DRAFT Decision Notice. Dove Vegetation Management Project Environmental Assessment. Finding of No Significant Impact. Forest Plan Amendment.

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region February 2017 DRAFT Decision Notice Finding of No Significant Impact And Forest Plan Amendment For the Dove Vegetation Management Project Environmental Assessment Malheur National Forest, Emigrant Creek Ranger District Harney and Grant County, Oregon Information Contact: Melissa Ward or Lori Bailey 265 Highway 20 South, Hines Oregon

2 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) (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 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 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) Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the

3 DRAFT Decision Notice Finding of No Significant Impact And Forest Plan Amendment For the Dove Vegetation Management Project Environmental Assessment USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region Malheur National Forest Emigrant Creek Ranger District 265 Hwy 20 S. Hines, Oregon Harney and Grant Counties, Oregon Introduction This draft Decision Notice (DN) documents my decision and rationale for the Dove Vegetation Management Project Environmental Assessment. The Dove Vegetation Management Project is located on the Malheur National Forest, Emigrant Creek and Blue Mountain Ranger Districts. The Preliminary Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Dove Project was released for 30-day comment period on June 1, This draft DN is distributed according to 36 CFR providing a 45-day period for objections to be filed prior to making a final decision. The purposes of the Dove Project are to improve native vegetation resilience and resistance to insects, disease and wildfire; reduce road related impacts to the watershed, and to capture the economic value of harvested timber. The Dove project area refers to the 43,892 acre area within the Lonesome Creek, Venator Creek, Headwaters South Fork John Day River, and Corral Creek subwatersheds within the Upper South Fork John Day Dove Vegetation Management Decision Notice Page 3 of 47

4 River Watershed. The major drainages in the project area are the Bear Creek, Corral Creek, Cougar Creek, Delles Creek, Donivan Creek, Grasshopper Creek, Lonesome Creek, Rail Creek, Rail Creek, SF John Day River, and Venator Creek. FIGURE 1 Vicinity Map of the Dove Project Area, Malheur National Forest, Oregon Dove Vegetation Management Decision Notice Page 4 of 47

5 The Purpose and Need for This Project The Emigrant Creek Ranger District, Malheur National Forest, developed proposals for the Dove project, to support the purposes of this project and meet Forest Plan goals and objectives. The project proposal incorporates by reference the Upper South Fork of the John Day River Watershed Analysis (November, 2003) and the Malheur National Forest Forest-Wide Travel Analysis (September 2015), incorporating many of the recommendations made in these documents. The project proposal also incorporates by reference the Harney County Restoration Collaborative (HCRC), Declaration of Cooperation (March 2009). The Common Ground Principles (Pages 25-27) were incorporated in the development of the purpose and need for the Dove project. The purposes of this project (EA Chapter 1 at 1-1 to 1-2) are to: Improve vegetation resilience and resistance to insects, disease and wildfire (Forest Plan IV-37, 38, 45, 51, and 61) Increase the diversity and structure of forest vegetation communities (Forest Plan IV-37 and 38) Improve meadow, aspen, and riparian habitats; and overall watershed condition (Forest Plan IV-2, 19, 31, 39, 55, 56, and 59) (Watershed Assessment-105, 106) Enhance sagebrush steppe habitats and upland shrubs (Forest Plan IV-28 and 31) Promote low severity fire on the landscape as a natural disturbance regime (Forest Plan IV-45, 53, and 61) Reduce road related impacts to the watershed (terrestrial and aquatic habitat and water quality) (Forest Plan IV-2, 22, 29, 39, 42, 43, 60, and 72) (Watershed Assessment-64) Capture the economic value of harvested timber (Forest Plan III-1, IV-2) The need for action is based on the current conditions of resources within the project area. The EA Chapter 3 presents the baseline environment and a detailed description of relevant resource components of the existing environment. Decision and Rationale After review of the Dove Vegetation Management Environmental Assessment, and comments received during the scoping and 30-day notice and comment periods, I have decided to select a blend of the Proposed Action and Alternative 3, herein referred to as the Selected Alternative. I chose this blend of alternatives because it best meets the stated project purposes, while addressing public comments, and concerns. The blended alternative includes what I believe to the best of both action alternatives. The Selected Alternative includes the vegetation, other vegetation treatments, and the designation of replacement old growth from the Proposed Action alterative; and the landscape scale prescribed burning and road activities from Alternative 3. I have selected an alternative that I believe to be ecologically sound, both for the short and long term. It includes a practical management approach that reflects sensitivity to conflicting public concerns. In making my decision, I considered and balanced numerous factors. The selected alternative responds to the purpose and need to improve native vegetation resilience and resistance to insects, disease and wildfire; restore meadow habitat, aspen Dove Vegetation Management Decision Notice Page 5 of 47

6 stands, and riparian hardwoods; enhance sagebrush steppe habitats; reintroduce fire on the landscape as a natural process; reduce road related impacts to the watershed; and capture the economic value of harvested timber. The Selected Alternative also responds to the key issues, wildlife habitat in the Utley Butte Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA), big game security, and big game cover. My decision addresses the concerns the Upper South Fork John Day Watershed Council has over the lack of vegetation management in the Utley Butte IRA and subsequent risk of large wildfire, which was a key issue in the EA (EA Chapter 1 at 1-15). The lack of management in the Utley Butte IRA make the area susceptible to catastrophic wildfire and harmful not only to the Upper South Fork Watershed, but the entire John Day River System. I realize that only approximately 1,695 acres of the Utley Butte IRA are within the Dove Project area but treating these acres with prescribe fire is a start and it will reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects within the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period. My decision considers the range of science and forest plan standards related to big game cover, which was a key issue in the EA (EA Chapter 1 at 1-15). Rocky Mountain elk was chosen as a Forest Plan management indicator species because it is a commonly hunted species (Forest Plan, IV-32). Wild ungulates require a balance of cover and forage. Thomas et. al (1979) found optimal habitat for elk in the Blue Mountains consisted of 60% cover and40% forage. Currently, the cover forage ratio for summer range is nearly equal at 52:48 (EA Chapter 3 at 3-78). Studies completed at the Starkey Experimental Station since the Forest Plan was established suggest that the energetic benefits of cover may be inconsequential to elk performance, and that forage or nutritional effects may have the greater impact on individual animal performance (Cook 1998). However, these studies do not dispute elk s preference for dense forest stands or the numerous studies that show elk using dense stands disproportionately to their availability. Dense conifer stands can contribute to better distribution of elk across available habitat, but this may be more of a disturbance or security issue than a thermal regulation issue. The Selected Alternative retains total cover to Malheur Forest plan standards in all subwatersheds. However, satisfactory cover will be below forest plan standards in Headwaters South Fork John Day River summer range, Lonesome Creek winter range, and Venator creek summer and winter range (EA Chapter 3 at 3-82). My decision also considers concerns the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) brought forward about opening roads and its effects to big game security, which was a key issue in the EA (EA Chapter 1 at 1-16). ODFW strongly suggested no closed roads be opened. I examined their concerns and I agree that the negative effects to big game security of opening forest roads , , and far outweigh any real access benefit, effectively fragmenting relatively large areas without open roads. Therefore my decision increases big game security areas, both moderate and minimum security (EA Chapter 3 at 3-85). Road closures and decommissioning were also a concern brought up during the 30-day comment period. I understand this is a very emotional topic and during the decision process for this project, I realized I will not be able to fully satisfy all public concerns, as many of them are mutually exclusive. I believe the interdisciplinary team made a Dove Vegetation Management Decision Notice Page 6 of 47

7 concerted effort to involve the public on proposed road closures. I also believe the road closures and decommissions in the Selected Alternative are necessary to meet other resource needs while allowing for motorized use of roads for resource management, fire suppression, recreation and other uses. More than 75% of the roads proposed for closure or decommissioning are already previously closed with administrative decisions; closed with logs, pole gates, or earth berms; or naturally closed with vegetative overgrowth. (EA Chapter 3 at 3-8). Motorized access to known dispersed camp sites will not be impacted by proposed road closures and decommissions (EA Chapter 3 at 3-184). Unneeded roads need to be closed or decommissioned in order to reduce sediment in the area streams, reduce disturbance of wildlife species, reduce maintenance costs, and meet Forest Plan road density standards while still maintain access for resource management, fire suppression, search and rescue, recreation and access to dispersed camp sites, hunting, and other public and agency uses (EA Chapter 1 at 1-16). After restoration activities are complete, a total of 140 miles of road inside the project area will remain open for motorized use by the public (EA Chapter 3 at 3-8). The Selected Alternative will provide commercial timber products with an estimate between 15 and 20 million board feet available as sawlogs and/or non-saw (biomass) material. The project activities such as harvesting, thinning, biomass utilization, aspen, meadow, riparian and sagebrush restoration, and road closures and decommissioning will primarily be done through contracts, providing employment opportunities to the local community. Although there is no guarantee the economic benefits will be derived locally, the project provides opportunities to provide a local contribution. Forest Plan Amendments were a concern brought up during the 30-day comment period. Specifically the amendment to reduce big game summer range and winter range cover below Forest Plan Standards. The need for amending the forest plan was adequately described in the EA, Chapter 1 at 1-5 to 1-8; and a description of forest plan amendments was adequately described in the EA, Chapter 2 at 2-13 to Additionally, the effects of the forest plan amendments was also described in the EA, Chapter 3 at to Specific effects to the big game summer and winter range cover was described above at DN-4. Snags were a concern brought up during the 30-day comment period. Potential population levels developed by Thomas (1979) are used to determined snag levels and objectives for the Malheur National Forest. Thomas et al., (1979) defined snags in the Blue Mountains for management purposes as standing dead trees or partly dead trees at least 4 inch DBH and six feet tall. Since the publication of Thomas et al. (1979), new research indicates that more snags are needed to provide needs for some wildlife species and other ecosystem functions. However, due to the lack of productivity in drier ponderosa pine environments, the existing guidelines may still be too high for the drier portions of the project area, primarily the forest boundary parts of the Dove project (EA Chapter 3 at 3-77). Mixed conifer stands meet minimum snag densities in the late structure and open tree structure; however small and medium mixed conifer stand types do not meet minimum snag densities. Additionally, snag patches are limited on the landscape, which are necessary for some species of wildlife especially bat roosting habitat. In the ponderosa pine stands data indicates a shortage of snags in the open and small/medium stand types. Dove Vegetation Management Decision Notice Page 7 of 47

8 Snag densities do not meet Forest Plan standards for snags. Lodgepole pine stands lack snag densities and are not meeting snag objectives in the open stand structure based on 2014 field crew surveys. (EA Chapter 3 at 3-68 to 3-70). The majority of research studies report that thinning treatments result in a decline in snag densities (EA Chapter 3 at 3-70). Prescribed fire can have both positive (creates snags) and negative (consumes snags) effects on snags. Large scale vegetation treatment projects reduce snag recruitment in the mid-term due to reducing stocking rates of trees (EA Chapter 3 at 3-70). Figures 15 and 16 (EA Chapter 3 at 3-72) display the short and longterm changes to snag densities in snags greater than 10 inches DBH and 20 inches DBH from DecAID. The Selected Alternative will create a snag gap when compared to the No Action alternative, but snag levels will still be above the 30 to 80 percent tolerance levels for snags greater than 10 inches DBH and greater than 20 inches DBH. I evaluated the environmental consequences of No Action. This alternative provides the least direct impact on the environment in the short term, but will leave the area in its existing condition and does nothing to address high densities of conifers, encroachment by conifers and juniper, road related impacts to water quality, fish habitat and wildlife habitat; and economic stability of the local area; thus failing to meet the purpose and need. I weighed the difference in purpose and need benefits and lesser environmental impacts and chose not to select this alternative. I also evaluated the environmental consequences of the Proposed Action Alternative and Alternative 3. I did not choose the Proposed Action Alternative because it did not propose prescribed burning in the Utley Butte IRA and the road treatments impacted big game security areas. I did not choose Alternative 3 because it did not treat enough acres. The selected alternative responds to the purpose and need to improve native vegetation resilience and resistance to insects, disease and wildfire; restore meadow habitat, aspen stands, and riparian hardwoods; enhance sagebrush steppe habitats; reintroduce fire on the landscape as a natural process; reduce road related impacts to the watershed; and capture the economic value of harvested timber. The Selected Alternative also responds to the key issues, wildlife habitat in the Utley Butte Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA), big game security, and big game cover. Lastly, I feel the analysis fairly and accurately cites applicable scientific research and studies. Chapter 4 of the EA lists all references cited and includes references specific to scientific research on forest and fire ecology, wildlife, and aquatics related to the landscape and effects of the actions in the Dove project. Elements of the Decision The following is a detailed description of the activities included in the Selected Alternative. Maps are also included. The Selected Alternative was developed in response to comments received during the scoping period. Dove Vegetation Management Decision Notice Page 8 of 47

9 The Selected Alternative (Blend of Alternatives 2 and 3) Vegetation Treatments Vegetation treatments for the Selected Alternative are those that were described in the Dove Vegetation Management EA, Chapter 2, Alternative 2, Vegetation Treatments, pages 2-3 to 2-6. Following is a summary of the vegetation treatments and the acres of each treatment. For a full description of the selected activities refer to the Dove EA, Chapter 2 pages 2-3 to 2-6. Ponderosa Pine Harvest 239 Acres This treatment is assigned to stands which have a ponderosa pine overstory and moderate to heavy understory of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. Reference the Selected Alternative Vegetation Activities Map. Mixed Conifer Harvest Acres This treatment is assigned to areas with a mixture of Douglas-fir and grand fir overstory. Reference the Selected Alternative Vegetation Activities Map. Stand Improvement Commercial Thin 3,610 Acres This treatment is assigned to second-growth mixed ponderosa pine/douglas-fir stands with little or no overstory ponderosa pine remaining. Reference the Selected Alternative Vegetation Activities Map. Stand Improvement Biomass Thin 9,483 Acres Same treatment as stand improvement commercial thin but smaller diameter stands make removal products mostly biomass material. Reference the Selected Alternative Vegetation Activities Map. Shelterwood Harvest with Reserves 765 Acres This treatment is assigned to lodgepole-dominated stands that are experiencing mountain pine beetle activity. Reference the Selected Alternative Vegetation Activities Map. Other Restoration Treatments Other restoration treatments for the Selected Alternative are those that were described in the Dove Vegetation Management EA, Chapter 2, Alternative 2, Other Restoration Treatments, pages 2-6 to 2-7. Following is a summary of the other restoration treatments and the acres of each treatment. For a full description of the selected activities refer to the Dove EA, Chapter 2 pages 2-6 to 2-7. Aspen Treatment 508 Acres This treatment is assigned to aspen stands. Reference the Selected Alternative Other Vegetation Activities Map. Dove Vegetation Management Decision Notice Page 9 of 47

10 Meadow Treatment 25 Acres This treatment will increase the footprint of meadows to reflect a more historical outline by removing encroaching conifers less than 21 DBH from the historic footprint of the designated meadows. Reference the Selected Alternative Other Vegetation Activities Map. Shrub Steppe Treatment 4,070 Acres This treatment is assigned to grass-shrub and ponderosa pine/western juniper scab sites that are fairly open and rocky but are experiencing encroachment. Reference the Selected Alternative Other Vegetation Activities Map. Juniper Encroachment in Ponderosa Pine Treatment 5,966 Acres This treatment is assigned to dry ponderosa pine sites. Reference the Selected Alternative Other Vegetation Activities Map. Juniper Woodland Treatment 39 Acres This treatment is assigned to juniper woodland stands where juniper is the appropriate species. Reference the Selected Alternative Other Vegetation Activities Map. Category 1 RHCA Treatment 81 Acres This treatment is assigned to selected category 1 RHCAs 1 sites where stand densities are excessive. Reference the Selected Alternative Other Vegetation Activities Map. Category 4 RHCA Treatment 1,204 Acres This treatment is assigned to selected category 4 RHCAs sites where stand densities are excessive. Reference the Selected Alternative Other Vegetation Activities Map. Table DN1. Treatment Type and Acres in Category 4 RHCA. Treatment Type Acres Ponderosa Pine Harvest 6 Mixed Conifer Harvest 38 Stand Improvement Commercial Thin 119 Stand Improvement Biomass Thin 421 Shelterwood Harvest 71 Aspen Treatment 57 Meadow Treatment 2 Shrub Steppe Treatment 125 Juniper Encroachment 365 Total 1,204 1 Perennial stream bearing fish. RHCA is riparian habitat conservation area, as outlined in PACFISH and INFISH. Dove Vegetation Management Decision Notice Page 10 of 47

11 Designation of Replacement Old Growth (ROG) Designation of replacement old growth (ROG) for the Selected Alternative are those that were described in the Dove Vegetation Management EA, Chapter 2, Alternative 2, Designation of Replacement Old Growth, page 2-8. Following is a summary of the designation of replacement old growth activities. For a full description of the selected activities refer to the Dove EA, Chapter 2 page 2-8. To meet forest plan direction, 683 acres of replacement old growth (ROG), 1,375 acres of pileated woodpecker feeding areas, and 317 acres of both foraging and replacement old growth will be designated. Reference the Selected Alternative Replacement Old Growth Map. Landscape Scale Prescribed Burning Activities Landscape scale fuels treatment activities for the Selected Alternative are those that were described in the Dove Vegetation Management EA, Chapter 2, Alternative 3, Landscape Scale Prescribed Burning Activities, page 2-15 to Following is a summary of the landscape scale fuels treatment blocks and the acres of each block. Prior to reintroducing fire into the area, some areas will have thinning and harvest activities as described in the preceding section. Because prescribed fires burn in a mosaic pattern, the entire 42,021 acres will not actually be burned. An estimated 21,000 acres will be burned, about 50% of the area. For a full description of the selected activities refer to the Dove EA, page 2-15 to Reference the Selected Alternative Fuel Blocks Map. Forest Road Activities Table DN2. Selected Prescribe Burn Blocks and Acres Burn block Acres 101 3, Total 42,021 Forest road activities for the Selected Alternative are those that were described in the Dove Vegetation Management EA, Chapter 2, Alternative 3, Forest Road Activities, pages 2-16 to Following is a summary of the forest road activities. For a full description of the selected activities refer to the Dove EA, Chapter 2 pages 2-16 to Dove Vegetation Management Decision Notice Page 11 of 47

12 Forty-two roads or segments of roads totaling miles will be closed, 28 roads or segments of roads totaling 9.32 miles will be decommissioned, one segment of road totaling 2.85 miles will be seasonally closed, and one roads or segment of road totaling 0.50 miles will be opened. Reference the Selected Alternative Road Map. Road Number Beginning Mile Post Table DN3. Selected Alternative Roads Proposed for Closing Ending Mile Post Total Miles Road Number Beginning Mile Post Ending Mile Post Total Miles Total Table DN4. Selected Alternative Roads Proposed for Seasonal Closure Road Number Beginning Mile Post Ending Mile Post Total Miles Total Seasonal Closure 2.85 Dove Vegetation Management Decision Notice Page 12 of 47

13 Road Number Table DN5. Selected Alternative Roads Proposed for Decommission Beginning Mile Post Ending Mile Post Total Miles Road Number Beginning Mile Post Ending Mile Post Total Miles Total Decommission 9.32 Table DN6. Selected Alternative Roads Proposed for Opening Road Number Beginning Mile Post Ending Mile Post Total Miles Total Opening 0.50 Road Maintenance Activities Road maintenance activities will occur on approximately 145 miles of road. Road maintenance activities for the Selected Alternative are those that were described in the Dove Vegetation Management EA, Chapter 2, Alternative 3, Road Maintenance Activities, page For a full description of the selected activities refer to the Dove EA, Chapter 2 pages Temporary Roads Approximately 4.9 miles of temporary roads will be constructed and rehabilitated after use. Temporary road activities for the Selected Alternative are those that were described in the Dove Vegetation Management EA, Chapter 2, Alternative 3, Temporary Roads, page For a full description of the selected activities refer to the Dove EA, Chapter 2 page Dove Vegetation Management Decision Notice Page 13 of 47

14 Road Reconstruction Road reconstruction activities for the Selected Alternative are those that were described in the Dove Vegetation Management EA, Chapter 2, Alternative 3, Road Reconstruction, page For a full description of the selected activities refer to the Dove EA, Chapter 2 page New Road Construction No new road construction is needed for the Dove project (EA, Chapter 2, at 2-17). Past Road Closures There are many roads in the project area currently designated in the transportation system as closed to vehicular travel or decommissioned based on prior planning decisions. However, many of these roads are ineffectively closed/decommissioned so their existence and use are potentially impacting habitat and security for wildlife, soil and timber productivity, and water quality. Roads closed or decommissioned with previous NEPA decisions will be monitored for effectiveness. If the closure or decommission is determined to not be effective, the closure/decommission will be reinforced. These activities will occur during implementation of this project (EA Chapter 2 at 2-18). Design Criteria and Monitoring I will implement management requirements, constraints, and design criteria to minimize, reduce, or eliminate environmental harm (EA Chapter 2 at 2-19 to 2-26). Design criteria, described in the EA, are site-specific management activities for this project designed from National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands (USDA Forest Service 2012) and the General Water Quality Best Management Practices (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 1988) (EA Chapter 2 at 2-18 to 2-19). Design criteria are site-specific management activities designed to reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of proposed activities. They will be implemented to avoid, minimize, reduce, or eliminate impacts caused by implementation of the Selected Alternative. These practices will be applied to project design and layout, in contracts, and permit requirements. The design criteria listed in the EA are in addition to standard management direction in the Forest Plan. Resource monitoring will be implemented with the Selected Alternative (EA Chapter 2 at 2-26). The objectives of monitoring are to determine if management activities are moving resources toward desired conditions. Public Involvement The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) was directed to involve the public early and often throughout the pre-nepa and NEPA process. The IDT involved many individuals, organizations, and agencies in the Dove NEPA process including, the Harney County Restoration Collaborative, Federal, State, and County agencies, tribes, and special interest groups. A summary of the public involvement for the Dove Project follows. For a complete account of public involvement for the Dove Project refer to the project files. Dove Vegetation Management Decision Notice Page 14 of 47

15 Schedule of Proposed Actions The proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) as the Dove project in the summer (July) 2015 issue and has been published in each SOPA since (EA Chapter 1 at 1-13). Scoping The project was made available to the public, and other agencies for comment during scoping September 23 to October 23, Scoping notices were published in both the Burns Times Herald and the Blue Mountain Eagle on September 23, Scoping letters were sent to about 97 individuals, permittees and organizations as well as the members of the Harney County Restoration Collaborative. Ten responses of public interest were received. My staff and I reviewed all comments received during the scoping period. The comments were also reviewed by the ID Team and other staff to ensure consideration of every comment during the analysis process. All mailing lists, scoping documents, and responses are on file at the Emigrant Creek Ranger District office. With my direction, the interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues to address in the analysis (EA Chapter 1 at 1-13 to 1-17). Tribal Consultation Tribal scoping letters were sent for comment during the scoping period from September 23 to October 23, Letters were sent to the Burns Paiute Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Klamath Tribes, and the Yakima Indian Agency. No responses were received. On May 25, 2016; Malheur National Forest Deputy Forest Supervisor Ryan Nehl, and Emigrant Creek Ranger Christy Cheyne met with members of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation as per the process of the existing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Topics included a general overview of the project and timelines. On July 10, 2015 and October 13, 2015, Malheur National Forest Line Officers met with members of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation as per the process of the existing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Topics included an overview of the project and timelines. Collaboration The collaboration process for the Dove Project began in May 2014 by the Harney County Restoration Collaborative and the Emigrant Creek Ranger District. In 2008, then Governor Theodore Kulongoski designated the Harney County Restoration Collaborative an Oregon Solutions project on March 7, 2008 and appointed Harney County Judge Steve Grasty, The Nature Conservancy Oregon Director Russ Hoeflich, and the High Desert Partnership as project co-conveners. The mission of Oregon Solutions is to develop sustainable solutions to community-based problems that support economic, environmental, and community objectives and that are built through the collaborative efforts of businesses, governments, and non-profit organizations. Dove Vegetation Management Decision Notice Page 15 of 47

16 The Harney County Restoration Collaborative Core Team was created, composed of individuals, agencies and organizations with a stake in ecosystem restoration, restoration by-product utilization, and community sustainability in Harney County. During the course of multiple meetings and field tours, from May 2008 through April 2009, the Core Team agreed on a series of Project Purpose and Goal Statements, a set of Common Ground Principles for forest restoration, and Implementation Plans for each project objective. These outcomes are presented in the Declaration of Cooperation. Between May 5, 2014 and May 24, 2016 the collaboration group met almost bi-monthly to discuss the Dove project. For more information on collaboration refer to the collaboration notes in the project file. Open Roads Coalition Groups Forest Service personnel sent requested information to the Harney County Open Roads Coalition and the Grant County based Citizens for Public Access. On July 20, 2015 Forest Service personnel and a group of interested publics from each group went on a field trip in Dove to discuss potential road issues. For more information on this field trip refer to the August 5, 2015 News Release in the project file. Harney County Court Between September 2015 and June 2016 Forest Service personnel provided requested information and attended two Harney County Court meetings to provide updates on the Dove Project. Grant County Court and Grant County Sheriff Between February 2015 and February 2016 Forest Service personnel provided requested information and attended three Grant County Court meetings to provide updates on the Dove Project. 30-Day Public Comment Period on Draft Environmental Assessment The Preliminary Environmental Assessment for the Dove Vegetation Management Project was made available to the public, agencies, and interested individuals for 30-day comment June 1 st through July 1 st, Legal notices of 30-day comment were published in both the Burns Times Herald and the Blue Mountain Eagle on June 1, Seven responses of public interest were received during the 30-day comment period. Issues During public scoping I received and evaluated public comments to determine whether they constituted issues relevant to this planning process. An issue is an unresolved conflict or public concern over a potential effect on a physical, biological, social, or economic resource as a result of implementing the proposed action and alternatives to it. An issue is not an activity; instead, the projected effects of the proposed activity create the issue. I then separated the issues into three groups for the purpose of this analysis: Key issues, Analysis Issues and Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study. Dove Vegetation Management Decision Notice Page 16 of 47

17 Key issues are defined as inherent conflicts that cannot be eliminated that are directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Usually an alternative is developed to address key issues. Analysis issues are defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action and they illustrate the tradeoffs between alternatives. Analysis issues are tracked in the relevant resource area effects analysis in Chapter 3 and in the Comparison of Alternatives section at the end of Chapter 2. Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study are identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. I identified two key issues raised during the scoping process and one key issue was raised internally. Alternative Three was developed to address these issues. The key issues include: Issue 1 - Effects on Wildlife Habitat in the Utley Butte Inventoried Roadless Area The Upper South Fork John Day Watershed Council is concerned over the lack of vegetation management in the Utley Butte Inventoried Roadless area and subsequent risk of large wildfire. They are aware of the need to preserve the scenic beauty, and wildlife habitat of the National Forest. However, humans have altered this resource, and in so doing the lack of management in certain areas, such as the Utley Butte Inventoried Roadless Area, make the area susceptible to catastrophic wildfire and harmful not only to the Upper South Fork Watershed, but the entire John Day River System. According to the Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule (the 2001 Roadless Rule ), Reference 36 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 294 and 66 Federal Register (Jan. 12, 2001), Roadless Area Management can occur to improve habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive species, or To maintain or restore ecosystem composition and structure, such as reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects. The Utley Butte Wildlife Emphasis area consists of the Utley Butte Inventoried Roadless area. All but 260 acres of the Utley Butte Wildlife Emphasis management area overlaps with the Utley Butte Inventoried Roadless area. According to the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Malheur National Forest (1990), the Goal for the Utley Butte Wildlife Emphasis Area is to: Manage to provide for high quality wildlife and fish habitat and water quality, while allowing for scheduled timber harvest. Provide opportunities for high quality semi primitive dispersed recreation. The Forest Plan does allow scheduled timber harvest within the Utley Butte Wildlife Emphasis area, however because there are no roads in that area, the cost of thinning and slash treatment would be exorbitant. Additionally, much of that area is also within the Utley Butte Inventoried Roadless Area and thus falls under the Roadless Rule. On 1/12/2001, the Department of Agriculture adopted the Final Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR), intended to protect and conserve inventoried roadless areas on National Forest System lands. Since adoption of the 2001 RACR, the term IRA has been defined to refer to areas identified in the set of maps published for the 2000 FEIS Dove Vegetation Management Decision Notice Page 17 of 47

18 for that rule. The IRAs identified in the 1990 Malheur National Forest LRMP, Appendix C were included in the Final EIS RACR. Because of this, the Chief of the Forest Service must review all projects involving and the cutting, sale, or removal of timber in those areas, unless otherwise delegated to the Regional Forester. Granted, the cutting, sale, or removal of generally small diameter timber within this area will meet two of the three purposes stated in the Chief s Review Process for Activities in Roadless Area (1) to improve threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive species habitat; and (2) To maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure, such as to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects within the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period. However, because there are no roads in that area, the cost of thinning and slash treatment would be exorbitant. Because of these reasons, the Responsible Official has determined that prescribed burning (thinning by fire) in the Utley Butte Inventoried Roadless area (approximately 1,695 acres) will be cost effective, provide management that maintains or enhances biggame habitat and forage production; and will reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects within the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period. Alternative 3 was developed to address this issue. Indicator: Acres of prescribed burning in the Utley Butte Inventoried Roadless Area Issue 2 - Effects of Roads on Big Game Security The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife strongly suggests that no closed roads be opened. Opening roads would greatly exacerbate effects of reduced big game cover resulting from vegetation practices. Specifically, roads , and provide no access benefit, ultimately passing within 0.25 miles of an existing open road and terminating less than 0.5 miles from an existing open road, effectively fragmenting a relatively large area without open roads. Also, road appears to dead-end, providing no clear access benefit and intrudes into a large area without open roads. Alternative 3 was developed to address this issue. Indicator: Acres of big game security areas and elk habitat effectiveness. Issue 3 Effects on Big Game Cover Studies indicate that Rocky mountain elk and mule deer need a mixture of hiding and thermal cover as well as forage areas, calving/fawning and rearing areas. Forest Plan cover standards are specific to thermal cover. Biomass removal activities will reduce thermal cover. The Proposed Action alternative will reduce thermal cover below Forest Plan standards in 4 subwatersheds. Alternative Three was developed to address this issue, and would meet Forest Plan standards for thermal cover. Indicator: Effects to cover and HEI (Habitat Effectiveness Index). Dove Vegetation Management Decision Notice Page 18 of 47

19 Other Alternatives Considered In addition to the Selected Alternative, I considered three other alternatives in detail, the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action Alternative (Alternative 2) and Alternative 3. No Action Alternative Under this alternative, none of the specific management activities proposed in this document would occur. Ongoing activities such as recreation, personal-use firewood cutting, fire suppression, and livestock grazing would continue at current levels. Management activities proposed by other environmental documents would still occur. Environmental conditions in the subwatershed would continue to follow natural and biological processes, and cumulative influences of past and on-going management practices and uses would continue. Why I did Not Select This Alternative I did not select this alternative because: It does not address the need to reduce tree densities in order to increase tree growth, vigor, and decrease susceptibility to insect and disease. It does not address the encroachment by conifers and juniper. It does not improve sagebrush steppe habitats, upland shrubs, meadow, aspen, and riparian habitats; and overall watershed condition. It does not reduce small to midsized less fire resilient species such as grand and Douglas fir, making forests more susceptible to stand replacing fires. It does not reduce road related impacts to water quality, fish habitat, and wildlife habitat. It does not meet the purpose of making wood products available for local, regional, and national needs to provide jobs in the most cost-effective manner, while being sensitive to resource conditions. It did not meet the need for an appropriately balanced access system. Proposed Action Alternative The Proposed Action was developed to meet the purpose and need for the project and responds to ecosystem health, watershed improvement, economic objectives and collaboration. I chose parts of this alternative and blended them with parts of Alternative 3. Why I did Not Select This Alternative I did not select this alternative because: It does not address the key issue of effects on Wildlife Habitat in the Utley Butte Inventoried Roadless Area. The Upper South Fork John Day Watershed Council is very concerned over the lack of vegetation management in the Utley Butte Dove Vegetation Management Decision Notice Page 19 of 47

20 Inventoried Roadless area and subsequent risk of large wildfire. I have determined that prescribed burning (thinning by fire) in the Utley Butte Inventoried Roadless area (approximately 1,695 acres) will be cost effective, provide management that maintains or enhances big-game habitat and forage production; and will reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects within the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period. It does not address the key issue of effects on Big Game Security as well as the Selected Alternative. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife strongly suggests that no closed roads be opened. Opening roads would greatly exacerbate effects of reduced big game cover resulting from vegetation practices. I feel the Selected Alternative is a better option for everyone because it opens the road that was discussed during the August 5, 2015 fieldtrip with interested individuals and does not open the roads that provide no clear access benefit and intrude into a large area without open roads. The Selected Alternative also officially closes an additional 7 roads that are currently administratively closed on the ground. I think it is important to close these roads with public input. Alternative 3 Alternative 3 was developed from the three key issues brought up during scoping; (1) effects on wildlife habitat in the Utley Butte Inventoried Roadless Area, (2) effects of roads on big game security, and (3) effects on big game cover. It meets the purpose and need for the project and responds to ecosystem health, watershed improvement, economic objectives and collaboration. I chose parts of this alternative and blended them with parts of the Proposed Action alternative. Why I did Not Select This Alternative I did not select this alternative because: I did not think the vegetation treatments went far enough. I realize Alternative 3 had less of an impact on Big Game Cover however I think the EA adequately displayed why forest plan cover standards may not be sustainable in the project area. The Dove Project area is primarily (87%) a warm dry or hot dry forest landscape. Modeling results from Forest Vegetation Simulator suggest cover levels may not be sustainable; it is not within the inherent capability of these Hot Dry and Warm Dry sites to maintain high levels of cover. Retaining canopy closures greater than 50 percent within these dry forest types is not sustainable and will not fully meet the purpose and need of the project. Alternatives Considered but not Fully Developed Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR ). One alternative was considered, but eliminated from detailed consideration (EA Chapter 2 at 2-2). Dove Vegetation Management Decision Notice Page 20 of 47

21 Finding of No Significant Impact I have reviewed the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Significance (40 CFR ) and I have determined that my decision is not a major federal action that will significantly affect the quality of the human environment either individually or cumulatively; nor will my decision affect the quality of the human environment in either context or intensity. Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. This conclusion and finding is based on the following factors found in the documentation: Context The actions described in the Selected Alternative are limited in scope and geographic application (40 CFR (a)). The location of the actions is described in the EA Chapter 1 at 1-1, and on a map (EA Chapter 1 at 1-4, Figure 1-1). The physical and biological effects are limited. No significant effects are expected to occur within or beyond the project area; which occurs in the Lonesome Creek, Venator Creek, Headwaters South Fork John Day River, and Corral Creek subwatersheds within the Upper South Fork John Day River Watershed. The potential effects of the project occur across approximately 43,892 acres, which is about 7% of the 634,140 acre Emigrant Creek Ranger District, and about 2.5% of the 1.7 million-acre Malheur National Forest (these figures include the former Snow Mountain District of the Ochoco National Forest now managed by the Malheur National Forest and part of the Emigrant Creek Ranger District). Based on the analysis of the effects in the EA, I find the context of this project to be local in scope and scale. Given the area affected by the project at the District and Forest scale, I find that the effects of the project are not significant as disclosed in the effects sections of the EA Chapter 3 at 3-1 to 3-216, and will have a negligible effect at the District and Forest Scale. Intensity Based on the site-specific analysis summarized in the Environmental Assessment for the Dove Vegetation Management Project and on previous experience with similar proposals, I have determined that implementation of the actions described in the Selected Alternative are not a major Federal action, individually or cumulatively, and will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR ). This determination is based on the context factors stated above, project design criteria measures (EA Chapter 2 at 2-18 to 2-26), and consideration of the following intensity factors: 1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. Both beneficial and adverse impacts (40 CFR (b) (1)) 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 context and intensity. There will be no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the various resources of the area or other components of the environment. Anticipated effects are similar to those from past fuel and vegetation restoration projects which have not proven to cause significant impacts. I base this finding on the following: Dove Vegetation Management Decision Notice Page 21 of 47