Kreist Creek Project Proposal
|
|
- Maude Perkins
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Kreist Creek Project Proposal WHERE IS IT? The Kreist Creek project is located on the Bonners Ferry Ranger District in the upper northeastern corner of Boundary County, Idaho. The planning area is approximately 11,000 acres in size and is bordered by Ruby Mountain to the northeast, Deer Ridge to the east, and the Moyie River to the south and west 1. A vicinity map of this area is attached at the end of this letter. WHY IS THIS AREA BEING CONSIDERED? This project lies within the lower Kootenai River watershed where the Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative (KVRI) Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Proposal (CFLRP) identified the need for holistic ecological restoration across all lands; further information regarding this CFLRP can be found on the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho s website 2. This proposal builds on our collaboration with KVRI and their restoration activities accomplished on lands throughout the lower Kootenai River watershed. In addition, the Kreist proposal supports the CFLRP goals of watershed and ecosystem health, wildfire use and protection, recreation and public access, and economic sustainability for local communities. Landscapes have changed across the North Zone of the Idaho Panhandle National Forests from historic conditions due to major losses of long-lived seral species (ponderosa pine, western larch, and western white pine). Forests within these landscapes (including the Kreist project) are dominated by late seral species of grand fir, western hemlock, and western red cedar that are shade tolerant, drought/fire intolerant species; and short lived early seral species of lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir that are approaching the end of their life span. These landscapes are the most heavily altered from historic conditions and contain the greatest need and opportunity for landscape forest vegetation restoration. Large, high severity fires burned within the project area in the 1870 s and late 1890 s. The fires burned severely, essentially clearing the landscape and allowing for the widespread regeneration of lodgepole pine. Lodgepole pine is an aggressive pioneer tree species with the capability of abundant seed production followed by rapid juvenile growth, giving it an advantage to perpetuate after fires. The fires during these two decades alone burned a majority of the project area. Lodgepole pine stands in northern Idaho start to decline in health and become increasingly susceptible to insect and disease at 80 to 100 years of age. The lodgepole pine within the Kreist Creek landscapes has reached maturity and approximately 25% of the landscape is currently considered moderate to high hazard 3 for mountain pine beetle attack. In addition to an increased susceptibility to mountain pine beetle attack, over-mature lodgepole pine stands have a high susceptibility to windthrow which contributes to an increase in fuel load and consequently an increase in fire hazard. Combined with increased mountain pine beetle activity, these factors could contribute to a lethal fire with the potential to spread to connected landscapes adjacent to the Kreist planning area. 1 The legal description for this area is: T64N, R2E, Sections 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, 25, 26, 35, 36; T64N, R3E, Sections 6, 7, 8, 18, 19, 30, 31, 32; T63N, R2E, Sections 1, 2, 11, 12; T64N, R3E, Sections 5, 6, 7, Boise Meridian Hazard is defined as the ability of a stand to support a growing population of mountain pine beetles (Randall and Tensmeyer 1999). 1
2 Across the West, aspen stands are in a widespread state of decline that seems to be accelerating. Aspen stands begin to deteriorate when large trees grow old in the absence of disturbance, especially fire, and begin to die and break off in windstorms. This creates gaps within the grove, but without appropriate conditions little or no sprouting will occur to replace the declining overstory trees. Additionally, because of the lack of fire, aspen is often out-competed and replaced by conifer tree species. In the past century, the Kreist Creek project landscape has changed, primarily because of human influences such as fire suppression, and introduction of white pine blister rust. As a result, forests in this area have become dominated by Douglas-fir and true firs which are susceptible to root disease and Douglas-fir beetle activity. Consequently, forests in this area have become dense and overloaded with flammable debris and tree species more susceptible to disease, and insect infestations have become more common. Initial field reconnaissance in the Kreist Creek area of interest identified a need to maintain or improve the vegetation resource and the overall resilience of the watershed to insects, disease and wildfire disturbances as well as improve stream habitat/structure and road conditions, and reduce weed infestations throughout the planning area. Corresponding with these needs are opportunities to improve aquatic health by replacing culverts, improving fish passage, and restoring streambank and instream aquatic habitat within the planning area. This project is within the wildland urban interface (WUI); private lands are adjacent to and within the area of interest. There is some opportunity for prescribed burning to reduce hazardous fuels; however the majority of the Kreist Creek landscape evolved with high and mixed severity fires. The vegetation treatments that would move the landscape toward its desired condition would likely be accomplished mechanically, primarily through commercial timber harvest and prescribed burning. Streams within the planning area are generally functioning properly and are supporting beneficial uses and fisheries resources. However, there are a few locations in the planning area where sediment delivery to streams is elevated due to erosion from aging road prisms and ditches. Impacts of sedimentation on salmonids and their habitat can include loss of beneficial spawning habitat, reduced incubation success, loss of summer and winter rearing habitat, and impacts to important food sources. Additionally, field reviews identified stream crossings that were either undersized, potentially resulting in blocked culverts that could lead to road failure, or were placed in a manner that is preventing upstream fish passage to beneficial aquatic habitat. Substantial noxious weed populations (particularly hawkweed species, as well as knapweed and St. Johnswort) are located within the Kreist Creek planning area. There are a number of ways that these increased weed populations could impact the Kreist landscape, particularly soil productivity, native plant and animal species and communities, and wildlife and aquatic resources. Noxious weeds are also well-established along many of the areas roads and trails. Heavy infestations were observed along Forest road 2517A & B; while moderate infestations were found elsewhere. As part of any project, we review the transportation needs of the area and identify an ecologically and fiscally sustainable minimum road system that meets resource management and public access needs. This is our opportunity to make the planning road system, ecologically sustainable and fiscally affordable. The landscape of the Kreist project can be seen from the Moyie River Road (County road 34) as well as the Snyder Guard Station and Deer Ridge lookout. Some of the proposed harvest 2
3 treatments for this project are located within foreground and middleground as viewed from these areas The general setting of the planning area is natural appearing, yet evidence of human activities such as highways, timber harvest, roads, developed campsites, etc. predominate. Important Goals and Actions we want to accomplish for Kreist planning area: 1. Maintain and improve forest landscape resiliency by providing for tree species, stocking levels, and landscape patterns that better resist insects and disease. Provide for tree species, stocking levels, and landscape patterns that reduce the risk of insect and disease occurrences. Reduce the acreage of mature and over-mature lodgepole pine stands that are considered high-risk for mountain pine beetle attacks Increase the acreage of stands where western white pine is a significant component Regenerate and expand aspen clones where they currently exist 2. Promote forest conditions that reduce fire hazard on National Forest System lands and aid fire suppression efforts to reduce the potential impacts of wildfire to private lands within and adjacent to the project area. Reduce surface fuels and crown densities to create a low-intensity and severity fire environment. Remove small trees in dry forest stands that were historically formed and maintained by fire. 3. Maintain and improve aquatic habitat. Repair or improve drainage along roads where interactions between roads and surface water exists. Improve fisheries passage through roads using natural channel design. 4. Contain or control existing noxious weed populations along road and trail systems in the Kreist Creek project area, and reduce the potential of new weed infestations into the area. Pre-treat weed populations along trails and roads (including haul routes, temporary roads, landings, unused roads, and roads proposed for storage or decommissioning) within the project planning area using accepted herbicides and weed management practices. Provide follow-up weed treatments (contractor/forest Service) in the area to keep existing weed populations and potential new weed invaders in check. 5. Examine the road and trail systems to determine long-term transportation and resource needs. 6. Maintain the scenic integrity and sustainability of areas adjacent to County road 34 to reflect healthy, resilient vegetation conditions. Create vegetation openings and patterns that emulate natural disturbance processes. Modify existing geometrically shaped openings to better mimic those created by natural disturbances. Increase the species diversity and age classes of existing vegetation. 7. Provide opportunities to utilize forest products and provide economic opportunity through restoration and road maintenance work. 3
4 Background Information Lands within the planning area have a long history of motorized and non-motorized recreational use. They include a wide range of natural and developed settings within an hour of Bonners Ferry, Idaho as well as both Creston, and Cranbrook, BC. Recreational activities range from car camping, cabin rental, huckleberry picking, hunting and fishing, to horseback, motorcycle and mountain bike trail riding, white water rafting, and day hikes. There is an established trail network within the planning area (trails #35, #205, #350 and #277) that is used by hikers, mountain bikers, horse back, and motorcycle user groups. Trail #35 (Ruby Ridge trail) has been designated as part of the larger Pacific Northwest Trail system. The Pacific Northwest Trail was congressionally designated in Recreational use within the planning area, until recently, had been primarily of local interest and now has wide range appeal and recognition. The majority of the project is located in the Mission-Moyie BORZ (Bears Outside Recovery Zone). BORZ are areas immediately adjacent to a grizzly bear recovery zone where grizzly bear occupancy has been documented on a recurring basis. Management direction in BORZ is geared toward ensuring no increases in road miles (open or restricted) and limiting disturbance. The northeastern portion of the project is also in the Deer-Skin LAU (Lynx Analysis Unit) and is designated lynx critical habitat. Management direction in LAUs and critical habitat is geared toward retaining mature, multi-story habitat and providing sufficient snowshoe hare habitat. The planning area also contains habitat for other sensitive or management indicator species (MIS) such as flammulated owl and northern goshawk (two known active territories). The proposed vegetation management lies within the following Forest Plan Management Areas: Management Area (MA)-1, which is managed by the Idaho Panhandle National Forests to provide for long-term growth and production of commercially valuable wood products. MA-2 - which is managed by the Idaho Panhandle National Forests to maintain and enhance identified grizzly bear habitat. It is classified as suitable for timber production and allows for timber production with timber harvest to improve or maintain grizzly bear habitat MA-4 which is managed by the Idaho Panhandle National Forests to provide winter forage to support existing and projected big game populations through scheduled timber harvest and permanent forage areas. MA-9 - Goals are to maintain and protect existing improvements, resource productivity potential and within minimum investments. WHAT ARE WE PROPOSING TO DO? At this phase of the project, we currently have identified more than 2,800 acres that need treatment, but based on internal scoping and integration of other resource management objectives our current proposal has been reduced to approximately 2,300 acres. As we collect public comments and conduct further analysis within the planning area, the treatments and treatment areas may change. Refer to the attached project map for unit locations and Appendix for unit specific treatments. The proposed action would include approximately 2,300 acres of silvicultural treatments that would be designed to help meet the goals and actions stated previously (see summary table for all 4
5 proposed activities). The following treatments would involve the removal of commercially valuable wood products (all acres are approximate): Even-aged management (1,023 acres seed tree with reserves, 78 acres shelterwood with reserves, and 186 acres of shelterwood/burn) following treatment the remaining canopy in these stands would result in harvest areas larger than 40 acres in size. Uneven-aged management (407 acres group selection) following treatment the canopy closure in these stands would remain fairly high with only scattered openings. Intermediate treatments (27 acres commercial thin and 24 acres of improvement cut) these stands would have a more closed canopy than regeneration harvest (even-aged silvicultural systems) following project activities. Treatments involving commercial timber harvest would be accomplished through a combination of ground-based logging systems (i.e. skidders and hand-felling or mechanical harvesting equipment), skyline yarding, and helicopter yarding. These treatments would trend the timber stands towards historical species composition and stocking levels, generally leaving the largest trees available of the desired species mix. All treatments will be designed with local factors in mind to account for the enhancement of visuals and scenic integrity. Even-aged regeneration harvesting would be focused in stands where mature and over-mature lodgepole is considered a high-risk for mountain pine beetle attacks. Group selection prescriptions would include about 60 acres of treatments in dry forest old growth. Treatments would be designed to restore the historic integrity of this type of old growth through retention of all ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir, larger than 20 inches dbh and other large diameter trees that are contributing to the old growth character of the stand. Focusing on removing smaller diameter trees would free up more water and nutrients to the remaining large trees while reducing the risk of catastrophic fire in this stand. The following treatments would not involve the removal of commercial wood products and would not require ground-disturbing equipment (acres are approximate): Regenerate approximately 207 acres of aspen stands, through prescribed burn (and/or conifer slashing) only the intent would be to kill encroaching conifer trees competing with aspen stands and reinvigorate existing, mature aspen. Precommercial thinning on 362 acres. Slash created as a result of vegetation treatments that is not needed on site to meet soil management objectives would be underburned, grapple piled or whole tree yarded. Piling equipment would be restricted to existing skid trails or would operate on slash mats in all units to 5 Definitions of Silviculture Prescriptions Seed Tree with Reserves Designed to regenerate and maintain a stand with two age classes by removing most trees except for a small number of widely dispersed trees that will be retained for seed production and to produce a new age class. Large diameter western larch and white pine will be retained in the overstory where they exist. No future overstory removals would be conducted. Shelterwood with Reserves Designed to create twostoried stands featuring retention of large-diameter ponderosa pine, western larch and white pine in the overstory and regeneration of these same species in the understory. No future overstory removals would be conducted. Commercial Thin/Improvement cutting/group Selection Treatments would reduce stand density by removing smaller trees from the lower crown classes and favoring the development of the biggest and best quality trees to improve the health and vigor of the residual stands. Sanitation and group selection would occur in areas where small pockets (generally less than three acres) of insect and disease occur. Pre commercial thinning Treatments would be designed to remove less desirable trees to improve the composition and quality of the residual stand. Trees are too small to be commercial sawlog material.
6 prevent exceeding soil compaction and disturbance standards. Prescribed burning (piles as well as underburning) would be conducted at times and under conditions that would minimize or prevent accumulation of smoke to such degree as necessary to meet State and Federal ambient air quality standards. The interdisciplinary team (IDT) working on this project has conducted a Transportation Analysis (TAP) for the Kreist Creek planning area. The goal of the TAP was to identify problem areas associated with roads and determine corrective actions to mitigate impacts to resources and achieve a maintainable system of roads that serves the agency and public needs. The TAP developed recommendations from each resource area for every road segment within the watershed. After completing this analysis the IDT is recommending that approximately one mile of existing roads be decommissioned, another approximately.45 mile should be designated for storage and.3 miles be changed to open seasonal (see summary table for specific road segments). Decommissioned roads are those the IDT recommended were not needed to meet multiple resource objectives and would no longer be managed as part of the District s transportation system. Stored roads are those still needed to meet long-term management objectives, but stored in the short-term. An example of a stored road would be where the existing drainage systems, posing the greatest potential to cause stream damage, would be removed rendering the road impassable and hydrologically inert in the short-term. However, the road would remain on the District s transportation system to meet other resource objectives in the future. The proposed action also includes road reconstruction, which covers approximately 23 miles of road within the project area. Road Definitions of Road Actions reconstruction is Routine Road maintenance - Maintenance entails performing necessary defined in this work to keep the road at objective driving standards. Maintenance activities include grading the travelway, resurfacing, cleaning ditches and proposal as minor culverts, and improving drainage relief features like waterbars. road improvements Road reconstruction Consists of the repairing of specific sections of road beyond routine back to its original maintenance level. Actions under this may include maintenance on repairing drainage structures, and removing excess vegetation on the road existing road systems bed. such as culvert Decommissioning Consists of activities that results in the stabilization and replacement or restoration of unneeded roads to a more natural state. Decommissioning may entail one or more of the following: full or partial recontouring of the removing wellestablished potential to cause damage to the stream, and recontouring stream road prism, installing waterbars, removing culverts that have the greatest vegetation. Routine crossings. maintenance is the Storage - Results in the stabilization or restoration of roads to a more natural ongoing upkeep of a state until the road is again needed to accomplish management activities. Storage may include one or more of the treatments described under road necessary to decommissioning. The road would be effectively blocked by earthen retain the road to the barrier while in storage or have the 1st recontoured. Culverts approved road would be pulled. Roads put into storage remain on the forest transportation management objective system. and would occur on approximately 12 miles of road within the planning area. This includes blading, brushing, and dust abatement and would be performed throughout the project area as necessary during project implementation. As recommended by the IDT and required by CFLRP, no new permanent roads would be constructed. However, approximately ½ mile of temporary road would be constructed to access unit #25 (see map). The temporary road would be obliterated following use. In summary, the proposed action would result in a net reduction of approximately 1.74 miles of existing system roads. 6
7 Please review the following table which displays the proposed actions. Please refer to the attached project map that identifies the units and roads that are included in this project. Table 1. Summary of Proposed Activities Vegetation Treatments Acres Seed Tree with reserves 1,023 Group Selection 407 Shelterwood with reserves 78 Shelterwood-burn 186 Improvement cut 24 Commercial Thin 27 Prescribed burn 207 Precommercial thin 362 TOTAL 2,314 Harvest Treatment Acres Tractor 1,146 Skyline 656 Helicopter 150 TOTAL 1,952 Fuel Treatment Acres Underburn 1,286 Grapple pile 396 Whole tree yard 27 Whole tree yard/underburn 120 Underburn/grapple pile 150 TOTAL 1,952 Transportation/Roads Existing miles Proposed miles Road Maintenance 12 Road Reconstruction 23 Temporary road construction Decommissioning. Total change Forest road Forest road 2517C Storage Forest road 2517C Open Seasonal Forest road 211E Open Year Closed Year
8 Design Features and Mitigation Measures We have developed a list of design features and mitigation that we are currently considering for this project and have posted this list on our IPNF web site at They are also available upon request. This list may change depending on the comments we receive during this comment period or based on further analysis of the proposed alternatives. Design features would be applied during project implementation. The purpose of these measures is to completely avoid, or to the fullest extent possible minimize the potential for adverse effects to specific resources. Mitigation must be applied during project implementation. Mitigation measures are actions required to lessen unavoidable impacts resulting from implementation of a certain action. WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU It is important that you tell us your ideas or concerns, along with supporting reasons, about the project so we can consider them during our project planning and environmental analysis process. A Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team comprised of employees with different resource specialties, along with the KVRI collaborative, has identified potential resource issues that may need to be addressed in the development of the proposal. Once the proposal is finalized, we will focus on the environmental, social and economic issues to analyze in the environmental document. The issues we address in our planning process, and the degree to which we address them, is partially dependent upon the input you provide us. Helping us identify potential issues is one of the most important ways you can become involved with the project. Some of the issues that we anticipate analyzing in this project include the potential effects to: Crown fire potential Forest ecosystem health, resilience and diversity Scenic quality Wildlife species and their habitat Roads systems and access for fire suppression, recreation and vegetation management Noxious weeds Rare plants Aquatic habitat The responsible official for this project and the decision is Mary Farnsworth, Forest Supervisor for the Idaho Panhandle National Forests. We encourage you to provide feedback on our proposal. Please use the enclosed form, call, or send us an . Please group your comments by resource issue so they can be readily identified, tracked, and incorporated into the project design. We will be using the comments to develop alternatives, design additional resource protection measures, and analyze the potential effects of the proposed actions in an Environmental Assessment. To be eligible to submit an objection to this project, individuals and entities must provide the following during this comment period: (1) Name, address, telephone number, and organization 8
9 represented, if any; (2) Title of the document on which the comments are being submitted; (3) Specific facts and supporting reasons for the Responsible Official to consider; and (4) Signature(s). Address comments to: Mary Farnsworth, Forest Supervisor; Attn: Kreist Creek Project, Bonners Ferry Ranger District, by mail to 6286 Main Street, Bonners Ferry, ID 83805; by phone to (208) ; by facsimile to (208) ; or hand-deliver between the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Comments may also be submitted electronically to the following address: comments-northern-idpanhandlebonners-ferry@fs.fed.us in one of the following formats: Microsoft Word, Word Perfect or as an RTF file. Additional information is available from assistant project leader Nancy Kertis at the Sandpoint or Bonners Ferry Ranger District offices. Written, facsimile, hand-delivered, oral, or electronic comments will be accepted for 30 calendar days following the date of publication of the legal notice in the Coeur d Alene Press. The publication date in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the comment period for this proposal. You should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. You must submit specific written comments relating to this project in response to this mailing in order to be eligible to participate in the administrative review process (36 CFR ). Specific comments should be within the scope of the proposed action, have a direct relationship to the proposed action, and include comment rationale for the Responsible Official to consider. Only those who submit timely and specific written comments regarding the proposed project during this public comment period are eligible to file an objection. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names, addresses, addresses and phone numbers of those who comment, will be placed in the project file and considered part of the public record. This letter along with proposed design criteria and mitigation are available for down load from the IPNF website at A comment form has been enclosed for your convenience. Feel free to use the form, write us a letter, call, or visit. Your comments are important. The sooner we receive your input, the easier it is to design a project that includes your ideas. 9
10 Appendix KREIST CREEK PROJECT UNIT SUMMARY TABLE UNIT RX LOGSYS FUELS PCC PCC (BEFORE) (AFTER) ACRES 1 ST T GP ST T GP GS T GP ST T UB ST S UB ST S UB ST T GP ST T GP ST S UB ST T UB IC S UB ST T GP GS S WTY/UB ST T UB ST S UB ST S UB ST S UB ST T UB SW S UB ST S UB GS S UB GS T UB ST T GP ST S UB ST S UB ST T UB ST T UB ST T GP ST T GP ST T GP ST T UB ST T UB ST T UB a ST S UB SW/B T UB SW T GP ST S UB SW T GP CT S WTY SW/B T UB Burn NA UB a ST T UB a GS S WTY/UB
11 UNIT RX LOGSYS FUELS PCC PCC (BEFORE) (AFTER) ACRES 3b GS H UB/GP a ST S UB a ST H UB/GP PCT N/A N/A TOTAL KEY ST Seed Tree UB Underburn IC Improvement Cut GP Grapple Pile GS Group Select WTY Whole Tree yard SW Whole Tree Shelterwood WTY/UB yard/underburn SW/B Underburn/grapple Shelterwood/Burn UB/GP pile CT Commercial Thin T Tractor PCT Burn PCC (Before) PCC (After) Precommercial Thin S Skyline Prescribed burn only H Helicopter Percent Canopy Cover Before Harvest Percent Canopy Cover After Harvest 11
Kreist Creek. Environmental Assessment. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Kreist Creek Environmental Assessment Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Boundary County, Idaho May 2014 For More Information
More informationCATEGORICAL EXCLUSION WORKSHEET: RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION WORKSHEET: RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS Developed Recreation/Trails, Wilderness & Roadless Jasper Mountain Priest Lake Ranger District Idaho Panhandle National Forest Description of the
More informationIdaho Panhandle National Forests
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Idaho Panhandle National Forests Sandpoint Ranger District 1602 Ontario Road Sandpoint, ID 83864-9509 (208)263-5111 File Code: 1950 Date: July 14,
More informationUnited States Department of Agriculture. Hellroaring Project. Environmental Assessment. Idaho Panhandle National Forests.
United States Department of Agriculture Hellroaring Project Environmental Assessment Forest Service Idaho Panhandle National Forests Bonners Ferry Ranger District July 2014 For More Information Contact:
More informationNez Perce National Forest Moose Creek Ranger District
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Nez Perce National Forest Moose Creek Ranger District 831 Selway Road Kooskia, ID 83539 208 926-4258 TTY 208 926-7725 File Code: 1950 Date: Dec 30,
More informationCaring for the Land and Serving People
Hello- December 3, 2007 The Forest Service is proposing management activities in the Blue Alder Resource Area to reduce hazardous fuels, establish healthy resilient forests, perform stand rehabilitation,
More informationDear Interested Party,
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Gunnison Ranger District 216 N Colorado St. Gunnison, CO 81230 Voice: 970-641-0471 TDD: 970-641-6817 File Code: 1950-1/2430 Date: June 8, 2010 Dear
More informationIdaho Panhandle National Forests
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Idaho Panhandle National Forests St. Joe Ranger District 222 S. 7 th St. Suite 1 St. Maries, ID 83861 (208) 245-2531 File Code: 1950 Date: February
More informationThe Galton Project Kootenai National Forest. The Galton Project
Introduction The Galton Project The Fortine Ranger District of the Kootenai National Forest is in the early stages of developing a project entitled Galton, named for the mountain range dominating the eastern
More informationDear Interested Party:
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 420 Barrett Street Dillon, MT 59725 406 683-3900 File Code: 1950 Date: June 7, 2011 Dear Interested Party: Thank
More informationFile Code: 1950 Date: September 13, 2017
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Darby-Sula Ranger District 712 N. Main Street Darby, MT 59829 406-821-3913 File Code: 1950 Date: September 13, 2017 The Bitterroot National Forest
More informationDECISION MEMO PROJECT NAME: CLARK CREEK BLOWDOWN USDA FOREST SERVICE IDAHO PANHANDLE NATIONAL FOREST BONNERS FERRY RANGER DISTRICT
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Idaho Panhandle National Forests Bonners Ferry Ranger District 6286 Main Street Bonners Ferry, ID 83805 (208) 267-5561 File Code: 1950 Date: July
More informationThe Project Area. Coeur d'alene River Ranger District. Idaho Panhandle National Forest. P. O. Box 159 Smelterville, ID 83868
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Idaho Panhandle National Forest Coeur d'alene River Ranger District P. O. Box 159 Smelterville, ID 83868 2502 East Sherman Avenue Coeur d' Alene,
More informationAcres within Planning Area. Total Acres Burned
Calf-Copeland Project Description Figure 1: Dead sugar pine in the Calf-Copeland planning area. Sugar pine grow best in open conditions. In the absence of fire disturbance, high densities of Douglas-fir
More informationBig Hill Insect and Disease Project Proposed Action
Big Hill Insect and Disease Project Proposed Action Project Background and 2014 Farm Bill The Big Hill Insect and Disease project on the Challis-Yankee Fork Ranger District of the Salmon-Challis National
More informationFile Code: 1950 Date: November 17, 2015
Logo Department Name Agency Organization Organization Address Information United States Forest Deschutes National Forest 63095 Deschutes Market Road Department of Service Bend/Fort Rock Ranger District
More informationCamp Dawson / Robin Hood Project
Camp Dawson / Robin Hood Project KOOTENAI VALLEY RESOURCE INITATIVE Scoping Update November 9, 2017 IDAHO PANHANDLE NATIONAL FORESTS BONNERS FERRY RANGER DISTRICT Robinson Lake (USFS Photo) PROJECT AREA
More informationAppendix A: Vegetation Treatments
Appendix A: Vegetation Treatments In general, the proposed actions for the Light Restoration project focuses on establishing the composition, structure, pattern, and ecological processes necessary to make
More informationWalla Walla Ranger District
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Walla Walla Ranger District 1415 West Rose Walla Walla, WA 99362 509-522-6290 File Code: 1950 Date: September 30, 2014 Dear Forest User: The Walla
More informationTaylor and Stoner Mesas Vegetation Management Project Scoping Package
Taylor and Stoner Mesas Vegetation Management Project Scoping Package The Forest Service is seeking input and ideas regarding a vegetation management proposal on the Dolores Ranger District of the San
More informationPRESCRIBED FIRE IN SOUTHWEST IDAHO
2016 PRESCRIBED FIRE IN SOUTHWEST IDAHO In southwest Idaho, public land managers work to: address public health and safety concerns; treat insect and disease infestations; reduce the risk of severe wildfires
More informationSKIBO PROJECT SCOPING REPORT Laurentian Ranger District, Superior National Forest
SKIBO PROJECT SCOPING REPORT Laurentian Ranger District, Superior National Forest I. Introduction The Laurentian Ranger District of the Superior National Forest is proposing management activities within
More informationAppendix A Silvicultural Prescription Matrix Spruce Beetle Epidemic and Aspen Decline Management Response
Appendix A Silvicultural Prescription Matrix Spruce Beetle Epidemic and Aspen Decline Management Response Treatment objectives within the matrix are a combination of objectives for silvicultural, fuels,
More informationBOISE FOREST COALITION MEETING BOGUS BASIN UPDATE
BOISE FOREST COALITION MEETING BOGUS BASIN UPDATE WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Idaho Department of Fish and Game 600 S. Walnut, Boise, Idaho Trophy Room October 15, 2015 Facilitators, Dick Gardner and Jim
More informationReduce Hazardous Fuels in the McKenzie Bridge Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI)
The McKenzie River Ranger District is proposing to provide a sustainable supply of timber products, reduce hazardous fuels in the McKenzie Bridge Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), and actively manage stands
More informationWalton Lake Restoration Project
Walton Lake Restoration Project Fire and Fuels Specialist Report, February 2017 Ochoco National Forest Lookout Mtn. Ranger District Barry Kleckler Fuels Specialist, Prairie Division, Central Oregon Fire
More informationAPPENDIX A VEGETATION RESTORATION TREATMENT SUMMARY ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE HARVEST TREATMENT SUMMARY TABLES
APPENDIX A VEGETATION TREATMENTS APPENDIX A VEGETATION RESTORATION TREATMENT SUMMARY This table provides information about the proposed treatment units including the existing conditions, the proposed treatment,
More informationCATEGORICAL EXCLUSION WORKSHEET: RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION WORKSHEET: RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS SCENIC QUALITY Jasper Mountain Priest Lake Ranger District Idaho Panhandle National Forest Description of the Proposed Action Vegetation management,
More informationVestal Project Proposed Action Hell Canyon Ranger District Black Hills National Forest April 2011
Vestal Project Proposed Action Hell Canyon Ranger District Black Hills National Forest April 2011 Introduction: The Vestal Project area is located surrounding the city of Custer, South Dakota within Custer
More informationSheppard Creek Post-Fire Project
Flathead National Forest Tally Lake Ranger District Sheppard Creek Post-Fire Project Purpose of the Project and Proposed Action December 14, 2007 This document presents information about the Brush Creek
More informationBoulder Creek Restoration Project
United States Department of Agriculture Boulder Creek Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Forest Service Idaho Panhandle National Forests Bonners Ferry Ranger District September 2017 For More
More informationRecord of Decision. Galena Project (Forest Plan Amendment MAL-73) Blue Mountain Ranger District, Malheur National Forest. Grant County, Oregon
Record of Decision United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region Galena Project (Forest Plan Amendment MAL-73) Blue Mountain Ranger District, Malheur National Forest Grant
More informationDear Interested Party,
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Idaho Panhandle National Forest Coeur d'alene River Ranger District P. O. Box 159 Smelterville, ID 83868 2502 East Sherman Avenue Coeur d' Alene,
More informationAppendix D. Design Features, Monitoring and Mitigation for East Fork Meadow Creek Alternative 2- South. Design Features D-1
Appendix D Design Features, Monitoring and Mitigation for East Fork Meadow Creek Alternative 2- South Design Features The following specific criteria must be applied during project implementation if either
More informationIdaho Panhandle National Forests
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Idaho Panhandle National Forests Sandpoint Ranger District 1602 Ontario Road Sandpoint, ID 83864-9509 (208)263-5111 File Code: 1950 Date: March 2,
More informationAppendix J. Forest Plan Amendments. Salvage Recovery Project
Forest Plan Amendments Salvage Recovery Project APPENDIX J Lynx and Old Growth Forest Plan Amendments CHANGES BETWEEN DRAFT EIS AND FINAL EIS Changes in Appendix J between the Draft and Final EIS include:
More informationSiuslaw National Forest. Central Coast Ranger District - Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Siuslaw National Forest Central Coast Ranger District - Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area 1130 Forestry Lane Waldport, OR 97394 File Code: 1950
More informationCFLRP Annual Report 2012
CFLR Project (Name/Number): Lower Kootenai River Watershed National Forest(s): Idaho Panhandle NFs Responses to the prompts on this annual report should be typed directly into this template, including
More informationFile Code: 1950 Date: March 22, 2011
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Mt. Hood National Forest Barlow Ranger District 780 NE Court Street Dufur, OR 97021 541-467-2291 FAX 541-467-2271 File Code: 1950 Date: March 22,
More informationEnvironmental Assessment
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service March 2010 East Fork Meadow Creek Environmental Assessment Bonners Ferry Ranger District Idaho Panhandle National Forests The U.S. Department of Agriculture
More informationCoulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Project
Coulton Floyd II Timber & Fuels Management Project Hahns Peak/Bears Ears District, Medicine Bow Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland Routt County, Colorado T9N R84W Sections 4-9,
More informationDecision Memo for Pax Ponderosa Pine Planting Project
Decision Memo for Pax Ponderosa Pine Planting Project USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region Fremont-Winema National Forests Lakeview Ranger District Lake County, Oregon Introduction The Lakeview
More informationKurtis Robins District Ranger US Forest Service 138 S Main
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Fishlake National Forest Fax: (435) 836-2366 138 S Main, PO Box 129 Loa, UT 84747 Phone: (435) 836-2811 File Code: 1950 Date: April 5, 2011 Kurtis
More informationReading Project Noxious Weed Risk Assessment Hat Creek Ranger District Lassen National Forest April 3, 2013
Reading Project Noxious Weed Risk Assessment Hat Creek Ranger District Lassen National Forest April 3, 2013 Prepared By: /s/ Tim Kellison Date: 05-31-2013 Tim Kellison Assistant Forest Botanist Reviewed
More informationTelegraph Forest Management Project
Telegraph Forest Management Project Black Hills National Forest Northern Hills Ranger District Lawrence and Pennington Counties, South Dakota Proposed Action and Request for Comments March 2008 Table of
More informationWildlife Conservation Strategy
Wildlife Conservation Strategy Boise National Forest What is the Wildlife Conservation Strategy? The Boise National Forest is developing a Wildlife Conservation Strategy (WCS) in accordance with its Land
More informationNotice of Availability of the Bog Creek Road Project Draft Environmental Impact
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 06/01/2018 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2018-11766, and on FDsys.gov 9111-14 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
More informationPurpose and Need - 1 Chapter 1 Purpose and Need
Purpose and Need - 1 Chapter 1 Purpose and Need Introduction 1-1 Project Area 1-1 Proposed Action 1-3 Purpose and Need for Action 1-3 Existing versus Desired Conditions 1-4 Management Direction 1-7 Purpose
More informationTwins Project Scoping Report
Twins Project Scoping Report Table of Contents Page I. Introduction 1 II. Purpose of and Need for Action 1 A. Landscape Ecosystem/Management Indicator 4 Habitat B. Spatial Patterns 6 C. Additional Wildlife
More informationPoker Chip Project. Noxious Weed Risk Assessment Almanor Ranger District Lassen National Forest
Noxious Weed Risk Assessment Almanor Ranger District Lassen National Forest June 3, 2013 Introduction When a ground-disturbing action or activity is proposed, a Noxious Weed Risk Assessment (NWRA) determines
More informationAlternatives, including the Proposed Action
Environmental Assessment II. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Chalk Parker Biodiversity Enhancement Project. It includes
More informationOak Flats Restoration Project Scoping Notice May 5, 2010
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Diamond Lake Ranger District, Umpqua National Forest 2020 Toketee Ranger Station Road Idleyld Park, Oregon 97447 (541) 498-2531 FAX 498-2515 Oak Flats
More informationTreatment/Project Area: Blanco Basin
Treatment/Project Area: Blanco Basin rev. 4/15/11 Geographic Area - Bounded on north by watershed divide between Rito Blanco and Rio Blanco (Blue Mtn and Winter Hills make up western half of divide), the
More informationAppendix A (Project Specifications) Patton Mill Fuel Break Project
Appendix A (Project Specifications) Patton Mill Fuel Break Project I. Proposed Actions: A. Construct a Fuel Break (approximately 5 miles, about 120 acres): The fuel break is located along a segment of
More informationIdaho Panhandle National Forests
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Idaho Panhandle National Forests St. Joe Ranger District 222 S. 7 th St. Suite 1 St. Maries, ID 83861 (208) 245-2531 File Code: 1950 Date: January
More informationI am posting this letter, along with maps on the National Forests in North Carolina website, at:
United States Forest National Forests in North Carolina 90 Sloan Rd Department of Service Nantahala National Forest Franklin, NC 28734-9064 Agriculture Nantahala Ranger District 828-524-6441 Dear Forest
More informationIntroduction. Methodology for Analysis
1 Medicine Lake Caldera Vegetation Treatment Project Scenic Report Prepared by: /s/gary Kedish Natural Resources Specialist for: Big Valley and Doublehead Ranger Districts Modoc National Forest February
More informationHalfway Malin Project
United States Department of Agriculture Halfway Malin Project Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Forest Service Idaho Panhandle National Forests St. Joe Ranger District September
More informationHyde Park Hyde Park Wildland Urban Interface Project. Scoping Information February 2017
Introduction The Santa Fe National Forest is working as part of the Greater Santa Fe Fireshed Coalition (GSFF) to change conditions across a landscape critical to the vitality of our communities. The GSFF
More informationDear Interested Party:
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests 2250 Highway 50 Delta, CO 81416 Voice: 970-874-6600 TDD: 970-874-6660 File Code: 1950/2410 Date:
More information3.15 SNAG AND SNAG ASSOCIATED SPECIES
3.15 SNAG AND SNAG ASSOCIATED SPECIES 3.15.1 Scope of the Analysis Snags play an important role in creating biodiversity on the landscape. They provide holes that are homes for birds and small mammals,
More informationSequoia National Forest, California; Summit Fuels Reduction and Forest Health. Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 09/16/2015 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2015-23236, and on FDsys.gov [3410-11-P] DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
More informationWhite Spruce Assessment Public Scoping Package
White Spruce Assessment Public Scoping Package Sault Ste. Marie and St. Ignace Ranger Districts Hiawatha National Forest Page intentionally left blank. 2 Introduction The Sault Ste. Marie and St. Ignace
More informationDECISION NOTICE, FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, and FINDING OF NON-SIGNIFICANT AMENDMENT for the
DECISION NOTICE, FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, and FINDING OF NON-SIGNIFICANT AMENDMENT for the LOWER SHEEP TIMBER SALE and FIRE REINTRODUCTION PROJECT USDA Forest Service Umatilla National Forest
More informationROCK CREEK FUELS AND VEGETATION PROJECT FORESTED VEGETATION ANALYSIS Karl Fuelling 9/18/2015
ROCK CREEK FUELS AND VEGETATION PROJECT FORESTED VEGETATION ANALYSIS Karl Fuelling 9/18/2015 CURRENT CONDITIONS The vegetation analysis for the Rock Creek project has been done using Arcmap with Vegetation,
More informationRock Creek Fuels and Vegetation Project
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service November 2014 Rock Creek Fuels and Vegetation Project Minidoka Ranger District, Sawtooth National Forest Cassia and Twin Falls Counties, Idaho Image
More informationLakeview Stewardship CFLRP Work Plan 2012
Responses to the prompts on this work plan should be typed directly into this template 1. Describe the manner in which the proposal will be implemented to achieve ecological and community economic benefit,
More informationCHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED. Introduction
CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED Introduction The Baldwin-White Cloud (BWC) Ranger District of the Huron-Manistee National Forests (HMNF) has proposed various management activities in the Bigelow-Newaygo Project
More informationGlass Angel Restoration Project
U S D A F O R E S T S E R V I C E Glass Angel Restoration Project Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forest Naches Ranger District 10237 U.S. Highway 12 Naches, WA 98937 509-6 5 3-1 4 0 0 The Proposal The
More informationChapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action
Final Environmental Impact Statement Plumas National Forest Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action Document Structure The Forest Service has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in
More informationTenmile and Priest Pass Restoration Project Scoping Notice
Introduction Tenmile and Priest Pass Restoration Project Scoping Notice USDA Forest Service Helena National Forest Helena Ranger District Lewis and Clark County, Montana The Helena Ranger District of the
More informationInventoried Roadless and Unroaded Areas
Inventoried Roadless and Unroaded Areas Introduction Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) are those areas identified in a set of inventoried roadless area maps, contained in Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation,
More information1. Protect against wildfires 2. Enhance wildlife habitat 3. Protect watersheds 4. Restore plant communities. Ford Ridge Project Area (pre-treatment)
OVERVIEW Ford Ridge is a multi-stage project planned and coordinated utilizing indepth scientific research and best management practices. Project implementation began in the spring of 2015, with additional
More informationHanna Flats GNA Project
Hanna Flats GNA Project Purpose and Need The purpose and need for this project may be refined in the future as more resource information is collected and collaborative and IDT discussions occur. However,
More informationProposed Action for the High Meadows Forest Plan Designation; Ecosystem Restoration; and Access Travel Management Project
Proposed Action for the High Meadows Forest Plan Designation; Ecosystem Restoration; and Access Travel Management Project USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit El
More informationAppendix E Post-Sale Activities
Appendix E Post-Sale Activities Post-Sale Activities The following projects would be funded with KV money if available. The projects have been selected based on a preliminary sale area boundary. If the
More informationPacific Southwest Region
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Regional Office, R5 1323 Club Drive Vallejo, CA 94592 (707) 562-8737 Voice (707) 562-9130 Text (TDD) File Code: 1570-1 Date:
More informationAppendix A: Vegetation Treatment Descriptions and Unit Specific Design Criteria
Appendix A: Vegetation Treatment Descriptions and Unit Specific Design Criteria The table below describes the Kabetogama Project proposed vegetation treatments associated with Alternative 2. The treatment
More informationPIPESTONE TIMBER SALE AND RESTORATION PROJECT RECORD OF DECISION
PIPESTONE TIMBER SALE AND RESTORATION PROJECT RECORD OF DECISION TABLE OF CONTENTS I. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF MY DECISION... 2 II. OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AREA... 3 III. OVERVIEW OF OUR ANALYSIS AND DECISION
More informationBottom Canyon Project
Prepared by: Morai Helfen Landscape Architect for: Coeur d Alene River Ranger District Idaho Panhandle National Forests April 2015 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against
More informationBUCK 13 TIMBER SALE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EA# OR
BUCK 13 TIMBER SALE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EA# OR-014-07-02 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LAKEVIEW DISTRICT - Klamath Falls Resource Area ABSTRACT: The following
More informationBear River Planning Unit. Fish, Plant, and Wildlife Habitat BEAR RIVER PLANNING UNIT
BEAR RIVER PLANNING UNIT Yuba-Bear River Watershed Bear River Planning Unit Above all, the Stewardship Council recommends close coordination with the upcoming relicensing effort to ensure consistency with
More informationHemlock Landscape Restoration: Noxious Weeds Assessment. Eric Vane Forester, Calaveras Ranger District
: Noxious Weeds Assessment Prepared By: Eric Vane Forester, Calaveras Ranger District Date: NOXIOUS WEED RISK ASSESSMENT HEMLOCK LANDSCAPE RESTORATION STANISLAUS NATIONAL FOREST CALAVERAS RANGER DISTRICT
More informationDECISION MEMO. Pine Ridge Fire Vegetation Project. USDA Forest Service Fremont-Winema National Forest Chiloquin Ranger District Klamath County, Oregon
DECISION MEMO Pine Ridge Fire Vegetation Project USDA Forest Service Fremont-Winema National Forest Chiloquin Ranger District Klamath County, Oregon Legal Location: Township 34 South, Range 7 East, Sections
More informationChapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action and Proposed Action
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action and Proposed Action Introduction The Goosenest Ranger District of the Klamath National Forest (KNF) is proposing a habitat restoration project on 2,226 acres in a
More informationATTACHMENT 4: DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT TYPES MESABI PROJECT
ATTACHMENT 4: DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT TYPES MESABI PROJECT Treatment Description Photo Example Create young forest with harvest Primary Treatments Two Age Cut Harvest is designed to maintain and regenerate
More informationCHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE & NEED
CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE & NEED BACKGROUND The need for action in the Falls Meadowbrook area is based upon the results of the following analyses: The 2004 Potamus Watershed Analysis An analysis of the existing
More informationMixed Conifer Working Group Meeting April 15, 2011 Water and Soil Resource Management Considerations
Mixed Conifer Working Group Meeting April 15, 2011 Water and Soil Resource Management Considerations It is difficult to tie watershed health directly to mixed-conifer forests. Watersheds encompass a variety
More informationUpper Fryingpan Vegetation Management Project
DRAFT Decision Notice Upper Fryingpan Vegetation Management Project USDA Forest Service Aspen/Sopris Ranger District, White River National Forest Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado Portions of sections
More informationEast Reservoir Draft Record of Decision
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Northern Region March 01 East Reservoir Kootenai National Forest Libby Ranger District Lincoln County, Montana The U.S. Department of Agriculture
More informationOutlook Landscape Diversity Project
Appendix D. Vegetation Landscape Diversity Project Prepared by: Lisa Helmig Forest Silviculturist for: Middle Fork Ranger District Willamette National Forest June 1, 2015 Appendix D Table 1 Integrated
More informationFontana Project Scoping Record August 2013
Fontana Project Scoping Record August 2013 The Cheoah Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest, is conducting an interdisciplinary analysis of a proposed project, called the Fontana Project, in Graham
More informationRIM FIRE Preliminary Fuel Treatment Effectiveness Report
RIM FIRE Preliminary Fuel Treatment Effectiveness Report USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Stanislaus National Forest DOI National Park Service, Pacific West Region, Yosemite National Park
More informationWhitebark Pine Restoration: You have to crack some eggs to make an omelette
Whitebark Pine Restoration: You have to crack some eggs to make an omelette o Whitebark Pine in Region 1 o Endangered Species Act Status USA o USFS Sensitive Species Status o NEPA Framework for Restoration
More informationCHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES
CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES Introduction This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Sheppard Creek Post- Fire Project. It includes a verbal description, a series of tables, and
More informationPrescribed Fire Prescription 1. MP: 43 ac UB: 167 ac Landings: 21
Appendix A: Proposed Thinning and Prescribed Fire Treatments This appendix contains parameters and prescriptions applicable to proposed commercial and non-commercial thinning treatments and prescribed
More informationStarry Goat Project Proposed Action
anlogo Department Name Agency Organization Organization Address Information United States Forest Kootenai National Forest 12858 US Highway 2 Department of Service Troy, MT 59935-8750 Agriculture 406-295-4693
More information3.14 VISUAL RESOURCE (SCENERY)
3.14 VISUAL RESOURCE (SCENERY) 3.14.1 INTRODUCTION The Lower West Fork analysis area lies in the Bitterroot Mountain Range and is bisected by the West Fork Road (State Highway 473). The Lower West Fork
More informationUpdated Scoping Information. Proposed Vallenar Young-growth Project
Updated Scoping Information Proposed Vallenar Young-growth Project What is the Forest Service proposing? The Forest Service is proposing to harvest young-growth forests to provide timber for the Tongass
More informationOchoco, Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman National Forests; Oregon and Washington; Blue Mountains
[3410-11- P] DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Ochoco, Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman National Forests; Oregon and Washington; Blue Mountains Forest Resiliency Project AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION:
More information