Hazard Reduction. Timber Sale Project

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region D-Bug Hazard Reduction Timber Sale Project Umpqua National Forest Diamond Lake Ranger District April 2011

2 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

3 Table of Contents Decision Summary... 1 Project Background... 1 Purpose and Need for Action... 8 Proposed Action... 9 Public Involvement Issues Alternatives Considered Decision Decision Rationale Consistency with Policy, Law, and Regulation Administrative Review Opportunities Implementation Contact Person Responsible Official Attachment 1: Final Environmental Impact Statement Errata Summary Attachment 2: Biological Evaluation and Biological Assessment Errata Summary Attachment 3: Clarification Regarding Effects to Northern Spotted Owls and Habitat Attachment 4: Aquatic Conservation Strategy Consistency Summary Attachment 5: Unit Summary Table for Alternative

4 Maps Map 1 - Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation Map 2 - Fire Starts Map 3 - Selected Alternative Treatment Units North Half Map 4 - Selected Alternative Treatment Units South Half Map 5 - Alternative 5 Trails and Recreation Sites North Half Map 6 - Alternative 5 Trails and Recreation Sites South Half Map 7 - Alternative 5 NWFP Land Use Allocations North Half Map 8 - Alternative 5 NWFP Land Use Allocations South Half Map 9 - Alternative 5 LRMP Management Areas North Half Map 10 - Alternative 5 LRMP Management Areas South Half Map 11 - Selected Alternative Treatment Units in IRA North Half Map 12 - Selected Alternative Treatment Units in IRA South Half Map 13 - Selected Alternative Treatment Units in PWA North Half Map 14 - Selected Alternative Treatment Units in PWA South Half Map 15 - Alternative 5 Recovery Action 32 and Old Growth Treatment Units North Half Map 16 - Alternative 5 Recovery Action 32 and Old Growth Treatment Units South Half

5 D-Bug Hazard Reduction Timber Sale Project USDA Forest Service Diamond Lake Ranger District, Umpqua National Forest Douglas County, Oregon DECISION SUMMARY This (ROD) documents my decision and rationale for the selection of a modified version of Alternative 5, hereafter referred to as the Selected Alternative. Alternative 5 was the Preferred Alternative in the August 2010 D-Bug Hazard Reduction Timber Sale Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The environmental effects of the modifications made to Alternative 5 are within the realm of the direct, indirect and cumulative effects determinations disclosed in the FEIS. In summary, my decision includes: 314 acres of hazard tree removal and fuels reduction 2,377 acres of non-commercial fuels reduction treatments 3,629 acres of commercial thinning with an estimated volume of million board feet 3.7 miles of temporary road construction, with subsequent obliteration Incorporating the Best Management Practices (BMPs), Mitigation Measures, and Project Design Features (PDFs) identified for Alternative 5, with the changes identified in the Decision section below Implementing two Forest Plan Amendments to the Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for: 1) scenery standards; and 2) unit size limitations and firewood cutting in Management Area 2 PROJECT BACKGROUND A mountain pine beetle epidemic has recently affected several thousand acres of forest on the Diamond Lake Ranger District. The resultant fire hazard associated with trees killed by the epidemic, coupled with years of fire exclusion, has created conditions where the risk of a wildfire threatening life and property is high. The D-Bug project was developed to address this risk. The project location is within the Diamond Lake and Lemolo Lake Wildland-Urban Interface Areas. These two areas are prominent recreation destinations on the Umpqua National Forest with over 700,000 visitors a year and numerous recreational facilities including two resorts, eight developed campgrounds, 102 recreation residences, and about 20 other developed sites. Also, two major highways transect the area. Highway 230 and Highway 138 function as a primary crossroads over the Cascade mountain range for travelers from the communities of Bend and 1

6 Klamath Falls 90 miles to the east, and Medford and Roseburg to the west (Figure 1). These highways provide access for visitors of Crater Lake National Park as well, which abuts the Diamond Lake area and receives nearly half a million visitors each year. There is widespread agreement that wildfires are becoming larger with more expansive areas burned under higher severity than experienced in the recent past in western United States. Fires on the Umpqua National Forest clearly follow this trend, growing substantially larger in recent history than those experienced in the past five decades. These fires force evacuations, endanger the public and firefighters, close major highways, and cause major losses of revenue for utility companies, local businesses, as well as resource damage to recreation facilities, wildlife habitat, and timber and water resources. The fires also cost millions of dollars to suppress. Fire managers agree that a substantial fire hazard exists within the D-Bug planning area; I concur with this assessment. They have expressed concern at public meetings that some structures, including the Diamond Lake recreation residences on the west shore, would not be defensible if a large fire approached, given the adjacent vegetation and fuel conditions. Furthermore, there have been very limited fuel treatments along evacuation routes designed for protecting evacuees or ingress/egress of firefighters and no adequate fuel breaks to manage undesirable fire that threatens human safety, structures, and resource values. Lodgepole Pine, Mountain Pine Beetle, and Fire Hazard A mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) outbreak has been ongoing around Diamond Lake since 2004 (see Map 1 Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation ). Forest Service entomologists predict that the present infestation on the north and west shores of Diamond Lake will spread to other areas, perhaps quickly. Infested stands will likely suffer as much as 90 percent mortality of overstory lodgepole pines and may also lose large proportions of any ponderosa, western white, or white bark pines (Goheen and Bridgewater, 2007). Prior to the present epidemic, a mountain pine beetle outbreak occurred at the south end of Diamond Lake during the late 1970s and early 1980s (FEIS, pgs. 1-2). The ongoing mountain pine beetle outbreak has contributed to dangerous conditions in the area. Lodgepole pine stands are generally at high risk of mountain pine beetle infestation when they are in dense stand conditions with an overstory 80 years or older and generally greater than eight inches diameter at breast height (Goheen, 2008). These conditions are found throughout the planning area as demonstrated by Map 1 and in the FEIS (FEIS, pg. 92). The FEIS thoroughly documents how the mountain pine beetle, coupled with fire exclusion, has resulted in changes to fuels conditions in the planning area (FEIS, pgs. 1, 2, 80-86, 92, 93, ). The Forest assessed the dramatic difference in fuels conditions in the 1998 Diamond Lake/Lemolo Lake Watershed Analysis (App. B, USDA, Umpqua National Forest, 1998). It shows that, prior to fire exclusion, most fuel conditions consisted of light fuels in low quantities, while the vast majority of current conditions consist of heavy fuels in higher concentrations. 2

7 Figure 1. D-Bug Planning Area Vicinity Map 3

8 The mountain pine beetle/wildfire cycle in lodgepole pine forests is a natural process that has been repeated for centuries. However, decades of fire suppression following what appears to be an unnaturally high occurrence of fire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries resulted in unusually homogenous tracts of mature lodgepole forest. These conditions have left the landscape with a high fire hazard in a location where summer lightning is common and high human use and occupancy increases the risk of fire starts. Based on the information documented in the FEIS, I believe that this could lead to an extensive wildfire that could be difficult and dangerous to manage in the heavily-used recreation sites around Diamond and Lemolo lakes. I recognize that there is scientific controversy surrounding whether logging is effective at preventing or suppressing mountain pine beetle outbreaks and to reduce fire risk. The FEIS fully discloses both sides of the controversy (FEIS, pgs ). After the FEIS was published, I was asked to consider a recently published research article that examined how fuel characteristics, microclimate, and potential fire behavior changed with time since severe mountain pine beetle outbreaks in lodgepole pine forests in the Greater Yellowstone area (Simard, M., et al Ecological Monographs 8: 3-24). I directed my interdisciplinary team to review the paper. The article indicates that mountain pine beetle outbreaks did not increase the probability of active crown fires and surface fires. Additionally, the article indicates that passive crown fire probability does not change in the short term but greatly increases in the long term. I have reviewed the fire hazard and risk analysis presented in the FEIS, which indicated that the combination of fire exclusion and bark beetle activity have created high fuel loads. The current fuel loads are at such a magnitude and extent that they threaten life and property, especially in areas with developed recreation infrastructure and high recreational use. I still believe that the D- Bug project represents a concerted effort to balance these risks in the face of existing scientific uncertainty. Mixed Conifer and Fire Exclusion The mixed-conifer stands in the planning area avoided the large stand-replacement fires of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that resulted in lodgepole pine dominance elsewhere. Now, due to fire exclusion, the stands in the white fir, mountain hemlock, and Shasta red fir series are exhibiting a change from their historic composition and structure. As a result of this change in structure and composition, stand-replacement fire in mixed-conifer stands is now more probable due to the uncharacteristic buildup of live and dead vegetation in most of the mixed-conifer forest types in the planning area (FEIS, pgs ). Fire Risk Fire risk is the probability of a fire starting, as determined by the presence of ignition sources. Ignition sources include natural causes, such as lightning, and human causes such as unattended camp fires. Fire risk generally increases as human presence increases because these types of activities become more frequent. Recreational areas and areas along travel routes like trails and roads are usually at a higher risk of a fire ignition than areas that experience less frequent human activity. The D-Bug project area experiences a high level of human activity during fire season due to recreational use during the summer months. Lightening is also common in the project area. It is not uncommon to have several fires each fire season due to the lightning caused 4

9 ignitions from a single storm in and around the planning area. The fuel conditions created by the beetle epidemic and years of fire suppression coupled with a high risk of ignition from lightning and humans puts the area at high risk for a catastrophic wildfire (see Map 2 Fire Starts ). Recreational Use and Values at Risk The Diamond Lake area has about 450 campsites, numerous picnic sites, several boat ramps and docks, a visitor information center, and miles of trails for hiking, equestrian, bicycle, all-terrain vehicle and winter snow use. The Diamond Lake Improvement Company runs a resort, lodge, horse-rental corral, two grocery stores, a gas station, a pizza parlor, and several permanent residences associated with the resort under a special use permit. Also under permit are 102 privately owned recreation residences, an RV park, and a state-owned cabin for water-level and fishery management (FEIS, pgs ). The Lemolo Lake area contains another 95 campsites, and many more miles of trails. The Lemolo Lake Resort runs a year-round lodge and restaurant, a seasonal boat dock, an RV park, and permanent residences associated with the resort under a special use permit. In total, these two areas receive more than 700,000 visitors each year. Additionally, the Diamond Lake area abuts Crater Lake National Park. Two of the primary access routes to the park (Highways 138 and 230) run through the project area. These highways would serve as primary evacuation routes in the event of a wildfire. On any given mid-summer weekend, thousands of visitors and employees are likely to be in the area at any one time. A large fire in this area could have catastrophic consequences, both in terms of damage to infrastructures and to people who are in the area at the time of the fire. See Maps 5 and 6 that display the campgrounds, trails, resorts, picnic areas, and summer homes areas in the project area. My decision to proceed with this project takes into account the fuel buildup, the fire risk, and the extensive use of the area and the values that are at risk, should a stand-replacement fire move through the area. 5

10 Figure 2. The Diamond Lake recreation area is one of the most visited areas on the Umpqua National Forest with over 700,000 visitors every year. 6

11 Figure 3. Conditions in the planning area show dead and dying trees and high fuel loads. 7

12 P URPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION Based on the existing and desired conditions, I established a four-fold need for this project. The overall purpose of this project is to lessen the fuel and safety hazards associated with the ongoing outbreak of mountain pine beetles and the ongoing impacts from fire exclusion by the timely implementation of commercial harvest and non-commercial treatments in strategic locations. The difference between the existing condition and the desired condition defines the need for action. The four elements of the D-Bug purpose and need, as described in the FEIS on pages 17 to 19, are: Element 1: The need for modifying mountain pine beetle habitat conditions in stands containing lodgepole to reduce potential infestation. Existing dense timber stands containing mature lodgepole pines have an abundance of host trees that allow the spread of mountain pine beetles, resulting in overstory tree mortality and fuel accumulations over landscape areas. In pure stands of lodgepole pine, the removal of overstory host trees, or the heavy thinning of such host trees (20-50 feet of spacing between host leave trees), would remove the trees needed by beetles for population expansion. This also would increase the vigor of the residual trees, increasing the likelihood they would survive an infestation. This desired type of habitat modification also would alter the microclimate by removing the shady conditions preferred by beetles and interrupt their tree-to-tree spread. A literature review that examined the effectiveness of such beetle prevention treatments concluded that the various treatments studied are effective tools for suppressing mountain pine beetle infestations (Fettig, et al., 2007). In mixed-conifer stands containing mature lodgepole in the overstory, harvest of the lodgepole overstory and retention of the other non-host conifers can prevent stand infestation. The remaining mixed conifer understory can be cultured once the host lodgepoles are removed. Although no treatment can guarantee complete protection of mature residual pine species, the expansion of beetles into pure blocks of mature, contiguous lodgepole pine may be interrupted by harvest treatments that result in breaking up the existing homogenous landscape pattern (Fettig, et al., 2007; Goheen and Bridgewater, 2007). Element 2: The need to reduce existing and predicted fuel loads in areas identified as high fire hazard within the Diamond and Lemolo Lake WUIs and their evacuation routes identified in the 2006 Douglas County Wildfire Protection Plans. The 2006 Douglas County Wildfire Protection Plans for Lemolo and Diamond Lake WUIs identified the need for fuel reduction treatments around homes and recreation areas in these atrisk communities, such as mechanical clearing and thinning, including harvesting, thinning, mowing, chipping, cutting, piling, and prescribed burning where appropriate. Such treatments would reduce wildland fire hazard and improve the ability to suppress fires and protect both public lands and developments and homes on leased public land. Beetle-caused mortality within these WUI areas has created and will continue to create additional fuel loadings. Proactive commercial and non-commercial thinning in stands within the WUI that are susceptible to 8

13 mountain pine beetle attack would result in the desired condition of removing fuels that would otherwise accumulate following an attack and reduce fuel loads to desired levels. Treatments within the WUIs also would treat existing fuel loads, independent of mountain pine beetle activity. Element 3: The need for removing existing dead and imminently dying pine and other hazard trees where human use is high in order to protect the recreating public. Mountain pine beetle hot spots exist on the east and north sides of Diamond Lake. Since 2004, these areas are experiencing increased annual mortality. In some stands within campgrounds and other concentrated use areas such as trails, snow parks, developed facilities and homes, most of the lodgepole host trees are now snags that are hazard trees. Portions of the Diamond Lake campground were not safe enough to open in 2007 because hazard tree felling could not keep up with the rapid and progressive mortality. Removing imminently dying trees and salvaging dead trees would result in the desired condition of reduced human exposure to hazard trees. Element 4: The need for increasing stand vigor in densely stocked mixed conifer stands containing older, large ponderosa pine, western white pine, Shasta red fir, and Pacific silver fir in order to improve stand resiliency. Competition from excessive vegetation has reduced existing stand vigor in older mixed conifer stands containing ponderosa pine, western white pine, and Shasta red fir. This condition has developed in the absence of natural surface fires over many years. In the stands containing ponderosa and western white pine, the dense stocking has increased the pine s susceptibility to mortality from mountain pine beetle and other pathogens and has increased the risk of stand replacement fire. Reducing stand density by thinning would result in the desired condition of improved resiliency of older mixed conifer timber stands to the effects of fire and potential insects and disease outbreaks. P ROPOSED ACTION Alternative 2 is the proposed action used in the scoping process. The Forest developed the proposed action to meet the purpose and need. It includes the following: Variable-density commercial thinning of 3,165 acres in lodgepole pine stands (leaving TPA); thinning 1,145 acres of lodgepole and mixed-conifer (leaving TPA); and thinning of 2,247 acres in mixed-conifer stands (leaving TPA). These commercial thinnings include 620 acres within Mt. Bailey and Thirsty Creek Appendage IRAs, and 318 acres within the Oregon Cascades Recreation Area. Overstory removal in two lodgepole pine stands on 59 acres, leaving 20 overstory TPA. These overstory removals would not generate any openings greater than 40 acres. Salvage of 375 acres of dead and dying lodgepole. The commercial harvest would use ground-based and skyline logging systems in both the matrix and riparian reserve land allocations to generate an estimated 44.8 million board feet of timber. 9

14 Non-commercial removal of fuels on about 2,026 acres by pre-commercial thinning, mastication, whip felling, chipping, and piling and burning of slash. This includes treatment on about 344 acres of stands along the edges of the Mt. Bailey and Thirsty Creek Appendage IRAs and 15 acres in the OCRA. Re-using about 25.6 miles of existing spur roads to access thinning areas, then obliterating about 11.1 miles after use. Building a total of about 15.5 miles of new temporary spur roads to provide access for logging machinery and for accessing stands for non-commercial treatments, then obliterating them after use. Reconstructing portions of 11 sections of existing system roads (totaling 4.7 miles of road), including road re-alignment, intersection improvement, widening, continuous placement or replacement of surface rock and rock armoring, reshaping road beds, replacing culverts, adding culverts, and hazard tree felling. Maintaining about 67 miles of existing system roads (approximately nine miles are currently closed), including grading and shaping existing road surfaces, dust abatement, blading road beds and ditches, hazard tree felling, cleaning/maintaining ditches and culverts as needed, isolated placement or replacement of surface rock and rock armoring, opening and re-closing existing closed roads, removing debris from the roadway, and cutting intruding vegetation along roadsides. Utilizing the existing Lemolo Dam rock pit and the Boundary rock pit as rock sources for the road work. Amending the following sections of the LRMP: scenery standards; timber harvest in Management Area 1; and opening size limitations and firewood cutting in Management Area 2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Initial contacts with public for the D-Bug project began in August of Numerous contacts were made with interested individuals, homeowners, special use permittees, conservation groups, industry representatives, and other agencies over a six-month period of time, with the goal of collaborating on the development of the proposed action. This collaboration also included newspaper articles, an advertised public meeting at the Douglas County library on September 27, 2007, and a follow-up field trip on October 3, 2007 to the project area. The feedback received was used in developing the proposed action. The proposed action was listed in the Umpqua National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions since October 2007 and updated periodically during the environmental analysis. On January 10, 2008, a scoping notice was sent to over 350 interested stakeholders describing the proposed action and requesting comments by February 5, A notice of intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2008 (73 FR 3689). During the scoping period, letters, face-to-face discussions, s, and phone calls regarding the project were received from 37 individuals or groups. 10

15 A draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) was published for review and comment on March 13, 2009 (71 FR 10911). I extended the comment period at the request of the public until June 8, 2009, for a total of 87 days for public comment. I received 428 comments within the comment period. An additional 634 comments, primarily in the form of s, were received after the close of the extended comment period. In response to the comments received on the DEIS, the Forest prepared a working alternative that was shared via public collaboration meetings on March 18-19, 2010, in Roseburg. After those meetings, the working alternative was refined to become what is now Alternative 5. A final environmental impact statement (FEIS) was published for objection on October 8, 2010 (75 FS 62386). Multiple letters, notices of meetings, news releases, and phone calls kept the public informed of the status of the project. Additionally, the project was covered by the local newspaper, The News Review, and in the national press. The FEIS lists agencies, organizations, and people who received copies on pages Tribal governments (Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua Indians, Confederated Tribe of the Grand Ronde Indians, and the Confederated Tribe of the Siletz Indians) were sent a letter describing the project, with a request that the Forest be contacted for further information. To date, no responses have been received. The Tribes were also consulted under the National Historic Preservation Act. ISSUES The following issues were identified from scoping comments and were used to determine the scope of the analysis and develop alternatives to the proposed action. A full description of issues significant to the proposed action appears in the FEIS on pages Issue 1--Amendments to the Forest Plan Several conservation groups felt that the proposed Forest Plan amendments that would amend scenery standards and include the harvest of lodgepole pine, which is normally excluded from the timber harvest base, would be harmful to the ecosystem and scenic quality of the area. Issue 2--Treatments in Inventoried Roadless Areas, Oregon Cascades Recreation Area, and Potential Wilderness Areas Conservation groups stated that scheduled timber harvest activities on a programmed basis are not permitted in the OCRA; creating fuelbreaks (which require periodic maintenance) along the Thirsty Creek Road and Kelsay Point Road within the Thirsty Creek Appendage IRAs violated the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which states that any cutting of timber in IRA must be infrequent; and harvest activities in potential wilderness areas could severely degrade the rare features and the potential wilderness characteristics of these important areas. Issue 3--New Road Building Several conservation groups were concerned that the proposed 15.5 miles of temporary road building and subsequent obliteration would cause ecological damage. 11

16 Issue 4--Trails Some conservation groups were concerned that impacts from logging and other fuel reduction treatments next to existing trails would negatively affect trails and the recreation experience. Issue 5--Fuelbreaks Multiple commenters expressed concerns about the location, width, and thinning techniques proposed on some of the fuelbreaks, questioning their effectiveness and the possible impacts of such fuelbreaks. In particular, the fuelbreaks along Thirsty Creek and Kelsay Point roads were thought to be redundant because the proposed action also included a fuelbreak on the Windigo Pass Road, located directly to the northwest. Moreover, these fuelbreaks entered the Thirsty Creek IRA and were outside the WUIs. Issue 6--Extent and Intensity of Treatments in Lodgepole Pine and Project Economics Several conservation groups were concerned that the proposed action included too much harvest, resulting in impacts in the lodgepole pine ecosystem. Several other commenters stated that the proposed action was not doing enough removal to achieve project needs in terms of treatment intensity, treatment extent, and economic returns. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED I considered three alternatives in the Final EIS, which are discussed below. A detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the Final EIS on pages 36 to 68. Alternative 1 No Action Under Alternative 1, no thinning, fuel treatment, biomass utilization, temporary road construction, road reconstruction and maintenance, or other similar or connected activities such as pre-commercial thinning, subsoiling, weed control, or road decommissioning would occur. No ground-disturbing activities would take place and no timber would be offered for sale. On-going activities, including road maintenance, recreation use, and noxious weed control would continue to occur. Future activities would also occur. Alternative 2 Proposed Action This alternative is the proposed action used in the scoping process. The Forest developed the proposed action to meet the purpose and need. See the Proposed Action section on page 10 for a description of the activities associated with Alternative 2. Alternatives 3 and 4 - as described in the DEIS Alternatives 3 and 4 were eliminated after publication of the DEIS. Alternative 3 was developed to address Issues 2 through 6 and was similar to the concepts found in Alternative 5. It was eliminated in the FEIS because of its similarities to Alternative 5 and because Alternative 5 makes greater progress towards reaching common ground with the public and better responds to issues 2 through 6 as described in the FEIS on pages 22 to 25. Alternative 4 was developed to respond specifically to Issue 6. It was identified as the preferred alternative in the DEIS, but it received a great deal of opposition. Many comments received 12

17 stated the alternative went too far into undeveloped areas and would cause considerable ecological impacts. Additional collaborative public meetings held after the DEIS comment period indicated more support for a new alternative. In addition, the HFRA only requires that I consider one additional action alternative besides the proposed action. Because of these reasons, Alternative 4 was eliminated. Alternative 5 Preferred Alternative in the FEIS The Forest developed Alternative 5 to respond to comments received from the public on the DEIS, and further refined the alternative following an additional collaboration period with the public. This alternative is similar to Alternative 3 from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, but focused treatments on critical fuel breaks and evacuation routes. It includes the following: Variable-density commercial thinning of 2,016 acres in lodgepole pine stands, leaving TPA interspersed with 10 percent of the area with no treatment; commercial thinning of 1,332 acres of lodgepole-mixed conifer (leaving TPA); and commercial thinning of 1,500 acres in mixed-conifer stands (leaving TPA). These commercial thinnings include 78 acres within Mt. Bailey IRA. Salvage of 285 acres of dead and dying lodgepole. The thinnings would use ground-based and skyline logging systems in both the matrix and riparian reserve land allocations to generate between 29.8 to 32.5 million board feet of timber. Non-commercial removal of fuels on about 2,069 acres by pre-commercial thinning, mastication, whip felling, chipping, and piling and burning of slash. This includes treatment on about 297 acres of stands along the edge of the Mt. Bailey IRA, and 32 acres along the edge of the Thirsty Creek Appendage IRA. Biomass utilization could occur on as many as 2,022, depending on the market at the time operations occur. Nine one-to-five-acre landings would be created to process the biomass, if needed. Treating activity-created fuels (slash) on all acres commercially thinned by underburning, crushing, machine piling, masticating, or yarding tops attached. Re-using about 16 miles of existing spur roads to access thinning areas, then obliterating about 7.4 miles after use. Building about 8.1 miles of new temporary spur roads to provide access for logging machinery and for accessing stands for commercial treatments, then obliterating them after use. Reconstructing portions of 11 sections of existing system roads (totaling 4.7 miles of road), including road re-alignment, intersection improvement, widening, continuous placement or replacement of surface rock and rock armoring, reshaping road beds, replacing culverts, adding culverts, and hazard tree felling. 13

18 Maintaining about 62 miles of existing system roads (approximately nine miles are currently closed), including the grading and shaping of existing road surfaces, dust abatement, blading road beds and ditches, hazard tree felling, cleaning/maintaining ditches and culverts as needed, isolated placement or replacement of surface rock and rock armoring, opening and re-closing existing closed roads, removing debris from the roadway, and the cutting of intruding vegetation along roadsides. Utilizing the existing Lemolo Dam rock pit and the Boundary pit as the rock sources for the road work. Amending the 1990 Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) in the following areas: 1. The LRMP assigned Visual Quality Objectives of Retention and Partial Retention along Highways 138 and 230, and areas surrounding Diamond Lake and Lemolo Lakes. The LRMP would be amended for this project to modify these objectives in the short term in order to meet the purpose and need. 2. The LRMP does not permit timber harvest in Management Area 1, except in the event of catastrophic damage and as approved in a vegetation management plan. The Forest Plan would be amended for this project to include commercial timber harvest in MA-1 in order to lower the effects of the ongoing mountain pine beetle outbreak and reduce fuels in the vicinity of the wildland-urban interface area, as recommended in the 2008 Vegetation Management Plan (USDA, Umpqua National Forest, 2008). 3. The LRMP places a size limitation on timber harvest openings (units) that can be created within Management Area 2 around Diamond and Lemolo Lakes. In addition, prescription A4-I for this Management Area does not allow for commercial or personal-use firewood cutting. In order to accomplish effective treatments of adequate size, the LRMP would be amended for this project to allow for timber harvest units greater than one-half acre in size. Also, in order to allow for the removal of dead and dying lodgepole pine, the LRMP would be amended to allow for commercial and personal-use firewood cutting. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study I considered two other alternatives but eliminated them from detailed study. These alternatives are documented in the Final EIS on pages 33 to 34. Environmentally Preferable Alternative Under the National Environmental Policy Act, the agency is required to identify the environmentally preferable alternative (40 CFR (b)). This is interpreted to mean the alternative that would cause the least damage to the biological and physical components of the environment, and which best protects, preserves, and enhances, historic, cultural, and natural resources (Council on Environmental Quality, Forty Most Asked Question Concerning CEQ s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 CFR 18026). Factors considered in identifying this alternative include: (1) fulfilling the responsibility of this generation as trustee of the environment for future generations, (2) providing for a productive and aesthetically pleasing environment, (3) attaining the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without 14

19 degradation, (4) preserving important natural components of the environment, including biodiversity, (5) balancing population needs and resource use, and (6) enhancing the quality of renewable resources. An agency may discuss preferences among alternatives based on relevant factors, including economic and technical considerations and statutory missions {40 CFR (b)}. I have determined that the environmentally preferable alternative is the Selected Alternative, as described in the Decision section on pages 16 to 21, for the following reasons: The prescriptions associated with this project were expressly designed to decrease the potential damage from wildfire to the forested areas within the treatment units and the recreational facilities and residences by improving fire resiliency and reducing the fire hazard risk, thereby fulfilling the responsibility of this generation as trustees of the environment for future generations and providing for a productive and aesthetically pleasing environment. Specific types of prescriptions and utilization methods were consciously located in strategic areas and designed in concert with the Best Management Practices, Project Design Features, and Mitigation Measures intentionally for the purpose of ensuring that the project attains the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation. The planning process for this project has included consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies and completion of surveys for species and habitat to ensure compliance with federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act and retain the diversity of forest conditions across the landscape, thereby preserving important natural components of the environment, including biodiversity. The Purpose and Need of this project includes enhancing public and firefighter safety as well as improving the fire resiliency of the forested stands in the treatment units. These factors were purposefully combined to strike a balance between population needs and resource use while enhancing the quality of renewable resources. The Selected Alternative will achieve the Purpose and Need of the project by reducing fuel loads that will result in enhancing public safety and increasing fire resiliency while posing the least amount of impact to undeveloped areas. Therefore, I consider it the Environmentally Preferable Alternative of the D-Bug project. DECIS ION Based on my review of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), I have decided to implement the Selected Alternative, which is Alternative 5 as described on pages 44 to 53 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement with the changes described below. Maps 3 and 5 Selected Alternative Treatment Units reflects these changes. 15

20 1) Decisions on units 15, 82, 83, 86, 89, 90, 98, 107, 115, 118, 160, 161, 162 and 176 will be deferred until fungi surveys have been completed in the fall of These units include approximately 1,289 acres of mixed conifer stands that were to be treated commercially. I feel it s critical to make a decision on the remainder of the project now because of the fire risk in the project area. When surveys are completed on these units, I will issue a second that describes whether or not these units will be harvested in their entirety, or in part, based on any buffers needed to protect fungi. The analyses in the FEIS assumes that these units are treated. 2) I have decided to implement all design and mitigation measures specified in the FEIS on pages 55 to 68 with the following changes: Including this project design feature for big game travel lanes: For precommercial thinning units (Prescription 6), when big game travel lanes are identified during operations, slash will not be piled on top of these travel lanes, allowing unimpeded passage for big game. This design feature is necessary to comply with the LRMP (pg. IV-37) standard and guidelines that requires that Established big game travel lanes will not have their character altered through precommercial thinning. The character of a travel lane itself provides physical access for big game from one location to another. This project design feature preserves this character by ensuring that slash from precommercial thinning does not disrupt or block this access with physical obstructions. Changing the following project design features to better provide for a positive recreation experience and provide operator flexibility. a. For all trails affected by the project, operations will be limited to Monday through Friday with no operations on weekends or holidays. b. Eliminate the existing PDF that states: For operations near the Dellenback Trail, limit hours of operations to 8 a.m. to 6 pm, Monday through Friday. There will be no limit on operating hours to provide flexibility to the operator, especially during fire season. c. All trails will be closed and posted when operating near (within 200 feet) of the trail. d. Stumps of harvested trees will be cut to a maximum height of 6 inch to 8 inch within 50 feet of all trails and next to Broken Arrow and Thielsen Campgrounds (units 201, 202, and 203). Hazard trees in the above areas may need to be cut to a taller height for safety reasons. As funding is available, these stumps would be cut flat with the bark side of the stump to the trail or campground. The stumps would be cut as low to the ground as safety allows, ideally flush cut but not to exceed 6 to 8 inches in height. 3) I am eliminating the temporary road riparian crossing across Silent Creek in units 62 and 63. The unit can be adequately accessed using temporary roads from the north and south without crossing Silent Creek riparian area. 16

21 4) I am eliminating the Forest Plan Amendment that reads:: The LRMP does not permit timber harvest in Management Area 1, except in the event of catastrophic damage and as approved in a vegetation management plan. The Forest Plan would be amended for this project to include commercial timber harvest in MA-1 in order to lower the effects of the ongoing mountain pine beetle outbreak and reduce fuels in the vicinity of the wildland-urban interface area, as recommended in the 2008 Vegetation Management Plan (USDA, Umpqua National Forest, 2008) (FEIS, pg. 46). The Selected Alternative does not propose timber harvest in Management Area 1; therefore, this amendment will not be included in this Decision. 5) I am changing boundaries and/or prescriptions in the units in Table 1. Concern over these units and others were raised during the objection process. Upon further examination of these units, I feel the changes identified below could be made while still achieving the primary objective of the D-Bug project, to provide safe conditions for firefighters and adequate evacuation routes. I have also considered other changes that were proposed during the objection process; however, based on the professional judgment of my staff that these were critical places to be treating, I could not adopt those changes while still meeting the purpose and need of the project. For unit 164, I am changing part of the unit to personal firewood cutting with monitoring to evaluate if additional thinning or other fuels treatment will be necessary. In the event that future treatment is necessary, I determine that this treatment may go forward without subsequent environmental analysis because the original prescription was for variable density thinning for the entire unit, and the effects documented in the FEIS is adequate. As with the entire project, stakeholders will be given the opportunity to participate in the monitoring of this stand. Table 1. Unit Specific Changes to Alternative 5 Unit Change Rationale for Change Number of Acres Affected 65 Reduce the commercial thinning portion to within 100 feet of forest road 760; no treatment would occur on the remainder of the unit. 69 Reduce the width of the hazard tree removal treatment to 150 ft. on both sides of the road, with the remainder of the unit to be changed to noncommercial fuels reduction treatment. 72 Reduce the width of hazard tree removal treatment to 150 ft. on both sides of the road, with the remainder of the unit to be changed to noncommercial fuels reduction treatment. An adequate fuel break exists by reducing the width and maintaining unit 64. The width of the hazard tree treatment was wider than needed to prevent trees from being a hazard to road users. The width of the hazard tree treatment was wider than needed to prevent trees from being a hazard to road users. 65 acre decrease in lodgepole variable density thinning 57 acre decrease in hazard tree removal 129 acre increase in noncommercial fuels reduction 47 acre decrease in hazard tree removal 89 acre increase in noncommercial fuels reduction 17

22 Unit Change Rationale for Change Number of Acres Affected 164 Lodgepole variable density thinning treatment will occur: between Birds Point Road and Battery Spring/Creek; along a 150 foot strip north of road 2614; and in the northwest portion of the unit. The remainder of the unit will be changed to allow for a personal firewood cutting area and will be monitored to evaluate if additional thinning or fuels treatment are necessary to meet objectives. See explanation above. 164a The area changed in unit 164 to allow for a firewood cutting area. 164b Changed from commercial thinning to non-commercial fuels reduction. 197 Portion of unit 164 north of Trail #1476 changed from lodgepole variable density thinning to non-commercial fuels reduction and added to Unit Reduce commercial thinning to one site- potential tree height (180 feet). The remainder of the unit will change to non-commercial fuels reduction treatment around individual and groups of fire tolerant ponderosa pine species followed by prescribed burning of fuel The commercial treatment would create an adequate fuelbreak and the firewood cutting will contribute to the fuelbreak while providing firewood source for the public. See above rationale for unit 164. See above rationale for unit 164. See above for rationale for unit 164. This treatment will focus fuels reduction treatments along road 050 and allow for some enhanced resiliency to scattered larger pine species present throughout the stand. concentrations. 239 Do not treat. This treatment was primarily in response to pine beetle activity but the unit s location away from key infrastructure and evacuation routes makes it a low priority for treatment to achieve fire risk reduction objectives. 240 Do not treat. This treatment was primarily in response to pine beetle activity but the unit s location away from key infrastructure and evacuation routes makes it a low priority for treatment to achieve fire risk reduction objectives. 244 Do not treat. This treatment was primarily in response to pine beetle activity but the unit s location away from key infrastructure and evacuation routes makes it a low priority for treatment to achieve fire risk reduction objectives. 115 acre decrease in lodgepole variable density thinning 80 acres changed to firewood cutting area 22 acres 14 acres 4 acre decrease of mixed conifer thinning 38 acre increase of noncommercial fuels reduction 10 acre decrease in lodgepole variable density thinning 20 acre decrease in lodgepole variable density thinning 20 acre decrease in lodgepole variable density thinning 18

23 These additions, reductions, and changes result in 3,629 acres being treated commercially; 2,377 acres of non-commercial fuels reduction; and 80 acres made available for firewood cutting. Due to dropping and deferring units, there will be fewer temporary roads needed to implement the Selected Alternative. There will be approximately 3.7 miles of temporary road constructed with this alternative. I also want to clarify commercial fuel treatments within riparian reserves. The upper end of the range of trees per acre will be retained in riparian reserves. Additionally, there would be no gaps created in riparian reserves or the uplands. However, it is important to note that, in some places, natural conditions exist where there are fewer trees per acres and gaps in the riparian reserves. I would also like to clarify how the 15% green tree retention standard from the NWFP is applied in the lodgepole variable density prescription. The lodgepole variable density thinning prescription (Prescription #2) represents an intermediate thinning treatment in which 10% of unit acres will not be treated and 90% of unit acres will be thinned. Specifically, this prescription retains TPA 5 dbh and greater (dispersed green tree retention) interspersed with 10% of the unit acres receiving no treatment (aggregated green tree retention). This combination of aggregated green tree retention ( no thin prescription) and dispersed green tree retention thus meets green tree retention guidelines for Matrix land allocations specified in the ROD for the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA/USDI, 1994, Attachment A, pgs. C-41-42). I have reviewed these changes with the interdisciplinary team and they will result in fewer impacts to natural resources than what was analyzed for Alternative 5 in the FEIS because units were eliminated and reduced in size, prescription changes were to ones that resulted in less impacts (from commercial treatment to non-commercial and firewood). Therefore, I find that the FEIS adequately covered these changes. I also reviewed the changes with the Forest fuels specialist and assessed the trade-offs of making these changes with achieving the Purpose and Need. I am confident that the critical objectives of the project can be met with these changes, because the selected alternative still reduces fuels and removes hazard trees around recreational infrastructure and evacuation routes and reduces fuels and modifies projected fire behavior in the Wildland Urban Interfaces. DECISION RATIONALE From the amount and popularity of recreation use in the project area along with the numerous public comments we have received on the D-Bug Project, I recognize that the areas around Diamond and Lemolo Lakes are important to many people. There is a tremendous passion for the landscape and rightfully so with its proximity to Crater Lake National Park, Mt. Thielsen Wilderness Area, Oregon Cascades Recreation Area, and Mt. Bailey along with the developed recreation facilities around Lemolo and Diamond Lakes. It s the very nature of this passion that there is high recreation use in the area which makes it essential to treat the fuels that result from the mountain pine beetle outbreak and years of fire exclusion. I find my decision provides an appropriate balance between recognizing and respecting this passion for this special place and meeting the purpose and need of the project; particularly, the critical need of providing safer 19