Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action and Proposed Action

Transcription

1 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action and Proposed Action Introduction The Goosenest Ranger District of the Klamath National Forest (KNF) is proposing a habitat restoration project on 2,226 acres in a Late Successional Reserve (LSR). These management activities are developed to implement the Forest s 1995 Land and Resources Management Plan (Forest Plan). A description of the Proposed Action is included in Chapter 2 and Appendix A of this Environmental Assessment (EA). This project is authorized under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) as defined below: 1) This project lies within National Forest System Lands, in an area identified as being important for threatened species. Habitat used by threatened species is at risk of loss due to wildfire (Sec. 102 (a)(5)); 2) The project would provide enhanced protection from catastrophic wildfire for threatened species and their habitats (Sec. 102 (a)(5)(b)); 3) This project complies with the Bald Eagle Recovery Plan and the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (Northwest Forest Plan) (USDA, USDI 1994). The latter is regarded as the federal contribution to the recovery of the northern spotted owl (NSO) (Sec. 102 (a)(5)(c)); 4) This project is consistent with the Forest Plan, as amended (Sec. 102 (b)). This project is not located (a) within a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System, (b) on Federal land on which the removal of vegetation is prohibited or restricted by Act of Congress or Presidential proclamation or (c) a Wilderness Study Area (Sec. 102 (d)); 5) This project is consistent with section 102(e)(2) of the HFRA and is designed to fully maintain, or contribute toward the restoration of, the structure and composition of old growth stands according to the pre-fire suppression old-growth conditions characteristic of the forest type, taking into account the contribution of the stand to landscape fire adaptation and watershed health, and retaining the large trees contributing to old growth structure. Purpose and Need The Goosenest LSR Southeast Habitat Restoration Project area lies entirely within the Goosenest LSR. Direction in the Forest Plan states that LSRs are to be managed to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and old growth 1 forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for many late-successional and old-growth -related species including the northern spotted owl (NSO) and the bald eagle. The majority of the stands 2 in the project are dense, young to mid- 1 On the Klamath National Forest, late-successional stands are classified as those that have overstory trees measuring 25 inches to 39.9 inches diameter at breast height (DBH). Late-successional stands include large snags and down logs and may or may not be multi-stored, depending on the quality of the growing site and the primary tree species in the stands. Old-growth stands have overstory trees that are 40 inches DBH and larger. Old-growth stands also have large snags and down logs, and may or may not be multi-storied, depending on the quality of the growing site and the primary tree species in the stands. 2 Stand refers to a group of trees occupying a specific area and sufficiently uniform in age, species arrangement and condition as to be distinguishable from other groups of trees in adjoining areas. Although treatments will be designed to culture some individual trees (such as bald eagle roost trees), treatment prescriptions will be developed on a stand basis. Goosenest LSR Southeast Habitat Restoration Page 1

2 aged, with only a few small patches of remnant large, old trees. The project area provides habitat for NSO and bald eagle, but the habitat is in poor condition. For reasons discussed below, the future value of these stands as habitat for NSO and bald eagle is in jeopardy. Several factors have combined to alter vegetative conditions in the Goosenest LSR. Prior the advent of fire suppression (around 1920), this area was subject to frequent, low intensity fires. Frequent, low-intensity fires resulted in low tree densities and landscape mosaics of forest stands dominated by large, overstory conifer trees, including ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. Ground fuels were light and regeneration of shade-tolerant conifers, such as white fir, was limited by fire frequency. It is probable that under these conditions, NSOs were limited to drainages and northern slopes. During the period of private ownership from 1909 to 1926, the majority of the project area was logged. Today, the project area is dominated by mid-successional stands that are 60 to 80 years old and lack structural diversity, especially large trees. Only 107 of the 2,226 acres proposed for treatment are classified as late-successional vegetation. The vegetative composition, structure, and pattern in the LSR has changed over the past few decades with suppression of wildfire. The project analysis area has a history of fire starts, from both humans and lightning. Eighty-two fires have started in the project area over the past 77 years; all but three fires were contained at less than 10 acres in size. The current fuel conditions put stand development at risk to loss from wildfire. Fire behavior modeling of the current condition predicts that a late-summer wildfire would kill 100% of 15 of the stands proposed for treatment. Vegetation modeling predicts that, if left untreated, trees would die and tree growth in remaining trees would be slow. Fire suppression has resulted in survival of hundreds of small conifers on each acre. Stand Density Index (SDI) 3 in many stands is well over 300 (Figures 1-4). Fire suppression has also allowed white fir to become established throughout the project area. Elevation within the project area ranges from 4000 feet to 6800 feet (about 50 acres of proposed treatment areas are above 6000 feet elevation). Under more natural conditions, white fir is dominant above 6,000 feet elevation. White fir is not well suited to the dry conditions and shorter period of snow pack at lower elevations. Consequently, it is susceptible to disease and competition, and dies before it can provide the type of habitat needed by NSOs. On the drier sites found in the Goosenest LSR, stands developed from dense white fir encroachment have low species diversity, small-sized trees and logs, and constitute lower-quality NSO habitat relative to late-successional mixed conifer habitats. Periodic droughts, most recently in the 1990s, have exerted stress on all of the vegetation communities and have resulted in wide spread tree mortality, especially in the white fir. Annosus root disease (Heterobasidion annosum) has killed weakened trees in many stands. Concentrated patches of infected trees exist in several areas. These factors have resulted in a build-up of standing dead trees and dead trees on the ground (Figures 1 and 4). Under temperature and fuel moisture conditions associated with late summer, it is highly likely that a fire start would result in a fast-moving, high severity fire. Such a fire would likely kill most of the trees within these stands. White fir also competes with Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine, which are desirable species in midelevation late-successional habitats. The presence of hundreds of smaller trees is killing the largest trees in the project area. This situation is best illustrated in Muskgrave Creek, the site of a former bald eagle nest. Observers monitoring the nest in the mid 1980s noted that dense white fir understory at this site is causing significant mortality to the overstory pine; we will likely lose the nest trees soon. Figure 3 shows the dead nest tree today; it is no longer used by bald 3 SDI is a measure of inter-tree competition. Different tree species grow and develop at different SDI. For example, the optimum SDI for growth and development of ponderosa pine trees is 250 or less. When the SDI is above 250, the growth and development of ponderosa pine trees is slow. White fir typically begins to slow in development at an SDI of 450, although this affect can occur at a lower SDI on sites with poor soils. Goosenest LSR Southeast Habitat Restoration Page 2

3 eagles. The remaining live large Douglas-fir trees in Muskgrave Creek are important because they provide winter roost habitat for 2 to 80 bald eagles each year. The remaining large ponderosa pine trees are important because they could provide new bald eagle nest sites. The same conditions that killed the nest tree threaten the remaining large Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine trees. About a quarter of a mile away from the bald eagle roost stand is an historic NSO activity center (area of concentrated use, including attempted nesting). This site has been monitored frequently since From 1980 through 2003, the pair of NSOs was known to have reproduced only once; the NSOs have moved their center of activity several times within the stand, probably due to the unstable habitat conditions. The poor nesting history might also be attributed to the poor habitat conditions in the area. The overly dense habitat is dominated by white fir (see cover photo). Competition between so many trees has resulted in suppressed growth and development; consequently, there are few large trees, especially large Douglas-fir trees, to provide suitable structure for nesting. Stands dominated by white fir are used by NSOs; but the short-lived white fir in this project area does not provide stable habitat conditions. The current decline of habitat in the Goosenest LSR may have already contributed to a decline in active NSO pair sites, and further deterioration of NSO habitat is expected to lead to further declines in the local NSO populations (project Biological Opinion, 2005). Lack of frequent, low-intensity ground fire is also affecting conditions in Riparian Reserves. Fuel buildups have increased the risk of wildfire with consequent potential for damage to riparian vegetation and ground cover (Figure 4). About 40 acres of dense planted young pine stands (17 to 28 years old) are in riparian reserves, and are susceptible to loss from wildfire. Severe wildfire in riparian areas can increase runoff and soil erosion, and affect stream shade and recruitment of large woody material to streams. Lack of fire has also affected meadows. Comparison of air photos taken in 1964 and 1995 shows that juniper and pine trees have been encroaching into the margins of meadows. Conifer encroachment is reducing meadow quality, adversely affecting species that depend on this habitat type. Wet meadows are important components of diversity within this montane forest ecosystem. Conifer trees, especially junipers, have affected meadows by lowering the water table; consequently, meadows have begun to dry up and riparian vegetation is dying out. Aspen stands are also dying out because of conifer encroachment and the lowering of water tables. Some roads in the project area interfere with natural water drainage patterns. They intercept flow of water that would normally go into riparian areas, or they cause delivery of sediment into riparian areas. Some road and creek intersections are not stable and have high potential to cause debris flows. These situations interfere with the natural hydrologic processes of riparian areas and degrade riparian areas by reducing water quality or quantity. Thinning of excess smaller trees and removal of ground fuels would reduce the risk of standreplacing crown fire. After removal of ladder fuels, fires would be less likely to enter the canopy. Reduction in ground fuels would reduce fire intensity, thereby reducing tree mortality. Thinning also would promote the development of late-successional stand characteristics. Thinning also would promote the development and improvement of habitat for NSO. Restoration activities that implement the Bald Eagle Recovery Plan and Bald Eagle standards and guidelines from the Forest Plan would improve the long-term health of the Muskgrave nest and roost stand. Opportunities for improvement of hydrologic condition include road surface improvement, stormproofing or decommissioning of old roads that interfere with natural water drainage patterns, and improvement of meadows and aspen stands that have been adversely impacted by conifer encroachment and fuels buildup. Goosenest LSR Southeast Habitat Restoration Page 3

4 Figure 1. Dead white fir trees (stand 7T). (SDI in this stand is 405.) Figure 2. Overstocked pine stands (stand 17). (SDI in this stand is 417.) Figure 3. Dead bald eagle nest trees, Muskgrave Creek (stand 6). (SDI in this stand is 354.) Figure 4. Existing ground fuels in Juanita Lake Riparian Reserve (stand 10 T). (SDI in this stand is 338.) The purpose of the project is to reduce fuels and develop desired stand characteristics to meet LSR objectives. The project is intended to improve vegetation conditions and watershed function in Riparian Reserves. Comparison of the existing condition of the project area and the desired condition from the Forest Plan, as clarified in the Goosenest LSR Assessment and Klamath National Forest s Forestwide LSR Assessment 4, indicate the following needs: Manage early and mid-seral stands to produce older forest characteristics; Reduce fuel loads to change predicted fire behavior; Develop and protect sustainable habitat for the NSO and bald eagle; 4 The Goosenest and Forestwide LSR Assessments are available at Goosenest LSR Southeast Habitat Restoration Page 4

5 Restore and improve natural drainage patterns and vegetative conditions that promote high quality riparian habitats. (This element was adapted from the Goosenest LSRA to be more specific to this project area.) This comparison of existing condition and desired condition, and identification of treatments are further explained in Table 1-1. Opportunities listed in Table 1-1 were identified in the Goosenest LSR Assessment, or were developed by the Interdisciplinary Team, based on desired condition statements in the Goosenest LSR Assessment. In addition to the Opportunities listed in Table 1-1, the Interdisciplinary Team identified road-related opportunities to meet Forest and National road management policy. Proposed Action The project area is located on the Goosenest Ranger District, 4 miles west of the town of Macdoel, California (Figure A1). It lies within three 7 th -field watersheds: Harris-Ikes, Muskgrave, and Prather. The legal location is Township 46N Range 2W, Sections 7, 8, 17-20, 30, and 31-33, Mt. Diablo Meridian. The Proposed Action is summarized below; it is described in more detail in Chapter 2 and Appendix A. All acreages and mileages are estimates; they have been refined during the planning process and may change slightly during field layout. All proposed vegetation management and related activities are scheduled for completion within 7 to 10 years of signing the decision notice. (Note: The term will is used in this document to facilitate understanding of the Proposed Action. It does not mean that a Decision has been made regarding implementation.) Thinning, at various spacing, will be used on 2,226 acres to reduce ladder fuels, reduce tree density, reduce competition between overstory trees, and promote future structural variability within stands. Small patch cuts will be used to remove concentrations of annosus-infected trees on 21 acres in 3 stands (included in the 2,226 acres). Encroaching conifers will be removed from 2 acres surrounding an aspen stand (included in the 2,226 acres). Prescribed underburning, mastication, hand-piling and burning, and piling with tractor will be used to treat fuels on the ground (both existing and those that will be generated during restoration activities). 7 miles of road will be improved through storm proofing and other treatments; 7.4 miles of road will be decommissioned. Roads throughout the project area will be maintained to support project implementation. Decision To Be Made The decision to be made is whether to approve the Proposed Action, not select the Proposed Action or take no action at this time. Goosenest LSR Southeast Habitat Restoration Page 5

6 Table 1 1. Existing condition, desired condition, and opportunities. Existing Condition Desired Condition Opportunities Most NSO home ranges in the LSR are functioning poorly in terms of long-term sustainability. Home ranges contain NSO home ranges include nesting, roosting, and foraging habitats that are structurally diverse, with large trees (> 30 inches DBH) that have large limbs. Stands are dominated Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) Habitat overly dense forest with suppressed understory dominated by white fir. They lack large trees, especially large Douglas-fir trees. They are at moderate to high risk of insect attack, with subsequent increased wildfire hazard. by Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine, with a mixture of sugar pine and incense cedar; stands have only a minimal amount of white fir (Goosenest LSRA, page 54). Stands are healthy and not so dense that trees are dying from competition. Snags are present, but not in excess. Resiliency to Large-scale Disturbance Pine Stands Mixed-Conifer Stands Much of the mixed-conifer and ponderosa pine stands are not resilient to large-scale disturbance. High stand density, mostly related to encroachment by white fir, has resulted in tree mortality, particularly on the east-facing slopes of Ball and Butte Mountain. The vast majority of this forest type was railroad logged. Pine stands are overstocked, even-aged and lack LS/OG characteristics. Productivity and species diversity in the grass layer is poor. The vast majority of this forest type was railroad logged. Stands have since regenerated with poor species diversity, lack of hardwoods and a high proportion of white fir. Overstocking has lead to a high amount of tree mortality and high fuel loadings. Stands lack large, overstory trees. Fuels are variable across the landscape, though none should be in Condition Class 3. Fuel conditions allow for only 35% stand mortality from late summer wildfire. Fine scale (0.3 to 1 acre) landscape mosaic dominated by large old, pine. Large, overstory trees number from 5 to 20 per acre. Large snags range from 2 to 4 per acre. Grasses occupy openings between groups of trees. Fuel conditions allow low-intensity ground fires. Presence of and recruitment of large snags and logs occurs over time. (Goosenest LSRA, page 56). Stands include a mixture of conifer species that includes Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, sugar pine, and incense cedar. Large overstory trees exceed 20 per acre. Large snags range from 4 to 7 per acre (Goosenest LSRA page 54.) Stand densities are appropriate for the site and overstory trees are not dying from competition with other trees. Stands are resilient to wildfire. Use thinning and other treatments to enhance stand development in stands that have potential to be suitable NSO habitat (based on presence of Douglas-fir). Protect NSO home ranges from stand-replacing fire, within and/or adjacent to suitable stands. Reduce fuel loading; disrupt continuity of ground and ladder fuels, and continuous crowns. Use variable thinning, patch-cutting followed by planting to reduce fire behavior potential and provide for a diversity of conifers that are more fire resistant than white fir. Reintroduce fire as appropriate, given vegetation type and management history. Apply variable thinning and underburning to develop large ponderosa pine, within a fine scale pattern of seral stages; increase diversity in the grass/shrub layer. Apply variable thinning to enhance the survival of Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, sugar pine and incense cedar. Retain and enhance the largetree component. Apply fuel treatments to reduce potential for stand-replacing fire. Goosenest LSR Southeast Habitat Restoration Page 6

7 Muskgrave Bald Eagle Nest/Roost Riparian Habitats -- wet meadows, springs, and small streams Riparian Habitats -- intermittent and fishbearing streams; lakes and ponds Existing Condition Desired Condition Opportunities Forested stands exhibit habitat characteristics required by eagles for long-term nesting and roosting. Old-growth overstory pine and Douglas-fir trees are maintained in the vicinity of nest sites and communal roosts. Stocking levels are such that moisture stress and susceptibility of pines to bark beetle infestation is low (Bald Eagle Recovery Plan, USDI 1986). The Muskgrave Creek area has developed a dense understory of white fir. The presence of white fir has eliminated ponderosa pine regeneration and has caused extreme moisture stress to the overstory. Recent disease and insect outbreaks are killing large pine and Douglas-fir trees used by eagles. These stands are at risk to standreplacing fires Junipers and other conifers are encroaching into meadows. They are lowering the water table and causing the loss of riparian vegetation. In the Juanita Lake area, conifers growing in existing wetlands are limiting the growth of aspen. Roads are altering the drainage patterns of streams and meadows. Fire suppression has resulted in increased fuel accumulations, with a subsequent increase in potential fire intensity. This increases the potential for loss of riparian vegetation, ground cover, and soil erosion. Recent site visits have identified landings, system and nonsystem roads that interfere with natural drainage patterns. Deep-rooted native grasses are present, consistent with site capability, and allow wet meadow to function in healthy condition (Goosenest LSRA, page 58). Quaking aspen are present, where site capability allows. Negative effects of roads are minimized. Stream channels and their associated riparian plant communities exhibit features that characterize various successional stages. Vegetation associated with these features promotes healthy aquatic function (Goosenest LSRA, page 58). Forested systems provide coarse woody material. Negative effects of roads and landings are minimized. Thin trees to retain and foster development of large, overstory trees in areas currently used by roosting and nesting eagles. Manage the nest/roost stands to develop large tree character. Culture around large trees by removing trees within the drip-line. Reduce ground fuels to a condition that allows introduction of prescribed fire. Thin conifers to promote desired tree species, including aspen, consistent with site potential. Decommission or improve roads to promote more natural drainage patterns and reduce sedimentation. Reduce fuel loadings where existing and future trends exhibit high intensity fire potential, particularly on the west side of Juanita Lake. Treat roads and landings to correct interference with natural drainage patterns and problems with sedimentation. Modify road drainage systems to reduce the extent to which the roads function as extensions of the stream networks. Goosenest LSR Southeast Habitat Restoration Page 7

8 Management Direction Various laws, regulations, and policies guide management of National Forests. They provide the framework for all levels of planning and include Regional Guides, Forest Plans, and site-specific planning documents such as this EA. The higher-level documents are incorporated by reference and can be obtained from Forest Service offices. The Forest Plan provides guidance for managing National Forest System lands within the Forest. Guidance from the Northwest Forest Plan is incorporated in the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan was amended by the Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standard and Guidelines on January 12, 2001, by the Record of Decision To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines on March 22, , and by the Record of Decision Amending Resource Management Plans for Seven Bureau of Land Management Districts and Land and Resource Management Plans for Nineteen National Forests Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl on March 22, The Forest Plan provides two types of management direction, Forest wide direction and Management Area direction. Forest wide direction, which applies to all management areas, is located on pages 4-3 through (Note: All page references in this document refer to the version of the Forest Plan that includes all amendments as of 11/21/01 and can be found on the following Forest web page: Management areas have distinct management goals, management requirements, and desired conditions. The proposed project lies within Special Habitat Late Successional Reserve (Management Area 5), Special Habitat - Bale Eagle (Management Area 5), and areas overlaid with Riparian Reserves (Management Area 10). Table 1-2 displays a summary of the primary management direction for each Management Area pertinent to this proposal, as well as the Klamath Forest Plan pages containing the complete direction for each area. Table 1-2. Management Area Direction Management Area (MA) Special Habitat Late Successional Reserves (MA5) Special Habitat Bald Eagle (MA5) Riparian Reserve (MA10) Goals, Desired Conditions, and Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) Goal Protect and enhance conditions of late successional and old-growth forest ecosystems which serve as habitat for late-successional and old-growth species including the NSO. S&Gs MA5-1, 12, 13, 25, 26, 28-29, 38. Goal Provide bald eagle habitat that will contribute to the recovery of the Pacific bald eagle. Management activities that are consistent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service s Recovery Plan are expected to accomplish this goal. Manage eagle habitat to protect and maintain nesting and roosting sites. S&Gs MA5-43, 46, 47, 54, 55, 60. Goal Be consistent with Aquatic Conservation Strategy goals. Maintain and restore riparian-dependent structures and functions, provide benefits to riparian-dependent and transition zone species, and provide habitat connectivity. S&Gs 2, 21, 42, 44, 45, 50, 51, 54, 59, 60, 61, 64, 65, 68, 71. Pages in the Klamath Forest Plan 4-84 to to to The Proposed Action also complies with the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. Surveys were conducted for species formerly known as Survey and Manage Species. Goosenest LSR Southeast Habitat Restoration Page 8

9 The Goosenest LSR is within the California Cascades Province, an area highlighted in the Northwest Forest Plan as having an elevated risk for large-scale disturbances such as wildfire. The proposed treatment stands lie within designated Critical Habitat for the northern spotted owl. Collaboration and Public Involvement The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) is to work with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Forest collaborated with the Yreka Field Office of the USFWS to develop a Proposed Action that protects and enhances habitat for late-successional associated species, with an emphasis on Threatened species. To fulfill the trust relationship with Native Americans, several Native American groups (federally recognized, treatied and/or non-federally recognized) were sent a letter dated March 17, The letter described the Proposed Action and requested input. One comment letter was received, stating that the particular tribe had no knowledge of any archaeological or cultural sites within the proposed project. Notice of the Proposed Action first appeared in the KNF quarterly schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) issued in January There was no response from the public to that notice. The first scoping period was initiated by mailing the Proposed Action to 28 persons, local Native American groups, organizations and those who were adjacent landowners, or were considered to be interested or affected parties. The scoping notice was published in the Siskiyou Daily News (April 14, 2004), the Klamath Falls Herald and News (April 14, 2004) and the Butte Valley Star. The scoping letter and newspaper notice provided public notice of a field trip to the project area (HFRA, Sec. 104(e)). Persons interested in attending such a field trip were invited to contact the interdisciplinary team leader. Three comment letters and two phone calls were received. Three individuals initially expressed interest in attending the public field trip. A field trip was held on June 2 nd, meeting the requirements of HFRA (Sec. 104(e)); however, no members of the public attended. In June, the KNF determined that the project met the criteria of the HFRA. On June 17 th, a second letter was sent to those who had provided written comments during first scoping period, and a notice was published in the Siskiyou Daily News (June 24, 2004), the Klamath Falls Herald and News (June 22, 2004), and the Butte Valley Star, announcing that the project would be planned under the authority of the HFRA. A second comment period was opened. No comments were received in response to this second notice. Issues Scoping comments were analyzed to identify issues. Issues are points of discussion, debate, or dispute about the environmental effects of the propose action; they can be significant or nonsignificant. The Analysis of Scoping comments for the Goosenest LSR Southeast Habitat Restoration Project (Appendix C) contains a record of the submitted comments and a determination of the significance of each. All issues identified for this project were determined to be non-significant. Project Record Availability The planning record for the Goosenest LSR Southeast Habitat Restoration project includes all project-specific information, including specialist s reports, the LSR Assessments, and other results of field investigations. These documents are referenced throughout the EA by title; key points are summarized. The planning record is located at the Goosenest Ranger District Office in Goosenest LSR Southeast Habitat Restoration Page 9

10 Macdoel, California. These records are available for public review. Documents prepared for this analysis are listed and summarized in Appendix D. Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action Alternative Development The interdisciplinary team considered two alternatives in detail: the Proposed Action and No Action. The Proposed Action was developed to meet the purpose and need for action in collaboration with staff of the Yreka USFWS Office, under the authorities of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. Only the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives are required as no other alternatives were proposed during the scoping or collaborative process (HFRA, Sec. 104 (1)). Acreage estimates and other quantitative measurements were derived from a number of sources, including field measurements and estimations, and remote sensing techniques using the Forest Geographic Information System (GIS). Acre estimates and other quantitative measurements have been refined since the scoping letter was mailed and will continue to be refined, based on additional field-work, including stand layout. However, the amount of disturbance will not increase over what was analyzed for this EA. A summary of the Proposed Action, including Integrated Project Design Features, is presented in this chapter. Appendix A provides details of the Proposed Action in tabular form and Appendix B includes the Best Management Practices that will be used in project implementation. Proposed Action The following restoration activities will be implemented over the next 7 to 10 years (up to 10 years if implemented using a stewardship contract): Thinning: A total of 2,226 acres will be thinned, at various spacing, to: reduce tree density, reduce ladder fuels, reduce inter-tree competition, and culture individual ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir trees for the development of large trees with large limbs to provide future NSO and bald eagle habitat. Prescriptions will be tailored for each vegetation type and site condition. Twenty-eight stands (Figure A2) will be treated, including 10 stands that were planted following regeneration harvest 17 to 28 years ago (young planted stands). Patches of annosus-infected white fir trees, acres each and totaling no more than 21 acres, will be cut out of 3 of the stands. The small openings created from cutting the patches will be replanted with ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. Riparian Treatments 125 of the above-stated 2,226 acres are located in Riparian Reserves; 40 acres of which are young planted stands. These stands will be thinned to reduce fire behavior potential and promote development of late-successional forest characteristics. Goosenest LSR Southeast Habitat Restoration Page 10