MA 13 provides habitat for pileated woodpeckers, pine marten, three-toed woodpeckers, and other old growth dependent species, and contributes to the habitat connectivity of MA 13, late and old structure (LOS) stands, and the wildlife connectivity corridors that connect them. See Summit final EA chapter 3, Wildlife section related to the Old Growth Network and Connectivity Corridors.

While most sections of 219.8 through 219.11 at least indirectly relate to a given forest plan amendment (because of the interrelated nature of natural resource), only some directly relate to the MA 13 amendment. See Summit final EA Appendix C for a rationale for why other provisions of 36 CFR 219.8 through 219.11 do not apply.

See Summit final EA chapter 3, Evaluation of Forest Plan Amendments section, pages 333-343.

Meeting the Specific Substantive Requirements of 36 CFR 219.8 through 219.11 and Effects of the Forest Plan Amendment Based on these substantive requirements, I have concluded that the MA 13 amendment has met, and its effects are not contrary to, any of the directly related substantive requirements of rule sections 219.8 through 219.11 as follows:

36 CFR § 219.8(a)(1)(ii) Contributions of the plan area to ecological conditions within the broader landscape influenced by the plan area. – Directly applies because part of the purpose of relocating DOG/ROGs is to designate areas that are distributed across the Forest that maintain old forest structure that provides habitat for wildlife species dependent on old forest. This allows DOGs and ROGs to be designated to provide old forest structure for wildlife species dependent on that habitat across the landscape of the Malheur National Forest through time. Changes to MA-13 for the Summit Project include:


42

• A replacement old growth (ROG) area will be designated for DOG 04325PW to provide replacement old growth habitat for pileated woodpecker to counter possible catastrophic damage or probable deterioration of dedicated old growth, as directed by the Malheur Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-105, standard 5).

• There will be minor changes to the boundaries of ROGs 04335PW and 04343MM to increase their size to meet the forest plan size requirement for pileated woodpecker and pine marten.

• The size of DOG 04335PW will be increased to provide suitable old growth habitat for pileated woodpecker.

In summary the effects of the MA 13 amendment will be to provide an additional 48 acres of DOG and 279 acres of ROG habitat within the Summit project area. This will contribute to the DOG habitat across the Malheur National Forest.

I have reviewed the effects analysis of the MA 13 amendment in the Summit final EA chapter 3 and found that the effects are not contrary to sections 219.8(a)(1)(ii) because MA 13 will continue to contribute to the ecological conditions within the broader landscape influenced by the project area.

36 CFR § 219.8(a)(1)(iv) System drivers, including dominant ecological processes, disturbance regimes, and stressors, such as natural succession, wildland fire, invasive species, and climate change; and the ability of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems on the plan area to adapt to change. – Directly applies because relocating DOG/ROGs is being responsive to changes in a dynamic landscape. Areas being added to DOGs/ROGs are in locations that are currently old growth or on a path to becoming old growth for the species they are designated based on natural succession.

Validation of these areas provides the flexibility to move and designate DOGs in areas where old growth forest structure and composition currently exist, and designate ROGs where it will potentially exist in the future. ROGs are intended to counter possible catastrophic damage or probably deterioration of dedicated old growth in the future. This provides for old forest structure and composition through time, and allows for planning to be responsive to changes in stand structure and composition in a dynamic landscape that may be caused by stand succession, drought, wildfire, insect and disease activity, or other ecological processes.

See Summit final EA chapter 3, Wildlife and Forest Vegetation sections for more detail.

I have reviewed the effects analysis of the MA 13 amendment in the Summit final EA chapter 3 and found that the effects are not contrary to sections 219.8(a)(1)(iv) because changes to MA 13 are being responsive to system drivers. In particular, natural succession by designating MA 13 in areas that currently provide old growth habitat or are on the path to providing old growth habitat.

36 CFR § 219.9(a)(1) Ecosystem integrity. – Directly applies to the need for change. The forest plan goal of MA 13 is to “Provide suitable habitat for old growth dependent wildlife species, ecosystem diversity, and preservation of aesthetic qualities” (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-105). See Summit final EA chapter 3, Wildlife section, for more detail

In summary, the effects of the MA 13 amendment, as described above, are to increase acres of MA 13 designations to provide old growth habitat.

I have reviewed the effects analysis of the MA 13 amendment in the Summit final EA chapter 3 and found that the effects are not contrary to section 219.9(a)(1) because increases to MA 13 will provide for ecosystem integrity by providing additional old growth habitat and habitat that will mature into old growth habitat.


43

36 CFR § 219.9(a)(2) Ecosystem diversity. – Directly applies because part of the goal of MA 13 is to provide habitat for old growth dependent wildlife species and ecosystem diversity (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-105). Further, the Malheur Forest Plan provides direction for MA 13 to be inventoried and validated to correct previously dedicated old growth unit designations that are not meeting management requirement recommendations for boundary adjustments, or unit relocation. The forest plan provides specific direction on how to do this (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-105). See Summit final EA chapter 3, Wildlife and Forest Vegetation sections for more detail.

In summary, the effects of the MA 13 amendment will be to increase the designation of old growth habitat by 327 acres within the Summit project area, contributing to ecosystem diversity of the project area and Malheur National Forest by providing old growth habitat along with other stand structural stages.

I have reviewed the effects analysis of the MA 13 amendment in the Summit final EA chapter 3 and found that the effects are not contrary to section 219.9(a)(2) because increases to MA 13 will provide for maintenance of old growth habitat, contributing to ecosystem diversity.

36 CFR § 219.9(a)(2)(i) Key characteristics associated with terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem types. – Does directly apply (see 219.9(a)(2)(i). MA 13 provides for management indicator species (pileated woodpecker, pine marten, and three-toed woodpecker) dependent on old-growth habitat (USDA Forest Service 1990a, pages IV-32 and IV-105). See Summit final EA chapter 3, Wildlife section for more detail.

In summary, the effects of the MA 13 amendment will be to increase the designation by 327 acres of old growth habitat within the Summit project area, that will provide dead and defective wood habitat, large diameter logs and snags, and closed canopy and multi-canopy stands.

I have reviewed the effects analysis of the MA 13 amendment in the Summit final EA chapter 3 and found that the effects are not contrary to section 219.9(a)(2)(i) because increases in MA 13 will provide for maintenance of key characteristics associated with terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem types.

36 CFR § 219.10(a)(1) Aesthetic values, air quality, cultural and heritage resources, ecosystem services, fish and wildlife species, forage, geologic features, grazing and rangelands, habitat and habitat connectivity, recreation settings and opportunities, riparian areas, scenery, soil, surface and subsurface water quality, timber, trails, vegetation, viewsheds, wilderness, and other relevant resources and uses. – Does directly apply because part of the goal of MA 13 is to “Provide “suitable” habitat for old growth dependent wildlife species, ecosystem diversity, and preservation of aesthetic qualities” (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-105).

Air quality, cultural and heritage resources, ecosystem services, forage, geologic features, grazing and rangelands, recreation settings and opportunities, riparian areas, scenery, soil, surface and subsurface water quality, timber, trails, vegetation, viewsheds, wilderness, and other relevant resources and uses are addressed in chapter 3 of the Summit final EA.

In summary, the effects of the MA 13 amendment will be to increase the designation by 327 acres of old growth habitat to maintain and improve the retention of stands will large trees and old forest characteristics and habitat for forest plan management indicators species for old growth.

I have reviewed the effects analysis of the MA 13 amendment in the Summit final EA chapter 3 and found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.10(a)(1) because changes to MA 13 will provide for aesthetic values, wildlife species, and habitat and habitat connectivity.

36 CFR § 219.10(a)(5) Habitat conditions, subject to the requirements of 219.9, for wildlife, fish, and plants commonly enjoyed and used by the public; for hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, observing,


44

subsistence, and other activities (in collaboration with federally recognized Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, other Federal agencies, and State and local governments). – Directly applies because DOG/ROGs are designated to provide habitat for species that are commonly enjoyed and used by the public for trapping (pine marten) and observing (pileated woodpecker and three-toed woodpecker).

See Summit final EA chapter 3, Wildlife section for more detail.

In summary, the effects of the MA 13 amendment will be to increase the designation by 327 acres where old growth habitat conditions will be maintained for forest plan management indicators species (pine marten, pileated woodpecker, and three-toed woodpecker).

I have reviewed the effects analysis of the MA 13 amendment in the Summit final EA chapter 3 and found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.10(a)(5) because changes to MA 13 will maintain habitat conditions for wildlife commonly enjoyed and used by the public.

36 CFR § 219.10(a)(8) System drivers, including dominant ecological processes, disturbance regimes, and stressors, such as natural succession, wildland fire, invasive species, and climate change; and the ability of the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems on the plan area to adapt to change (219.8). – Does directly apply, see 219.8(a)(1)(iv).

In summary the effects of the MA 13 amendment are to change MA 13 designations to locate MA 13 in areas that currently provide old growth habitat or are on the path to providing old growth habitat.

I have reviewed the effects analysis of the MA 13 amendment in the Summit final EA chapter 3 and found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.10(a)(8) because changes to MA 13 are being responsive to system drivers. In particular, natural succession by designating MA 13 in areas that currently provide old growth habitat or are on the path to providing old growth habitat.


Removal of Trees 21 inches d.b.h. or Greater

Scope, Scale, and Purpose of the Amendment I have determined the scope and scale of this amendment based on what is necessary for the project to meet its purpose and need. The overall purpose of the Summit Project is to improve and maintain forest resiliency by reestablishing and restoring forest structure and pattern, vegetation composition and diversity, and riparian communities to conditions more resilient to natural disturbance processes such as fire, insects, diseases, and drought. The restoration activities will improve forest resiliency and move the project area toward desired conditions while providing commercial timber products and supporting local employment.

Specifically the purpose of this amendment is to:

Amend the Eastside Screens, standard 6(d)(2)(a): “Maintain all remnant late and old seral and/or structural live trees greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. that currently exist within stands proposed for harvest activities” within the Warm Dry plant association group to allow:

• Removal of young (less than 150 years old), relatively large (greater than 21 inches d.b.h.) grand fir and Douglas-fir trees competing with older ponderosa pine, western larch, or aspen trees, causing competition stress and increasing the risk the older trees may die as a result of insects, drought, or wildfire outside of LOS (OFMS) structures. By reducing tree densities, the older trees will have


45

greater access to water, nutrients, and sunlight, resulting in not only their continued existence, but allowing for increased growth, health, and vigor (McDowell et al. 2003). Specifically, competing grand fir and Douglas-fir located within twice the canopy distance of older legacy ponderosa pine and western larch will be removed. Twice the canopy drip line is the distance from the tree’s bole to the edge of the foliage and that distance from the edge of the tree’s foliage out (i.e., a tree with a canopy that extends 20 feet from the bole will have adjacent trees thinned to a distance of 40 feet from the bole). Based on modelling, an estimated one tree or less per acre greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. will be removed under this amendment with the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer restoration prescriptions (approximately 8,308 acres). The amendment to remove trees greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. was discussed extensively during collaboration and is based on restoration strategies by Dr. Norman Johnson and Dr. Jerry Franklin (Franklin and Johnson 2009). Johnson and Franklin observed:

♦ Trees in dry forests begin to exhibit some characteristics of old growth at 150 years.

♦ Use of diameter limits (such as 21 inches d.b.h.) fails to protect many older trees.

♦ Diameter limits can deter the harvest of young, relatively large trees that crowd older trees, greatly increasing the risk that the old trees would die as a result of either wildfire or insect attack.

Trees greater than 150 years old will be determined by applying guidelines presented in Identifying Old Trees and Forest (Van Pelt 2008). With application of these guidelines there will be a small potential for error in determining tree age.

To compensate for this amendment, all trees greater than 150 years old will be retained. Removal of young (less than 150 years old), relatively large (greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h.) grand fir and Douglas-fir trees will be limited to trees within twice the canopy distance of older legacy ponderosa pine and western larch in the Warm Dry plant association group. Twice the canopy drip line is the distance from the tree’s bole to the edge of the foliage and that distance from the edge of the tree’s foliage out (i.e., a tree with a canopy that extends 20 feet from the bole will have adjacent trees thinned to a distance of 40 feet from the bole).

• Cutting and removal of conifer trees greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. (but less than 150 years old) within aspen stands, but outside riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs). Aspen restoration with potential for commercial product removal (timber) will occur in 17 aspen stands covering approximately 73 acres. This amendment will result in better growing conditions for quaking aspen and promote their existence across the landscape. “Managers in our area agree that all conifers should be removed in treated aspen stands, except for those that must be retained to meet other management objectives (e.g., large-tree conservation or stream shading)” (Swanson et al. 2010). Over the entire 73 acres of commercial aspen restoration, approximately 16 conifer trees greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. will be felled and removed from the site. This was determined by site visits where tree data was collected in the summer months of 2015. Some trees were cored with an increment borer and some trees were estimated using the Van Pelt (2008) guidelines to determine age.

Directly Applicable Substantive Requirements of 36 CFR 219.8 through 219.11 I have reviewed the following specific substantive requirements contained in rule sections 219.8 through 11 and determined which substantive requirements directly apply to this amendment. For each substantive requirement that applies, I have examined the effects of the amendment and concluded that those effects are not contrary to these requirements. My rationale follows.

The Forest Vegetation section in the final EA (pages 90-116) shows that approximately 97 percent of the forested vegetation in the Summit project area is classified as dry forest. Historically, frequent low-


46

severity and mixed-severity fire regimes maintained ponderosa pine as the dominant species in the dry forests (Agee 2003, Hessburg et al. 2005). The greatest changes in species composition have occurred in the Douglas-fir, grand fir, and subalpine fir series, especially in the grand fir series where there has commonly been a complete reversal in species dominance from ponderosa pine to grand fir and Douglas-fir due to the effects of fire exclusion and selective logging of overstory pine. In a 2012 study, tree data collected in the adjacent watershed east of the Summit project area shows the change in species composition since the establishment of the Blue Mountain Forest Reserves in 1891, and national forests in 1905. This study documents the encroachment of lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, and grand fir into stands that have either been pure ponderosa pine stands or Douglas-fir/ponderosa pine stands. Along with the change in species composition, the historical stand structure has changed from a single-strata structure to a multi-strata structure. The stand structure in the Warm Dry plant association group in the project area has moved from a historical range of being well distributed throughout the different structural stages to a distribution that would be hard to naturally maintain into the future.

This forest plan amendment is needed restore the ecosystem structure and function by shifting the tree species composition toward the ecologically desired mix of fire-resistant, early seral tree species (ponderosa pine and western larch) (consistent with 219.8(a)(1)(ii), 219.8(a)(1)(iii) and 219.8(a)(1)(vi)). Removing encroaching grand fir and Douglas-fir greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. (but less than 150 years old) will reduce the risk of future insect outbreaks and uncharacteristic wildfire, while also restoring habitats for historically present plant communities and wildlife habitat (consistent with 219.8(a)(1)(iv), 219.9(a)(2)(i), 219.10(a)(5)), and 219.10(a)(8)).

Aspen are native to the area, and provide important habitat for many species of wildlife (Gullion 1977). In the coniferous forests of the Interior West, aspen groves may be the only source of abundant forage; in the grasslands they may be the sole source of cover (Debyle and Winokur 1985). Aspen stands will experience a direct beneficial effect from a reduction in shade from large, over 21 inch d.b.h. conifers as well as increased water availability. If climate change predictions are accurate, there will be less water available within the project area in the future (less rainfall, less snowpack). Therefore managing aspen stands now, by removing conifer trees both smaller and larger than 21 inches d.b.h, but less than 150 years old, will make more water available for aspen in the future (consistent with 219.9(a)(2)(iii)).

By implementing this amendment stand structure will shift, with the proportion of young forest structure decreasing and the proportion of old forest structure increasing over a 30 year time period; about 22 percent of the Warm Dry PAG will be OFSS and within the historical range of variability of 15–55 percent (Powell 1998) (consistent with 219.9(a)(2)). Forest structure will be more in alignment with historical range of variability discussed in Powell 1998. There will be an increase in OFSS stands, with decreased tree density, setting the stands up to naturally be able to withstand both lightning and human-caused wildfires that have become devastating across the western United States, specifically in areas where fire suppression has played a large role in changes to the historical range of variability.

This amendment will directly allow for terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems to adapt to change by reducing ladder fuels, reducing tree density, increasing water availability, and shifting species composition toward higher percentages of fire-resistant trees (219.10(a)(8)), and an increased percentage in both ponderosa pine and western larch within the Warm Dry PAG. Without the removal of grand fir and Douglas-fir greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h., the percentage of ponderosa pine and western larch will be lower. This amendment will transition the dry Summit project area to a more historically fire resilient landscape characterized by frequent, low severity fires, such as those found in ponderosa pine stands (consistent with 219.8(a)(1)(v)). See chapter 3 of the Summit final EA for more information.

While most sections of 219.8 through 219.11 at least indirectly relate to a given forest plan amendment (because of the interrelated nature of natural resources), only some directly relate to the removal of trees


47

21 inches d.b.h. or greater amendment. See Summit final EA Appendix C for a rationale why other provisions of 36 CFR 219.8 through 219.11 do not apply.


Meeting the Specific Substantive Requirements of 36 CFR 219.8 through 219.11 and Effects of the Forest Plan Amendment Based on the need for change, site-specific conditions in the project area, and relevant forest-specific information and data, the following substantive requirements of 36 CFR 219.8 through 219.11 apply to the amendment to allow removal trees greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h.

219.8(a)(1)(ii) Contributions of the plan area to ecological conditions within the broader landscape influenced by the plan area. – Directly applies to the need for changes and the site-specific condition in the project area. Part of the purpose of the amendment is to restore the ecosystem structure and function by moving the tree species composition toward the ecologically desired mix of fire-resistant species (ponderosa pine and western larch).

In summary, the effects of the removal of trees greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. will be to restore proper landscape level ecosystem structure and function.

I have reviewed the effects analysis of this amendment in the Summit final EA chapter 3 and found that the effects are not contrary to section 219.8(a)(1)(ii) because the amendment will contribute to opportunities for landscape scale restoration.

219.8(a)(1)(iii) Conditions in the broader landscape that may influence the sustainability of resources and ecosystems within the plan area. – Directly applies to the need for change and the site-specific conditions in the project area. The purpose of the amendment is to restore historical tree species compositions and stand structures by removing encroaching grand fir and Douglas-fir and to reduce the risk of future insect outbreaks and uncharacteristic wildfire, while also restoring habitats for historically present plant communities and wildlife habitat.

In summary, the effects of the removal of trees greater than or 21 inches d.b.h. will influence the sustainability of resources and ecosystems in the project area by reducing risks of stand-replacing disturbances and restoring historically present plant communities and wildlife habitat.

I have reviewed the effects analysis of the amendment in the Summit final EA chapter 3 and found that the effects are not contrary to section 219.8(a)(1)(iii) because the amendment will contribute to a return to a more sustainable, historically present plant community.

219.8(a)(1)(iv) System drivers, including dominant ecological processes, disturbance regimes, and stressors , such as natural succession, wildland fire, invasive species, and climate change; and the ability of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems on the plan area to adapt to change. – Directly applies to the need for change and the site-specific conditions. Past management including fire exclusion has allowed the ingrowth of younger grand fir and Douglas-fir trees which has increased the risk of mortality to old ponderosa pine, western larch, and aspen due to competition induced stress insect attacks, and uncharacteristic wildfire. The amendment will help transition the dry Summit project area to a more historically fire-resistant landscape. Studies completed in the area within or near the project area show that the dry forest landscapes were historically dominated by ponderosa pine. Historically, frequent low-severity and mixed severity fire regimes maintained ponderosa pine as the dominant species.


48

In summary, the effects of the removal of trees greater than or 21 inches d.b.h. amendment will help the area return to a more historically accurate low to mixed severity fire regime and historical range of variability.

I have reviewed the effects analysis of this amendment in the Summit final EA chapter 3 and found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.8(a)(1)(iv) because the amendment will allow restoration treatments which restore the area’s resiliency to wildland fire, invasive species, and climate change.

219.8(a)(1)(v) Wildland fire and opportunities to restore fire adapted ecosystems. – Directly applies to the need for change and the site-specific conditions. The purpose of the amendment is to restore the landscape toward its historical condition as a fire adapted ecosystem. Within the project area past management including fire exclusion has allowed the establishment and crowding of younger grand fir and Douglas-fir trees. Treatments will reduce stand densities and favor a transition to more historically present and fire-resistant trees species while retaining a fir component historically endemic to these dry forest types.

In summary, the effects of the removal of trees greater than or 21 inches d.b.h. amendment will be to reduce stand densities and favor more historically present and fire-resistant trees species.

I have reviewed the effects analysis of this amendment in the Summit final EA chapter 3 and found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.8(a)(1)(v) because the amendment will allow restoration treatments which restore the area’s fire-adapted ecosystem.

219.8(a)(1)(vi) Opportunities for landscape scale restoration. –Directly applies to the need for change and the site-specific conditions. Stand structures in the project area currently do not reflect the desired condition based on historical references and historical range of variability. Heavy stocking, drought stress, and slow growth, accompanied by stagnated stand conditions, are contributing to insect activity. The combination of timber harvest, grazing, and fire suppression has gradually converted warm dry forests from long-lived early-seral species (ponderosa pine/western larch) to a higher proportion of late-seral species (grand fir/Douglas fir). This amendment will promote historically present tree species, and restore the drier forest landscapes to a more historically fire-resistant composition, and reduce stand densities and stress due to competition.

In summary, the effects of the removal of trees greater than or 21 inches d.b.h. amendment will be to help return the project area (38,000 acres – a landscape-scale project) to the desired condition based on historical reference and range of variability.

I have reviewed the effects analysis of this amendment in the Summit final EA chapter 3 and found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.8(a)(1)(vi) because the amendment will allow landscape level restoration to more historically appropriate species composition and stand densities.

219.9(a)(1) Ecosystem integrity. – Directly applies to the need for change and the site-specific conditions. Currently the Summit project area is outside the natural range of variation. Within the project area 19 percent of the Warm Dry plant association group is old forest multi-strata structure, while single-layered stands are rare. Less than one percent of the Warm Dry plant association is old forest single stratum. This is a complete reversal of the historical range of variation which shows OFMS at 5–20 percent and OFSS at 15–55 percent of the Warm Dry plant association group (Powell 1998). The current tree species composition is out of balance with historical condition in some areas. The amendment will help restore the landscape condition (integrity) including stand structures and densities, species composition, and function (ability to withstand insects, disease, and fire).


49

In summary, the effects of the removal of trees greater than or 21 inches d.b.h. amendment will foster ecosystem integrity by helping restore the historical condition, range of variation, and landscape function.

I have reviewed the effects analysis of this amendment in the Summit final EA chapter 3 and found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.9(a)(1) because the amendment will foster ecosystem integrity by helping restore the historical condition, range of variation, and landscape function.

219.9(a)(2) Ecosystem diversity. – Directly applies to the need for change and the site-specific conditions. The amendment will help restore a balance and diversity of structural stages and tree species composition across the landscape that reflect the historical range of variation for the Warm Dry biophysical environment.

In summary, the effects of the removal of trees greater than or 21 inches d.b.h. amendment will foster ecosystem diversity by helping restore a balance of structural stages and species composition that reflect the historical range of variation.

I have reviewed the effects analysis of this amendment in the Summit final EA chapter 3 and found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.9(a)(2) because the amendment will foster ecosystem diversity by helping restore the historical condition, range of variation, and landscape function.

219.9(a)(2)(i) Key characteristics associated with terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem types. – Directly applies to the need for change and the site-specific conditions. As stated in 219.9(a)(1) Ecosystem integrity above, the Summit project area is currently outside the natural range of variation. The amendment will help restore a balance and diversity of structural stages and tree species composition within the Summit landscape. Maintaining or enhancing ecologically appropriate old forest conditions provides ecosystem types and habitat for forest plan management indicators species for old growth.

In summary, the effects of the removal of trees greater than or 21 inches d.b.h. amendment will foster ecosystem diversity by helping restore a balance of structural stages and species composition that reflect the historical range of variation.

I have reviewed the effects analysis of this amendment in the Summit final EA chapter 3 and found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.9(a)(2)(i) because the amendment will help restore key characteristics associated with the historical terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem types within the Summit project area.

219.9(a)(2)(iii) The diversity of native tree species similar to that existing in the plan area. – Directly applies to the need for change and the site-specific conditions. See 219.8(a)(1)(ii) above.

In summary, the effects of the removal of trees greater than or 21 inches d.b.h. amendment will foster diversity of native tree species by helping restore a balance of structural stages and species composition that reflect the historical range of variation.

I have reviewed the effects analysis of this amendment in the Summit final EA chapter 3 and found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.9(a)(2)(iii) because the amendment will help restore a more natural diversity of native tree species composition.

219.10(a)(5) Habitat conditions, subject to the requirements of 219.9, for wildlife, fish, and plants commonly enjoyed and used by the public; for hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, observing, subsistence, and other activities (in collaboration with federally recognized Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, other Federal agencies, and State and local governments). – Directly applies to the need for change and the site-specific conditions. Maintaining or enhancing ecologically appropriate old forest conditions provides ecosystem types and habitat for Malheur Forest Plan management indicator


50

species for old growth. Management indicator species are commonly enjoyed and used by the public for trapping (pine marten) and observing (pileated woodpecker and three-toed woodpecker).

In summary, the effects of the removal of trees greater than or 21 inches d.b.h. amendment will foster improved habitat for management indicator species by maintaining or enhancing ecologically appropriate old forest conditions more suitable for these species.

I have reviewed the effects analysis of this amendment in the Summit final EA chapter 3 and found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.10(a)(5) because the amendment will help restore a more ecologically appropriate old forest condition.

219.10(a)(7) Reasonably foreseeable risks to ecological, social, and economic sustainability. – Directly applies to the need for change and the site-specific conditions. The amendment will address the capability of ecosystems to maintain the ecological integrity. See 219.9(a)(1) above. Within the project area there are foreseeable risks to the ecological sustainability because of the current imbalance of tree species composition and stand structures.

In summary, the effects of the removal of trees greater than or 21 inches d.b.h. amendment will restore a more balanced species composition and stand structure and allow the landscape to better maintain ecological integrity.

I have reviewed the effects analysis of this amendment in the Summit final EA chapter 3 and found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.10(a)(7) because the amendment will help restore ecological integrity through a restoration of balanced species composition and stand structure, making the landscape more ecologically sustainable.

219.10(a)(8) System drivers, including dominant ecological processes, disturbance regimes, and stressors, such as natural succession, wildland fire, invasive species, and climate change; and the ability of the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems on the plan area to adapt to change (219.8). - Does directly apply, see 219.8(a)(1)(iv).

In summary, the effects of the removal of trees greater than or 21 inches d.b.h. amendment will restore historical ecological processes and resilience in the face of disturbance and reduce the severity of disturbance regimes, especially wildland fire and invasive species. It will increase the landscape’s capacity to adapt to change.

I have reviewed the effects analysis of this amendment in the Summit final EA chapter 3 and found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.10(a)(8) because the amendment will help restore historical ecological processes, increase resilience to disturbance, and increase the landscape’s capacity to adapt to change.

Finding of No Significant Impact Based on the documentation in the Summit final EA and project record, I have determined the following with regard to the context of this project:

The Summit Project implements direction set forth in the Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended. The Malheur National Forest is comprised of approximately 1.7 million acres. The Prairie City Ranger District encompasses approximately 380,621 acres of the Malheur National Forest. The selected alternative will implement commercial thinning, non-commercial thinning, underburning on approximately 26,600 acres, which is approximately 7 percent of the Prairie City Ranger District, and 1.5 percent of the Forest. Given the area affected by the project at the District and Forest


51

scale, I find that the effects of the project are not significant as disclosed in the effects sections of the final EA (pages 100 – 344), and will have a negligible effect at the District and Forest Scale.

Based on the documentation in the Summit final EA and the project record, I have determined the following with regards to the intensity of the project:

1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. Beneficial and adverse impacts of implementing the selected alternative have been fully considered within the EA. Beneficial and adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts discussed in the EA have been disclosed within the appropriate intensity. My decision will have neither a significant beneficial or adverse impact because the anticipated effects are similar to those from past fuel and vegetation restoration projects which have not proven to cause significant impacts. The effects are described in the final EA starting on page 100 and additional documentation can be found in individual specialist reports in the project record.

I have determined that based on the findings for the forest plan amendments under the 2012 Planning Rule, there are no substantive effects related to forest plan amendments included in my decision (see the above section).

2. The degree to which the action affects public health and safety. There are limited health and safety hazards to the general public, adjacent landowners, permittees, and Forest Service employees. Smoke management guidelines will be followed (FEA page 123). My selected alternative will not significantly affect public health or safety. The safety will be improved for fire fighters and the public along Forest Roads 1651 and 16 (FEA pages 36, 116). There are no municipal watersheds located in the project area (FEA page 343). The selected alternative is consistent with the Clean Water Act and serves to protect and restore water quality on water-quality-limited streams. It includes actions to restore riparian conditions and move toward site potential vegetation on water-quality limited streams (e.g., non-commercial thinning for fuel reduction), incorporates Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect water quality, and includes BMP implementation and effectiveness monitoring (FEA pages 67-85).

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area. There are no significant effects on unique characteristics such as historic or cultural resources (FEA pages 340-344), parklands, prime farmlands (FEA page 343), or National Landmarks. The project is consistent with the Clean Water Act (FEA page 341), Executive Orders addressing floodplains and wetlands (FEA page 341), other applicable laws and related regulations and with the forest plan, as amended. Watershed resiliency will be improved in both subwatersheds with implementation of the selected alternative by moving toward historical fire regimes and reducing susceptibility to disease and insects (FEA pages 87, 151-155).

The project area contains portions of the Malheur Scenic River corridor and 31 acres of the Glacier Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area.

The Summit project area contains 531 acres of the Malheur Scenic River Corridor (MA 22B). Within the scenic river corridor, the selected alternative includes underburning, non-commercial thinning, and pre-commercial thinning with no biomass removal. The objective is to restore natural ecological conditions and decrease the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire that could threaten the outstandingly remarkable scenic, historic, geologic, and wildlife habitat values of the river corridor. The selected alternative will maintain or enhance all outstandingly remarkable values. Scenery (FEA pages 292-294), wildlife habitat (FEA pages 218, 228-239, 246-255, 260-269), historic (FEA pages 288-289, 293-294), and geological values (FEA pages 285 and 296) will not


52

be impacted because actions in this decision will not change any geologic features. Activities are consistent with forest plan MA 22B goals and standards for visuals, wildlife, fisheries, and recreation. No actions will affect the flow of water or the river channel, therefore the free-flowing conditions of the river will not be affected.

The Summit project area contains 31 acres of the Glacier Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). The proposed action was modified in the final EA to avoid tree cutting (non-commercial thinning) within the IRA to be consistent with the Roadless Area Conservation Rule adopted by the Department of Agriculture on 1/12/2001 (see FEA page 344). Within the IRA, the selected alternative includes underburning only, with the objectives of maintaining or restoring the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure and reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects.

4. The degree to which the effect on the quality of the human environment is likely to be highly controversial. As used in the Council on Environmental Quality’s guidelines for implementing NEPA, the term “controversial” refers to whether substantial dispute exists as to the size, nature, or effects of the major federal action. The nature of potential effects of forest management activities in this project is well established and not likely to be highly controversial in a scientific context. The actions and the analysis for these actions are supported by best available science from numerous publications which are cited within the specialists’ reports and the Summit final EA. My decision falls within the scope of the analysis for the Malheur Land and Resource Management Plan (1990), as amended.

I have reviewed the public comments received through scoping and the 30-day public review of the EA. There was no information presented that indicates substantial controversy about the effects of the project. Comments were received from 21 parties, including individuals and groups. These comments came in the form of letters, photos, and field notes. These comments were catalogued, and Forest staff responded in writing to each comment. The response to comments document is part of the project record.

5. The degree to which the possible effect on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. My decision does not involve highly uncertain, unique, or unknown risks and is based on best available science and extensive experience with similar types of actions. The activities are well established land management practices, and the risks are well known and understood. The selected alternative was developed using design criteria and best management practices that are based on the results of past actions, professional experience, site-specific data and best available science.

6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects. My decision will not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects because this action is not unusual in itself and it does not lead to a future action that is unique. This decision only pertains to the Summit project area and actions authorized by this decision. Any future decisions will need to be considered in a separate analysis using relevant scientific and site-specific information available at that time.

Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. The selected alternative is not related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulative significant impacts. The analysis of past actions follows the Council on Environmental Quality guidance provided on June 24, 2005 and is consistent with Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations (36 CFR 220.4(f)) (July 24, 2008). Appendix B in the Summit EA displays all activities and natural events that already have


53

occurred, are currently occurring, or are likely to occur in the area of potential cumulative effects. The applicable information in Appendix B is incorporated in cumulative effects analysis in each specialist area after direct and indirect effects analysis in the final EA. This includes cumulative effects related to the forest amendments (see FEA pages 330-340). My review of the EA and supporting documents finds the cumulative effects analyses have adequately considered the time and space of effects to each respective resource and all impacts will be contained within each applicable analysis area. No significant adverse environmental impacts are likely to occur due to this decision.

7. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historic resources. My decision will not adversely affect any scientific, cultural, or historic resources. The selected alternative complies with the National Historic Preservation Act. With the completion of the Heritage inventory under the terms of the 2004 Programmatic Agreement with Oregon State Preservation Officer (FEA page 327), and by providing the interdisciplinary team with appropriate input as per NEPA, all relevant laws and regulations have been met. The selected alternative is expected to have no (or extremely minor) direct effects on all known heritage sites within the project planning with implementation of design criteria. In most cases, eligible or unevaluated sites will be avoided or properly mitigated throughout the lifetime of any of the actions. Consultation occurred with the Burns-Paiute Tribe, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation and Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs (FEA pages 13-14).

8. The Degree to which the action may adversely affect endangered or threatened species or its habitat. The action complies with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 for aquatic and wildlife species. Biological evaluations were completed for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species of animals, fish, and plants. These are available in the project record. The project area contains one threatened aquatic species (bull trout) and its designated critical habitat (FEA page 159-165, 177-178, 189). No threatened, endangered, or proposed wildlife or botanical species are present in the project area (FEA pages 158-165, 177-178 and 342).

The selected alternative “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” Snake River bull trout and its designated critical habitat (FEA pages 159-161,177-178 and 342). The project will have no direct effects to bull trout. There will be no temporary roads in RHCAs. There are eight currently open roads within the project area that cross streams and will be used for haul. Six of those are aggregate or paved. One of the two native surface roads will have work done to mitigate erosion (see project design criteria Aquatics-19 in FEA pages 70-71). It was determined that indirect impacts from potential sediment production and localized short-term losses in shade will be insignificant and discountable based on proximity and magnitude of the action. This was based on the low intensity of activities within Category 1 and 2 RHCAs and the extensive aquatic and soil design criteria. As such, individual bull trout or its designated critical habitat will not be adversely impacted.

Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on threatened bull trout has been completed. A final biological assessment regarding the effects of the project to threatened Snake River bull trout and designated critical habitats was submitted to USFWS in May of 2017. On June 5, 2017 a letter of concurrence was received documenting USFWS concurrence on the Summit Creek Landscape Restoration Project. The completed biological assessment and letter of concurrence are located in the project record.


54

9. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. I have examined this action and its relationship to applicable laws, executive orders, and regulations, and find that my decision will not violate any federal, state, local laws or requirements for protection of the environment (see FEA pages 343-350).

The action is consistent with the Malheur Forest Plan as described in the consistency section for each resource in the final EA as well as described below. The selected alternative is consistent with the National Forest Management Act regulations for vegetative management. There will be no regulated timber harvest on lands classified as unsuitable for timber production (36 CFR 219.14) and vegetation manipulation is in compliance with 36 CFR 219.27(b). The project complies with Executive Order 12898 regarding environmental justice (FEA pages 340-341).

Based on the site-specific analysis summarized in the final EA, project record, and this decision notice, and on previous experience with similar proposals, I have determined that this action is not a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. I have determined this project complies with the Grant County Comprehensive Land Use Plan and other county statues. The project is expected to improve the human environment by reducing the likelihood of catastrophic wildfires, improving the safety of wildland-urban interface escape routes, reducing sediment delivery to streams, and enhancing wildlife habitat, which will benefit those who hunt and engage in wildlife watching.

Conclusion After considering the environmental effects described in the final EA and specialist reports, I have determined that the selected alternative will not have significant effects on the quality of the human environment considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR 1508.27). Thus, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared.

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations After consideration of the discussion of environmental consequences (FEA pages 100-344), I find the selected alternative is consistent with all applicable laws and regulations. This decision incorporates by reference the detailed discussion of policy and law consistency presented in the final EA, pages 340-345. The project is consistent or complies with the following:

• National Historic Preservation, Treaty Rights, Executive Order 12875, Executive Order 13287, and American Antiquities Act of 1906

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act

• Clean Water Act

• Clean Air Act

• Endangered Species Act

• National Forest Management Act

• Multi-Use Sustained Yield Act

• Roadless Conservation Rule

• Grant County Comprehensive Land Use Plan and other County statutes

• American Procedures Act


55

Based on wildlife analysis in the final EA (pages 192-270), I find that the project will not have any adverse effects on the viability of any forest plan wildlife management indicator species with habitat in the project area. These include Rocky Mountain elk, pileated woodpecker, American three-toed woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, Lewis’s woodpecker, red-naped sapsucker, Williamson’s sapsucker, downy woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, northern flicker, redband trout, and bull trout. Proposals may impact some of these species or their habitat at the project or local scale, but the magnitude and intensity of the impact is not expected to contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Malheur National Forest for any of the species.

Two aquatic management indicator species, bull trout and redband trout, have habitat in the project area (FEA page 158). Both species were selected as indicators of non-anadromous riparian habitat. Bull trout are listed as federally threatened and redband trout as a sensitive species from the Regional Forester’s list. In summary, there will be no reduction in quantity (miles) of stream habitat due to project actions. Habitat quality may be slightly reduced in the short term due to post-implementation sediment input resulting from aquatic restoration activities. This potential effect would occur within a fraction of available habitat; therefore, the following determination applies: “May impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability” within the project area. In the long term, near-stream conditions will be improved as restoration actions are completed (FEA pages 177-178).

No changes in access will impact any RS2477 routes.

Implementation This final decision is the final administrative decision by the agency. Implementation is expected to begin in 2017. I reviewed the Summit final EA, associated appendices, and project record, and I believe there is adequate information within these documents to provide a reasoned choice of action. I am fully aware of adverse effects that cannot be avoided and believe these risks have been adequately mitigated and are outweighed by the benefits. Implementing the selected alternative will cause no unacceptable impact to any resource.

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, we will consider the criteria at FSH 1909.15, section 18. 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.

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 our decision. Many of these minor changes will not present sufficient potential impacts to require any specific documentation or action to comply with applicable laws.

Contact for Further Information For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service objection process, contact Amy Mathis, NEPA Planner, Prairie City Ranger District, Malheur National Forest, 327 SW Front St., Prairie City, Oregon, 97869, (541) 820-3890, or [email protected].



56

Responsible Official As the Forest Supervisor of the Malheur National Forest I am responsible for deciding the type and extent of management activities within the Summit project area.

September 28, 2017 STEVEN K. BEVERLIN DATE Forest Supervisor Malheur National Forest


57

References Agee, J.K. 2003. Historical range of variability in eastern Cascades forests, Washington, USA. Landscape

Ecology. 18(8): 725–740.

Al-Chokhachy, R., Black, T., Thomas, C., Luce, C., Rieman, B., Cissel, R., Kershner, J. 2016. Linkages between unpaved forest roads and streambed sediment: why context matters in directing road restoration. Restoration Ecology, DOI: 10.1111/rec.12365.

Cochran, P.H., J.M. Geist, D.L. Clemens, R.R. Clausnitzer, and D.C. Powell. 1994. Suggested stocking levels for forest stands in northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. Res. Note PNW-RN-513. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Cole, E.K., M. D. Pope and R. G. Anthony. 1997. Effects of road management on movement and survival of Roosevelt elk. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 61(4): 1115-1126.

DeBano, L. 2000. The role of fire and soil heating in water repellency in wildland environments: a review. Journal of Hydrology. 231: 195-206.

Debyle, N.V., Winokur, R.P. 1985. Aspen: ecology and management in the western United States. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-119. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Doerr, S., Shakesbya, R., Blakeb, W., Chaferc, C., Humphreys, G., & Wallbrink, P. 2006. Effects of differing wildfire severities on soil wettability and implications for hydrological response. Journal of Hydrology. 319: 295-311.

Gullion, G.W. 1977. Maintenance of the aspen ecosystem as a primary wildlife habitat. p. 256-265. In Proceedings of the XIII international congress of game biologists. Atlanta, Ga., March 11-15, 19771 538 p. Tony 1. Peterle, editor.

Hessburg, P.F., R.G. Mitchell, and G.M. Filip. 1994. Historical and current roles of insects and pathogens in eastern Oregon and Washington forested landscapes. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-327. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Hessburg, P.F., J.K. Agee, and J.F Franklin. 2005. Dry forests and wildland fires of the inland Northwest, USA: Contrasting the landscape ecology of the pre-settlement and 2251 modern eras. Forest Ecology and Management. 211(1): 117–139.

Johnston, J. D., J. D. Bailey and C. J. Dunn. 2016. Influence of fire disturbance and biophysical heterogeneity on pre-settlement ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests. Ecosphere. 7(11) 1-19.

Lyon, L. J., and A. G. Christensen. 2002. Elk and land management. In: D. E. Toweill and J. W. Thomas eds., North American Elk Ecology and Management, 557-582. Washington D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press.

McDowell, N.G., J.R. Brooks, S.A. Fitzgerald, and B.J. Bond. 2003. Carbon isotope discrimination and growth response of old Pinus ponderosa trees to stand density reductions. Plant Cell Environ. 26: 631–644.


58

Millspaugh, J. J., and J. M. Marzluff, editors. 2001. Radio tracking and animal populations. Academic, San Diego, California, USA.

Powell, D.C. 1999. Suggested stocking levels for forest stands in northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington: an implementation guide for the Umatilla National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Umatilla National Forest, F-14-SO-TP-03-99.

Powell, D. 2004. Forest inventory data for the Blue Mountains 1910-1911. USDA, Umatilla National Forest.

Seager, S.T., A. Markus, and A.J. Kromes. 2013. Aspen restoration strategy for the Fremont-Winema National Forest. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 51 p.

Strong, N., T. Welch, B. Littlefield, and D. Stringer. 2010. Land manager’s guide to aspen management in Oregon. Oregon State University Extension Service. http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/docs/pubs/AspenManual.pdf

Swanson, D.K., C.L. Schmitt, D.M. Shirley, V. Erickson, K.J. Schuetz, M.L. Tatum, and D.C. Powell. 2010. Aspen biology, community classification, and management in the Blue Mountains. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-806. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 117 p.

USDA Forest Service. 1990a. Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. John Day, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur National Forest. Available online: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/malheur/landmanagement/?cid=fsbdev3_033814

USDA Forest Service 1990b. Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. John Day, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur National Forest. Available online: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/malheur/landmanagement/?cid=fsbdev3_033816

USDA Forest Service. 1993. Malheur Wild and Scenic River Management Plan, USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region, Malheur National Forest, John Day, OR.

Van Pelt, R. 2008. Identifying old trees and forests in Eastern Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources.

a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · For More Information Contact: Ed Guzman Amy Mathis. District Ranger NEPA Planner . Prairie City Ranger District

Documents