ATTACHMENT C. Implementation Strategy

Transcription

1 UPPER APPLEGATE ROAD HAZARDOUS FUEL REDUCTION PROJECT DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ATTACHMENT C Implementation Strategy I. Introduction This Project Implementation Strategy has been developed to provide instructions and/or guidance to carry out the implementation of the selected activities. This Project Implementation Strategy is to be used and referred to by Forest Service vegetation and fire management personnel, resource specialists and other project implementation personnel in the advancement of various hazardous fuel reduction projects as well as other activities identified and authorized in the Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) for the. This Strategy is not a subsequent decision document that decides which stands or areas are to be selected for treatment, is not a schedule of treatments, nor is it a schedule of bundled contracts that will ultimately be offered for implementation. These tasks are solely associated with implementation and would likely be documented in a Forest Service internal schedule of treatments, or an actual Implementation Plan. As part of the Decision, for each action or combination of actions, an Implementation Plan will be prepared detailing the data needs (or criteria identification) associated with the action, the details of enacting the action, and will list site specific Mitigation Measures (those from DN Attachment B and others as deemed appropriate). This plan will be approved by the Forest Service prior to implementation of any project or action. A. Confidence of Planning Level Data The development and design of the Proposed Action (vegetation analysis) is based on satellite imagery, with ground sampling and professional experience. The use of satellite imagery allows large areas to be assessed on a consistent basis and is considered the best available data that maps and provides consistent vegetation characteristics throughout the Project Area. Satellite imagery utilized for was developed by Geographic Resource Solutions in 1994 in conjunction with the Applegate Adaptive Management Area, designated under the Northwest Forest Plan. The area covered by this imagery includes the entire area within the Project Area. This imagery is considered the best available data for development of the Proposed Action. An accuracy assessment for this imagery was performed for the Applegate Watershed. Results indicated the imagery to be 86+% accurate (Hill 1996). It is important to note some limitations in terms of the satellite imagery used for this analysis. The imagery was classified over a large area and as such, individual pixels of data may not exactly match on the ground. Though, when viewed at the landscape or Project Area scale, the imagery presents a consistent snapshot which is useful for design of actions and planning. DN Attachment C Page C - 1 Implementation Strategy

2 Fuel Model Accuracy Fuel models characterize major physical properties of vegetation and how they react to fire, including expected flame length and rate of spread. These fuel models are described in: Aids to Determining Fuel Models For Estimating Fire Behavior, Hal Anderson, National Wildfire Coordinating Group, Various vegetation characteristics (using vegetation mapping derived from LandsatTM satellite imagery) were correlated to the standard fuel models described by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group. The accuracy of this mapping, based on field review and validation, suggests that the Fuel Model map accuracy is 90+%. Other Inventories Data associated with certain other resource areas has been inventoried and ground validated in conjunction with the need or ability to accomplish inventory. Many resource planning inventories are primarily related to consequences analysis, and as such, are further discussed in EA Chapter III. Detailed resource inventories have been conducted within the Upper Applegate area for many years. Examples of resource data inventories that are related to design and development of alternative proposals that has been field validated to a high level of accuracy include rare and Sensitive plants and plant communities including non-native species (approximately 95% accuracy). Terrestrial wildlife including federally-listed species and rare and uncommon species have been extensively surveyed (approximately 85% accuracy). Aquatic inventories are 90+% accurate. Soils and hydrology mapping for planning inventory purposes is approximately 80+% accurate. Heritage surveys are 95%. B. Assumptions Regarding Implementation A key assumption associated with the decision for the Upper Applegate Road Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project is the basis of implementation. The decision utilizes a concept that treatments would be located and conducted as specified in Treatment Elements, specific Project Design Criteria, and as specified in Mitigation Measures. The on-the-ground conditions that trigger these criteria are to be identified and validated at the time of, or concurrent with implementation (and prior to operation). This project (and its analysis under NEPA) was authorized as a project under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) of It is important to note that it has not been designed to exclusively pay for itself by sale of commercial products and did not analyze or make decisions on financing or packaging of implementation contracts. C. Methodology for Application of Treatments In concert with the AMA management direction, the decision will utilize an adaptive management concept where treatments would be located and operations conducted as specified in design elements and/or specific mitigation measures. The exact locations of stands and/or areas that meet treatment criteria will be determined over the next several years (8-10 or more). While not making a decision on implementation, this section identifies potential adaptive management options for implementation and monitoring. There are a number of options to accomplish implementation of proposed fuel reduction treatments. Implementation of the different aspects of the project proposals could be accomplished through various acquisition methods, or combination of methods, such as stewardship contracts, timber sale contracts, formal agreements, volunteers, community-service crews and Forest Service work crews. The type of contract, agreement, or work crews selected for use would be part of an overall project implementation strategy and plan, based on methods that best meet each project goal or objective, combined with Federal acquisition regulations and financing available for implementation. DN Attachment C Page C - 2 Implementation Strategy

3 At this time, one possible scenario for implementation of this multi-year proposal for hazardous fuel reduction treatments is the use of Stewardship authorities for contracting. This is summarized in the following sub-section. Stewardship Contracting Stewardship Contract is a term applied to a service contract that bundles or combines numerous actions into contracts to capitalize on economies of scale, more efficient scheduling of work, and to minimize impacts on the land through staging of the work. The general purpose of stewardship end results contracting is to achieve land management goals for the National Forest System Lands while meeting local and rural community needs. Stewardship contracting is a tool and should be used when it is the most effective tool for accomplishing the land management objectives described by the land and resource management plan (FSM 1920 and FSH ). Stewardship contracting provides for multi-year contracts aimed to provide incentives to potential contractors to invest in long-term landscape improvement projects. In accordance with 16 U.S.C note (d)(3), the value of services received, payments made, or resources provided under a stewardship contract shall not be considered to be monies received from the National Forest System for the purpose of calculating payments to States (FSH g, sec. 61.1). Therefore, stewardship contracts do not require a minimum deposit to National Forest Fund (NFF) as prescribed in FSM and FSH 2409, Section When the value of the products generated by a stewardship contracting project exceeds the cost of the services rendered, excess offset value results and residual receipts (sec. 60.5) are generated. Residual receipts may be transferred to another stewardship contracting project (when approved in advance by the Regional Forester) or directed to trust funds. Residual receipts should be used on the same stewardship project or other approved stewardship projects. Title 16 U.S.C note (c)(4) (sec. 60.1, para. 4) allows for the use of designation of trees by description and designation of trees by prescription without marking. These methods must be used in a manner that ensures that the amount of material removed is verifiable and accountable. 1. Designation by Description. Designation by description may be used for both commercial and non-commercial material, independent of the means of estimating the quantity of material to be removed. Designation by description should be used only when it is the most efficient method of designation. The description must be based on characteristics that can be verified after the material is removed; an example would be a certain species of tree with a given stump diameter. 2. Designation by Prescription. Designation by prescription may be used for non-commercial material, independent of the means of estimating the amount of material to be removed, and for commercial material when the amount of material to be removed is determined by scaling in accordance with FSH Forest Service Designation, Authority and Responsibility Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 16 U.S.C. Section 472a (g), states Designation, marking when necessary, and supervision of harvesting of trees, portions of trees, or forest products shall be conducted by persons employed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Such persons shall have no personal interest in the purchase or harvest of such products and shall not be directly or indirectly in the employment of the purchaser thereof. In a ruling by Judge Michael Hogan on August 3, 2004, (Biscuit Salvage) Siskiyou Regional Education Project, et al. v. Linda Goodman, et al., it was found that designation by description of trees reserved from cutting adjacent to active stream channels on six salvage sales on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest was adequate but that designation by description of trees reserved from cutting for standing dead trees was not adequate. DN Attachment C Page C - 3 Implementation Strategy

4 NFMA does not prohibit designation by description but, as Hogan s ruling points out, designation by description must be clear enough that there is no question about which trees are intended to be removed or reserved from removal. There also may not be any influence in the trees designated by anyone other than an employee of the Department of Agriculture with no personal interest in the purchase or removal of designated forest products. Applegate Demonstration Project As noted in EA Chapter I, the Forest Service has enacted community and governmental agency outreach efforts to develop hazardous fuels reduction priorities for National Forest System lands administered by the Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District. In July of 2002, the Applegate River Watershed Council initiated the Applegate Demonstration Project for the Applegate Adaptive Management Area. The purpose of the Demonstration Project is to demonstrate innovative ways to restore ecological viability of forests, reducing uncharacteristic fire damage and risk to both the greater ecosystems and affected communities by restoring fire and fuel relationships, and subsequently restoring ecological integrity. Map C-1. Applegate Demonstration Project Plots China Gulch 36 National Forest Boundary Maintenance Level 3-4 Maintenance Level 2 31 Maintenance Level 1 Non-Forest Service Jurisdiction Streams Flumet Gulch Miles Project Area Demonstration Plots 32 E 33 Sourdough Gulch Beaver Creek Charlie Buck Gulch Palmer Creek Billys Gulch Applegate River Rock Gulch 13 Kinney Creek DN Attachment C Page C - 4 Implementation Strategy

5 This project proposes a broad-based partnership effort to demonstrate the extent to which these innovative methods meet fuel reduction and forest health goals, as well as defining and maintaining a sustainable production of forest products (Applegate River Watershed Council 2002; pers. comm.). Preimplementation plots have been established throughout the AMA (Map C-1 shows the location of these plots in proximity to the Project Area). Within NFSL, there are 8 blocks where 4 similar 5-acre stands have been selected to compare variable treatments for reducing wildfire fuels in/near the Wildland-Urban Interface along Upper Applegate Road. In each block, one 5-acre stand is left untreated as a control; one would be treated using typical Forest Service prescriptions; one would be treated using an indigenous restoration perspective; and one stand would be treated using a site-specific conservation prescription. The decision provides the opportunity for implementation of this demonstration project, within the legal bounds of the agency. All vegetation treatments would be certified by a Forest Service Silviculturist. All area and tree designations would be done by the Forest Service or under the direction of the Forest Service. These learning opportunities would also facilitate cooperative monitoring. II. Treatment Elements Treatments Elements were developed to further explain the activities, the objectives and treatment methodologies. These elements were discussed in detail in Chapter II of the EA. They are summarized in this section of the Project Implementation Strategy and the background and general prescriptions for density management treatments are expanded. A. Conifer Thinning Variable density thinning or thin from below is a type of silvicultural treatment that reduces stand density (i.e., density management). To achieve the desired density, cutting or removal would begin with the smallest diameter trees and move up in size class until the desired objective is met. Thinning removes the smaller diameter trees that serve as ladder fuels and reduces stress to the larger diameter residual overstory trees. Basic prescriptions are intend to minimize fire behavior effects by retaining canopy closure through variable density thinning from below, rather than by crown or overstory thinning. Activity generated fuels resulting from thinning would be allowed to cure, then would be disposed of within one season of creation. Ponderosa Pine Stands To reduce risk in high hazard stands with pine components or individual pines where there are no constraints on thinning levels, thin the entire stand or all pine patches to 120 square feet/acre of basal area or less. Thin starting with the smallest diameters first, moving up in size until the desired density is obtained. Consider favoring species other than pines (Douglas-fir, incense cedar, hardwoods) as leave trees in thinning. Provide wider spacing around individual selected young ponderosa pines and sugar pines within a denser matrix of other species. Thin so that resultant basal areas around individual pines is 120 square feet/ acre or less. Thin to at least 25 foot spacing around the selected trees. Select healthy pines with live crown ratios of 25 percent or greater for this kind of treatment. DN Attachment C Page C - 5 Implementation Strategy

6 Provide wide spacing around individual large, old legacy 1 ponderosa pines and sugar pines. Thin to remove all trees that are less than 100 years old from under the crown and an area extending at least 20 feet beyond the drip line of the legacy tree (this would remove trees that have regenerated around the treated tree since fire was excluded from the site). Douglas-fir Stands To reduce risk in high hazard stands with Douglas-fir components or individuals in areas that can be heavily thinned, thin entire stand or Douglas-fir components to 160 square feet/acre of basal area or less. Thin starting with the smallest diameters first, moving up in size until the desired density is obtained. Consider favoring other species (especially hardwoods) as leave trees in thinning. Provide wide spacing around individual large, old legacy Douglas-fir. Thin to remove all trees that are 100 years old or less from under the crown and within 10 feet of the drip line of the heritage tree (this would remove trees that have developed around the treated tree since fire has been excluded from the site). Hardwoods Thinning around remnant hardwoods is designed to increase their vigor, particularly since they tend to be shade-intolerant and easily overtopped by younger developing conifers in many situations. Unlike many past and typical forest management projects that tend to encourage conifers, the Proposed Action is intended to more broadly promote ecosystem functioning. Hardwoods are a critical part of the species mix and may require non-traditional practices to maintain their roles in ecosystem function and resiliency. B. Density Management Prescriptions The following prescriptions are to be site-specifically applied to (commercial) density management treatments on the ground during implementation under the Upper Applegate Road Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project. It is based on the prescriptions for the Community Alternative under the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project (DEIS 2005). This prescription is based on the Dry Douglas-fir Plant Association Group (PAG). The general guidelines provided here are meant to apply in most situations where treatments are proposed. When vegetation management is involved with any action or project, a site-specific Silvicultural Prescription for treatment will be developed and will be certified by a Forest Service Certified Silviculturist (R-6 FSH , FSM 2478). Individual site differences may suggest slight prescription changes to more accurately reflect the inherent heterogeneity of site conditions within and among the treatment units/areas arrayed across the watershed. Of the three characteristics that traditionally describe forested stands, density, structure, and composition, structure is the most important of the three affecting fire behavior and severity. The diverse set of stand structures within the Project Area makes prescription development to achieve wildfire management benefits difficult. Nonetheless, in order for this approach to succeed, existing, desired, and future stand structure must be specifically described in order to assess the effectiveness of proposed treatments. Under these prescriptions, a description of stand structure can be facilitated by delineating each of the various sizes/ages/layers of vegetation in a stand, typically referred to as Cohorts. In the Project Area, combinations of three general cohorts tend to occur as classified below. 1 The term legacy tree refers to existing large, old trees that were present prior to the beginning of fire exclusion. For this project, these trees are defined as pine species or Douglas-fir over 150 years old (which may be determined by coring), or trees with a detectable fire scar or a diameter that is at least twice that of the average diameter for the stand surrounding it. DN Attachment C Page C - 6 Implementation Strategy

7 Cohort #1 - Older, Mature Cohort Generally over 21 inches DBH, 150+ years old Tend to be spatially dispersed, occurring singly or more commonly in small aggregations, thereby creating a clumpy horizontal stand structure Generally initiated and developed in the pre-settlement era when disturbance patterns were more frequent, of low to moderate intensity, creating greater diversity of age classes More common in topographical areas that act as fire refugia such as gentle ridgelines and riparian areas Cohort #2 - Intermediate Cohort Generally 10 to 21 inches DBH, 80 to 150 years old Tend to be more spatially and structurally uniform, typical of more even-aged stand structures Typically initiated following moderate to high-intensity disturbance, such as the 1901 or 1910 wildfire events Not having been thinned by subsequent fire, this cohort often currently is at excessive stand densities more typical of the stem exclusion stage of stand development, and rapidly declining in growth and vigor Cohort #3 - Young Cohort Generally 1 to 10 inches DBH, 10 to 80+ years old Typical of the stand initiation or understory re-initiation stage of stand development Tend to be spatially and structurally uniform (e.g., plantations) typical of even-aged stands; a younger example of cohort #2 Most noticeable in stands with more recent disturbance history In all stands and treatments included under the prescription, and as described below, the intention is to primarily leave trees that were part of the stand prior to fire exclusion, the first cohort, and to reduce the abundance of younger recruits in the third and second cohorts grown over the last 80 to 100 years. To maintain diversity of ages and inclusion of multiple regeneration events, and to ensure ongoing stand development, it is important that none of the cohorts are completely removed. Treatments will be designed to promote and maximize retention of Cohort 1 and larger Cohort 2 trees throughout the Project Area. This project proposes to reduce hazardous fuels and the density of the smaller trees. Cohorts 2 and 3 would be thinned from below to establish desired more open forest structure and, to the extent possible, the largest trees of all species in the stand would be retained. Around Cohort 1 trees, stand density reduction will be employed in priority areas identified for treatment to improve vigor, reduce susceptibility to attack from bark beetles and/or disease, and reduce the potential for damage from wildfire and/or prescribed fire - that is, to maximize their potential for long-term retention. Stand density reduction should focus on smaller Cohort 2 and 3 trees first within the immediate vicinity of the retained Cohort 1 tree and out to a radius equal to 2 crown radii. Under these treatments, timber growth and yield is not the objective and therefore removal of mistletoe infected trees is not a target. Considerations for retention of large or severely infected conifers is included, unless these trees create hazardous fuel conditions due to presence of ladder fuels. Basal area targets are intended as guides to facilitate site-specific evaluations. Where management is necessary, thinning will start first with the smallest trees on the site. Conversely, the largest trees on the site will be reserved first. Trees identified for thinning will be used to satisfy snag and down wood targets (largest first). Density and spacing of trees left after stand density reduction can be ordered, clumped, or variable, ideally with vegetation and tree felling and removal greatest in downhill directions (or in the direction of expected spread in a wildfire event). DN Attachment C Page C - 7 Implementation Strategy

8 Ladder fuels within the crown radius of the preferred Cohort 1 tree are also a priority for removal. In the treatment area around the preferred Cohort 1 tree, retention of the most vigorous Cohort 1 or 2 trees is desired to reach target basal areas, with pines and hardwoods particularly preferred. 100 Feet of Basal Area Tree Diameter in Inches Feet of Basal Area / Tree Number of Trees / 100 Feet Basal Area Variable Density Management Treatment Description Relative Stand Density Index is used to express the relationship of the actual density of trees in any stand relative to the theoretical maximum density possible for trees of that size (Reineke 1933). Values can be determined based on the number of trees per acre and the diameter of the average tree. This value is compared to the maximum density by primary species to achieve a relative value. A value of 1.0 would be equivalent to the theoretical maximum density. Management actions, such as thinning, can be implemented to create stand densities that optimize various resource objectives. For example, relative density can be used to establish a stand density that fully occupies a site while preventing initiation of understory vegetation and ladder fuels. Southerly and Westerly Aspects Desired relative density: 0.3 to 0.5 Maintenance of the reserve pine and Douglas-fir in these stands, and opening and re-establishing horizontal discontinuity of tree crowns is desired. Reserve black oak greater than 6 inches DBH, and ponderosa and sugar pine, incense cedar with live crown ratios greater than 25 percent. Douglas-fir with crown ratios over 30 percent also are reserved. Remove small diameter (8 DBH) Douglas fir within two crown radii of reserve trees. Reduce the density of Douglas-fir within three crown radii of reserve conifers and two crown radii of reserve hardwoods if this can be done without damaging the reserved tree. Target basal area around reserve trees is 100 sq. ft./acre. Keep the largest and most vigorous trees regardless of distribution. Exception 1: Some sugar pine, incense cedar, or large hardwoods with a live crown ratio less than 15 percent will have Douglas-fir or white fir removed within 1 crown radius if a future need for snags is perceived. These trees are candidates for future snag recruitment. Exception 2: Douglas-fir greater than 16 inches DBH, representing individuals that may be part of Cohort 1 in this setting, with greater than a 40 percent live crown ratio will be retained. Thin from below to a relative density of based on stand characteristics, soil cover and topography. When thinning Douglas-fir, thin from below. Thin to retain the largest trees and trees with the best live crown ratios that will most rapidly occupy the site, and trees growing in microsites that may confer a degree of protection from a ground fire. There will be cases where trees of the same species are growing closely together and functioning as one tree. Where this occurs the clump will be treated as a single tree and be a priority for retention. Clumping of leave trees is permitted as long as canopy closure exceeds 40 percent on south slopes. DN Attachment C Page C - 8 Implementation Strategy

9 Slash shrubs, white fir, and other residual conifers except in those areas retained for habitat and soil considerations. Retain un-thinned patches (up to 5 percent of the area) in areas where they will not preclude prescribed burning operations or in places where wildfire suppression objectives would be compromised. Recommended areas for shrub retention are areas that are to be handpiled and burned or the lower portion of broadcast burn areas. Northerly Aspects Desired relative density: 0.4 to 0.6 Thinning in stages may be particularly appropriate in priority areas selected for treatment with vegetation in this PAG. Dense stands that have good vertical discontinuity have wildfire management benefits if they can be retained without significant density and bark beetle mortality. Hardwoods, pine and cedar will be treated as described above for southerly aspects. When thinning Douglas-fir, trees in cohorts 3 and 2 will be prioritized for removal, as needed to meet this prescription. Keep the largest and most vigorous trees regardless of distribution. All Aspects Retain pine less than 8 inches DBH. Slash other vegetation less than 8 inches DBH. Treat existing fuels and activity fuels with a broadcast burn wherever possible. If a broadcast burn is not possible, hand pile and burn. In broadcast burn areas, use ignition pattern that reduces flame intensity near smaller hardwoods and pine. Do not hand pile (where possible) within 10 feet of retained hardwoods and pines. Seed burn piles and disturbed soil with native grasses. California fescue and western fescue are recommended. C. Small Diameter Thinning and Surface Fuels Reduction Surface fuel reduction treatments entail the cutting, removal or rearrangement of forest understory vegetation (generally shrubs and small trees 6 to 8 feet tall). Forest understory vegetation and brush would be treated to an overall spacing of 15 x 15 between plant stems and/or clumps of brush. In brush/grass dominated areas, an irregular, mosaic pattern would be distributed across the treated areas. These treatments would likely be a combination of the surface fuel treatments as described below. Slashing: This term applies to the cutting of dense brush or saplings to reduce fuel loadings, primarily with chainsaws or hand labor. It is typically followed by handpiling and burning. This treatment would be employed where there is generally an open canopy (less than 40% canopy closure) and would not include heavy mechanical equipment (e.g., Slashbuster). Pruning: The objective of this method is to eliminate ladder fuels by cutting branches from larger trees to specified heights above the ground or surface fuels. This is typically accomplished with chain saws or long-handled pole saws. Lop and Scatter: This is a method of slash reduction where down fuel accumulations and concentrations are mechanically broken up (with chainsaws and hand labor) and dispersed from dense locations. This places woody material in proximity to the soil, where decomposition and soil building processes can begin. This treatment would be applied where the slash accumulation is not expected to be heavy and risk of ignition is low. DN Attachment C Page C - 9 Implementation Strategy

10 Handpile: This term refers to slash reduction where down fuel accumulations and concentrations are mechanically broken up (with chainsaws and hand labor) and piled in concentrations of 3-6 feet in diameter. This method would be used when the amount of fuels build up is too heavy to underburn without resulting in detrimental effects to the residual forest stand and soils. In previously harvested areas (plantations) or natural small young stands, small diameter (noncommercial thinning will create regular spacing by thinning conifers on a 15-foot by 15-foot spacing and hardwoods on a 20-foot by 20-foot spacing. Criteria for hardwood spacing will be as follows: Sprouting hardwood stumps with more than 3 sprouts shall be cut back to three sprouts. Criteria for selecting which 3 sprouts to leave shall be prioritized as follows: 1. Largest diameters at 2 feet above ground level. 2. Best-formed, straightest, and with the best developed crowns. 3. Originates closest to ground level. Wide spacing will thin conifers on 30 by 30 foot spacing and hardwoods on 40 by 40 foot spacing. Wide spacing ideally should be placed on the gentler/ more stable slope locations. Other treatments will be as listed for regular spacing. Hand pile and burn all activity fuels. Any vigorous pine (ponderosa or sugar) or hardwoods greater than 12 inches DBH will have all vegetation within their drip lines slashed. Vigorous pine is defined as pine with at least 30 percent live crown ratio. Vigorous hardwoods are those with a minimum of 25 percent live crown ratio. All other vegetation greater than 1 inch in diameter at 1 foot above ground level will be slashed, piled, and the piles burned. Understory cohorts in previously logged areas will be retained where they occur as a result of a canopy gap. Treatments will be the same as listed for young stand management. Where understory cohorts are not associated with a canopy gap, ladder fuels will be removed over time and burned. To the extent possible, schedule prescribed fire to maintain fire resiliency. Snags and Down Wood Variable density management will maintain dispersed and clusters of snags in various size classes for wildlife and to provide recruitment of future down coarse material also important to soil development. As most known species use snags greater than 14 inches in diameter along ridges, upper thirds of slopes, lower third of slopes and riparian areas; such areas would be prioritized for snag retention (Clayton pers. comm.). Recently, another tool for managing down wood and snags was developed, DecAID, the Decayed Wood Advisor for Managing Snags, Partially Dead Trees and Down Wood for Biodiversity in Forests of Washington and Oregon (Mellen et al., 2003). This website based model is based on statistically derived values for the amounts of dead wood found in various environmental conditions. DecAID uses broad categories for environmental factors, dividing southwestern Oregon into a high elevation (mountain hemlock) group, a coastal group, and a large interior group. DecAID also contains data describing the dead wood needs of certain animals in different geographic regions. However, for southwestern Oregon, this data is very limited. Therefore, the Upper Applegate Road Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project Area would follow Atzet and White s large woody material/wildlife retention tree recommendations using the Plant Association Groups (PAGs), since this information is more specific to the habitat types found in the Project Area, rather than the broad groups used in DecAID. DN Attachment C Page C - 10 Implementation Strategy

11 For example, the Douglas fir Oak Poison Oak Plant Series or PAG contains predominately Douglas fir with canyon live oak and poison oak (PSME-QUCH2_LIDE3) present in the sub canopy. The classification for this PAG type is 1407 or The majority of the Project Area to be treated using thinning and under-burning is in this PAG. This PAG according to the LWM/WRT S&G would contain the following Table: Table C-1. Large down wood and Snags for PAGs 1407 or 1408 Down Wood piece per acre Length Mean and sdt dev (n=21) mean, sdt dev Feet Decay Class 1 1 (2) 2 (7) 1 (7) 48 (41) 2 2 (6) 0 (0) 1 (1) 37 (28) 3 13 (31) 5 (17) 1 (1) 27 (22) 4 13 (21) 8 (24) 1 (2) 25 (15) 5 15 (59) 20 (46) 1 (2) 17 (16) Down Wood tons per acre Mean and sdt dev (n=21) Decay Class 1 <0.1 (1) 0.7 (2) 2.5(11) (1) 0 (0) 1.7 (8) (1) 0.8 (2) 0.9 (4) (1) 1.0 (2) 1.5 (4) (1) 0.9 (2) 0.8 (4) Snags trees per acre Mean and sdt dev (n-=63) Decay Class 1 2 (5) 1 (4) 0 (1) 2 3 (11) 1 (4) 1 (1) 3 1 (4) 1 (2) 1 (1) 4 0 (2) 0 (2) 1 (1) 5 0 (1) 0 (2) 1 (0) Each area prescribed for treatment would be required to retain the appropriate amount of material based on the PAG for that given area, for example, those stands identified as PAG 1707 or 1408 would retain the amounts displayed in the above table. Thinning, i.e., variable density management, as well as all vegetation management treatments would require a Silvicultural Prescription to be prepared by a certified Silviculturist during implementation, and prior to operational treatments. These prescriptions would specifically prescribe amounts of down wood and snags, as part of treatments, or as an enhancement treatment. D. Prescribed Fire Prescribed fire is defined as the controlled application of fire to wildland fuels in either their natural or modified state under specified environmental conditions, within a confined, predetermined area while maintaining fire intensity of heat and rate of spread required for attainment of planned resource objectives. A prescribed Fire Plan (Burn Plan) will be developed by a Fuels Specialist, following established regulations and policy, and approved by fire managers. This Burn Plan would guide the implementation based on site-specific conditions (including fuel moisture and weather conditions) at the time of planned ignition, and provide for pre- and post-burn evaluation to monitor the burn and its effectiveness at meeting resource objectives. These defined conditions when burning could occur, are termed the burn window. DN Attachment C Page C - 11 Implementation Strategy

12 To meet State air quality requirements, prescribed burning would be implemented during periods of atmospheric instability (when weather disturbances are moving into or through the area) and air is not trapped by inversions on the valley floor. Presently, the majority of burning is carried out in the spring when fuel moisture and soil moisture levels are highest and air conditions offer more opportunities. This can limit the number of days when prescribed fire may be used. While fall burns present challenges to fire managers, such as increased temperatures, erratic winds, lower fuel moisture and increased fire behavior, conducting prescribed burns at this time may reduce adverse effects to non-target plant and wildlife species. Under this decision, prescribed fire would be utilized any time of the year when desired resource objectives can be attained. The types of prescribed burning that would be used to achieve the various fuel reduction objectives are described below: Broadcast Burning: Prescribed broadcast burning involves the controlled application of fire to lowlying vegetation and woody material typically occupying brush and grass dominated patches. Application strives to retain a mosaic pattern to mimic frequent low-intensity fire frequencies. Underburning: Prescribed underburning involves the controlled application of fire to understory vegetation and coarse woody material. This would occur when fuel moisture, soil moisture, and weather and atmospheric conditions allow for the fire to be confined to a predetermined area and intensity can be managed to achieve the desired resource objectives. Pile Burning: Small piles (3-6 feet in diameter) of vegetation debris (that are a result of hand piling) would be allowed to cure or dry to optimize consumption, and would be burned following adequate moisture accumulation to prevent escaped fire and achieve resource objectives. Swamper Burning: Swamper burning involves hand-cutting material to be burned, starting a small fire, and continuously feeding hand cut material into the fire. The fire ring size ranges from about 4 to 10 feet in diameter, depending on the steepness of the slope (on steep slopes the fire ring can increase in size as a result of rolling debris and convection heat). Jackpot Burning: Jackpot burning is the burning of discontinuous, concentrated areas of slash created from vegetation treatments (e.g., variable density management thinning). Burning would typically occur following an extended period of dry weather to allow the slash to cure for optimal consumption. III. Monitoring Framework The HFRA contains provisions requiring that the USDA Forest Service monitor the results of a representative sample of authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects and submit a report every 5 years that includes an evaluation of the progress toward project goals and recommendations for project modifications. Fire sciences research funded by the National Fire Plan is assessing monitoring schedules and protocols to meet the requirements of the HFRA, as well as those of the National Fire Plan. Recommendations for implementation will be made to the Wildland Fire Leadership Council. Multiparty Monitoring Section 102(g)(5) of the HFRA instructs the USDA Forest Service to establish a collaborative multiparty monitoring, evaluation, and accountability process when significant interest is expressed in such an approach. The process would be used to assess the beneficial or adverse ecological and social effects of authorized fuel-reduction projects. DN Attachment C Page C - 12 Implementation Strategy

13 The requirement for multiparty monitoring is not directly connected to the requirements for monitoring a representative sample of projects, but shall be used where significant interest is expressed, in the judgment of the field unit involved. The Forest Service has experience with multiparty monitoring, which can be an effective way to build trust and collaborate with local communities and diverse stakeholders, including interested citizens and Tribes. Multiparty monitoring would be subject to available funding and the ability of stakeholders to contribute funds or in-kind services. Introduction This Section discusses the monitoring framework linked to proposed management activities under the NEPA process. Monitoring is important for tracking the implementation of a project; ensuring activities are implemented as planned, as well as to measure success in meeting the purpose of required mitigation. Monitoring and evaluation are separate, sequential activities that provide information to determine whether programs and projects are meeting Forest Plan direction. Monitoring collects information, on a sample basis, from sources specified in the Forest Plan. Evaluation of monitoring results is used to determine the effectiveness of the Forest Plan and the need to either change the plan through amendment or revision, or to continue with the plan. Overall direction is found in FSM , Forest Service Handbook (FSH) (Chapter 6), and 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (k). Project activities would be monitored during and after implementation of management actions to ensure that mitigation measures are implemented as specified. Monitoring is also proposed to evaluate the effectiveness of planned activities, including standard practices and mitigation measures, in achieving desired project outcomes. Lessons learned from monitoring and evaluation would be incorporated into future project planning efforts. If monitoring indicates that laws, regulations, standards or critical objectives are not being met, the project would be modified as necessary. A full spectrum of techniques and methods may be used including: Site-specific observations by on-site resource specialists. Field assistance trips by other technical specialists. On-going accomplishment reporting processes. Formal management reviews on a scheduled basis. Discussions with other agencies and various public users. Interdisciplinary team reviews of monitoring results. Involvement with existing research activities. Review and analysis of records documenting monitoring results. Re-measuring existing permanent inventory plots. Implementation Monitoring Implementation monitoring asks the question, did we implement the project as outlined in the decision document, including consistency with land allocations guiding the implementation of management activities in the Project Area? The following specific evaluation questions would be used to complete implementation monitoring: 1) Were treatments implemented in accordance with the decision, including associated mitigation measures? If implementation deviated from the decision, document how and why implementation deviated and whether the desired objectives were achieved. 2) Were fire hazard reduction treatments implemented according to the schedule outlined in the decision document? How many acres were planned for implementation by treatment method annually? How many acres were treated by treatment method annually? DN Attachment C Page C - 13 Implementation Strategy

14 Results of implementation monitoring should be documented by treatment area, for review by the Responsible Official and placed in the project file. Funding to complete implementation monitoring is included in project costs. The overall responsibility for the completion of implementation monitoring lies with the Responsible Official. Effectiveness Monitoring Effectiveness monitoring answers questions concerning whether the implementation of proposed fire hazard reduction activities were effective in achieving the overall Purpose and Need for the project, as well as goals and objectives of the management land allocations guiding the implementation of management activities in the Project Area. The effectiveness of actions in obtaining overall long-term goals will eventually be demonstrated when a fire start (which is not suppressed) burns across a landscape as a low intensity fire with low-moderate severity effects on forested conditions. While some questions will have more immediate answers (1 to 3 years following implementation), other questions will need to be monitored over time (5 to 10 years, or longer in the case of trend monitoring). Proposed effectiveness monitoring is outlined below under monitoring questions and monitoring methodology. Fire Behavior 1) Were surface fuels and crown fuels reduced, and were crown base heights increased, such that a wildland fire initiated within the Project Area would result in a low to moderate severity fire, and burn as a ground fire? Fire Resiliency 1) What are the average crown ratios by species, size class after treatment? How do they compare to desired conditions? 2) What is the proportion of fire adapted to non-fire adapted species within treatment areas (pretreatment, post treatment, and 10 years)? 3) What is the stand vigor (pre-, post-treatment and 10 years) as measured by: Soils Species composition by size class? Average growth by species and size class? 1) Were Forest and Regional Standards and Guidelines for soil protection met? How effective were mitigation measures in achieving desired results for soil protection as measured by: Percent of treatment unit where effective soil cover maintained? (immediately following treatment; and 2 years following treatment) Percent of treatment areas where soils detrimentally burned? Percent of treatment area detrimentally compacted? Water Quality and Hydrologic Function 1) Are water quality and hydrologic function being maintained? Were stream temperatures maintained at existing levels? Percent of riparian areas protected from disturbance during activities. DN Attachment C Page C - 14 Implementation Strategy

15 Scenery Management 1) Was the valued landscape character maintained as anticipated by the analysis of the Proposed Action? 2) Were the scenic visual quality objectives maintained as anticipated by the analysis of the Proposed Action? Recommended Monitoring Methodology Fire Behavior, Fire Resiliency and Soils Evaluation questions developed under fire behavior, fire resiliency, and soils can be answered using a combination of methodologies including soil and vegetation transects, assessment of aerial photography and satellite imagery, long-term or trend monitoring of ecology plots, and research level investigations designed to answer specific questions. Landscape Scale Monitoring: Monitor watershed or landscape level trends in proportion and distribution of fuel models post project by evaluating aerial photography and satellite imagery, and at 10-year intervals over time. Regional Aerial Detection Surveys are used to monitor trends in insect and disease outbreaks over time. Stand Level Monitoring: Install variable and fixed radius permanent inventory plots. Coordinate the location of a proportion of plots with existing Forest Service ecology plots. Locate the remaining plots using the CVS established grid system and fill in the grid. Distribute samples at representative aspects and elevations. Collect the following tree data pre- and post-treatment, and at 10-year intervals: -Species -Radial growth -Live or snag -Diameter -Stand position -Dead and down material -Height -Mistletoe infection rating -Crown ratio (proportion of tree with live crown) In addition to data collection, conduct photo monitoring at plot centers. Install 30-meter (100-foot) transects with a sample of plots. Transects would run the contour of the slope, randomly select the direction of each transect from plot center. Collect the following data at predesignated intervals: Shrub cover by species Herbaceous and grass cover (by species if possible) Effective soil cover Coarse woody material by size class Compaction/displacement (percent) Bare soil (percent) Water Quality and Hydrologic Function Continue monitoring the permanent Rosgen stream sites for Wolman Pebble Count data, slope, and cross-sectional stream information. Continue monitoring stream temperature (Rosgen 1994). DN Attachment C Page C - 15 Implementation Strategy

16 Aquatic Habitat In addition to water quality parameters, other aquatic and riparian should be monitored. These parameters can be used to assess changes in aquatic habitat and biological composition: Macroinvertebrate assemblages and abundance Resurvey fish habitat and populations in Beaver and Palmer creeks using Forest Service Region Six Level II Stream Survey protocol after implementation (these streams have been surveyed before implementation) Scenery Management Scenery resource monitoring will evaluate changes to the valued landscape character as a result of fire hazard reduction treatments. Alterations to the landscape will be measured as changes in scenic quality, when viewed from the viewpoints identified below: The Project Area itself (key public viewing areas) Establish repeatable photo points from viewpoint locations. Photograph view shed prior to project implementation, during implementation, following completion of the project, and in 3 to 5 years after project is completed. Photos should be taken at both a mm and mm focal length to replicate a naked eye view and zoomed image view, respectively. DN Attachment C Page C - 16 Implementation Strategy