Draft Record of Decision

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service R5-MB-302 June 2017 Draft Record of Decision Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project Happy Camp/Oak Knoll Ranger District, Klamath National Forest Siskiyou County, California Abstract: This draft Record of Decision (ROD) documents the Deciding Officer s decision pertaining to the alternatives identified in the final EIS. Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Cooperating Agencies: None Responsible Official: Patricia A. Grantham, Forest Supervisor, Klamath National Forest For Information Contact: Lauren McChesney, Environmental Coordinator, Klamath National Forest Supervisor s Office, 1711 South Main Street, Yreka, CA 96097, (530) or laurendmcchesney@fs.fed.us

2 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA s TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C ; (2) fax: (202) ; or (3) program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. El USDA es un proveedor, empleador y prestamista que ofrece igualdad de oportunidad.

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Background... 1 The Gap Fire... 1 Project Proposed in Response to the Gap Fire... 1 Location of the Project Area... 3 Management Areas within the Project Area... 3 Purpose and Need DECISION... 7 The Selected Alternative... 7 Environmentally Preferable Alternative Regulatory Agency Requirements Prior to Implementation Project Monitoring REASONS FOR MY DECISION Management Areas of the Forest Plan Wildland Urban Interface Burn Severity Restoration Treatments OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Alternatives Considered in Detail but not Selected Alternatives Considered through Tribal Consultation Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Scoping Draft EIS Comment Period LEGAL AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS National Environmental Policy Act National Forest Management Act Clean Air Act Clean Water Act Endangered Species Act Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Act Floodplain Management National Historic Preservation Act Environmental Justice Prime Farmland, Rangeland and Forest Land Migratory Bird Treaty Act Invasive Species Findings Related to Special Areas Implementation Date Explanation of Negative Impacts of Implementation Delays Contact Information APPENDIX A: Vicinity Map and Selected Alternative Treatment Map APPENDIX B: Project Design Features and Best Management Practices for the Horse Creek Project... 46

4 List of Tables Table 1. Management areas found within the project boundary Table 2. Treatment Types and Areas of the Selected Alternative Table 3. Summary of Salvage Units Table 4. Wildland urban interface (WUI) acres with the project boundary by WUI zone Table 5. Burn Severity Acres by Land Ownership and RAVG Class Table 6. Karuk Alternative compared to Forest Service action alternatives List of Figures Figure 1. Alternative 2 proposed treatment map with WUI zones Figure 2. Gap Fire severity by RAVG class map Page 1

5 1. Background The Gap Fire The Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project was developed in response to conditions created by the Gap Fire, which began in the late afternoon of August 27, 2016, from an unknown cause. Significantly hot and dry (above 90 th percentile) conditions made initial fire control efforts difficult. Fire behavior was described as active with uphill runs, spotting, and active backing. The fire burned actively all thought the night of August 27 th. By Sunday morning (August 28 th ), the fire was under a mild inversion with reduced fire activity. At 2:40 p.m., an infrared scanning helicopter estimated fire size at 325 acres. As a northnorthwest to west-northwest wind began to blow later in the afternoon, the fire became aligned with the east-west lay of the Horse Creek drainage. As wind aligned with the drainage, fire activity and spread increased. The fire spotted to the north side of Horse Creek and fire activity increased significantly, spreading rapidly in an easterly direction. Late afternoon to early evening spot fires were observed up to one half mile ahead of the advancing fire and quickly became greater than 100 acres. The rapidly moving fire spread into the community of Horse Creek sometime in the 6:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. time period, destroying homes, outbuildings and personal property. At 9:48 p.m. on August 28 th, an infrared scanning airplane estimated the fire size at 4,099 acres. In just over seven hours, the fire had burned almost 3,800 acres (over six square miles). Over the next several days, the fire continued to grow rapidly and by Tuesday morning, August 30 th, it was over 8,800 acres, and had destroyed nine homes and 14 outbuildings and had forced the evacuations of the communities of Horse Creek and Hamburg, California. When the fire was officially declared contained on September 17 th, it had burned 33,867 acres, impacting the nearby communities, private structures, national forest and private infrastructure, private timberlands, and natural resources. Overly dense vegetation and fuels conditions, weather, and topography all played a role in the extreme fire behavior experienced on the Gap Fire. As weather conditions subsided (winds reduced and fuel moistures increased) along with surface inversions, less damaging fire behavior and effects occurred. A range of fire effects (or fire severity, a measure of how intensely a fire burns, related to the proportion of vegetation killed) can be found across the landscape. Within the 33,867-acre total Gap Fire perimeter, 21,580 acres of National Forest land burned 16,590 at low severity, 1,005 at low to moderate severity, 690 at moderate to high severity, and 3,295 at greater than high severity (see Chapter 1 of the FEIS for more details). Project Proposed in Response to the Gap Fire Fire plays a natural and important role within the Klamath Mountains ecosystem, and areas within the Gap Fire show positive effects from the fire such as reduced fuel loading and greater vegetative diversity through the creation of small canopy gaps. The intense fire that burned through the community of Horse Creek, destroying homes and private property, however, is horrific. The impact that this fire had on the community of Horse Creek was catastrophic. The Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Page 1

6 (Forest Plan) discusses responding to catastrophic events (such as the Gap Fire as it relates to communities and some private lands) as follows: Removal of trees killed by catastrophic events, such as fire, windthrow, drought, insects or disease (36CFR219.27(c)(1)), may be appropriate to promote the long term desired future condition of the Forest. Base the decision to salvage an area on an analysis of existing conditions following the disturbance and, at a minimum, shall include consideration of the economic, social and environmental consequence. (Forest Plan, Standard and Guideline 21-7, pp to 4-45) It is important to note that this discussion relates to areas where timber harvest is not normally scheduled. The Forest Plan clearly foresaw the eventuality of catastrophic fire burning into areas not normally managed as part of the timber program and yet seeing that the salvage harvest of dead and dying trees was necessary. 1 It is easy to look back after an event such as the Gap Fire and apply hindsight in considering all of the conditions that contributed to the severity of the event and what could have potentially been done to prevent or lessen the tragic outcome. My predominant thought on looking back is how incredibly thankful I am that no one was hurt or killed in the fire. My commitment now is to working with the local community and all interested parties to implement recovery actions that will not only increase the safety of the community today, but will address hazards into the future. I carefully considered and appreciate all the comments received on the draft EIS for this recovery project. Many of the comments related to the positive effects of most of the area burned, in that fuels were reduced and natural, ecological processes were re-introduced. I agree with that viewpoint. I also agree with the viewpoint that the destruction caused by the Gap Fire within the community of Horse Creek was unacceptable. This recovery project now has the opportunity to implement post-fire treatments focused on private property and roads that will contribute to preventing another fire from causing similar destruction in the future. Ultimately, fire does not choose who it affects. When the Gap Fire burned over 33,000 acres, it didn t care that it destroyed nine homes and forced the evacuation of 50 families. But I care. My obligation is to do my best to treat hazardous fuels conditions to keep this from happening again. As this recovery project moves forward, the community has done likewise. Local residents have come together to form the Horse Creek Fire Safe Council. The Council is seeking funds for treatment on private property and has embarked on community projects to help with cleaning up after the fire. Many of the private property potential projects are surrounded by National Forest System lands that burned at high severity, or are reached by Forest roads that are now surrounded by dead or dying hazard trees and have hazardous fuels built up along them. One of the many areas with tragically severe fire effects is the Horse Creek Special Interest Area, originally designated for its unique characteristic as an intact and highly diverse old-growth riparian ecosystem. The entirety of the Horse Creek Botanical Area was affected by the Gap Fire, with large losses of both overstory and ground vegetation especially in the area downstream of the confluence with Fish Gulch Creek. The Forest s responsibility to our local communities, as well as our obligation to comply with applicable portions of the Forest Plan, requires us to work to complement actions the local community is undertaking on private lands. In addition to considering our local communities and regulations, we must consider the safety of the public 1 As with any project on the Forest, numerous specific standards and guidelines apply; please see the Forest Plan Consistency Checklist within the project record and on the project website for more information. Page 2

7 overall as well as that of Forest employees and firefighters. This is why it is important to treat hazards along both roads open to the public and those only used with permission. While not negating any of the ecological benefits of the fire, I feel compelled to address areas that need additional assistance to get back on the trajectory towards desired conditions identified in our Forest Plan. Location of the Project Area The project is located on National Forest System lands adjacent to the community of Horse Creek, California in Siskiyou County: Township 45 North, Range 10 West, Sections 5 and 6; Township 45 North, Range 11 West, Section 2; Township 46 North, Range 10 West, Sections 2 to 11, 14 to 22, and 28 to 33; Township 46 North, Range 11 West, Sections 1 to 4, 9 to 16, 21 to 28, and 35 to 36; Township 47 North, Range 9 West, Sections 18 to 19 and 30; Township 47 North, Range 10 West Sections 9 to 17, 19 to 36; and Township 47 North, Range 11 West, Sections 26, 27 and 33 to 36; Mount Diablo Meridian. Private land accounts for about 15,238 acres within the project boundary, leaving about 25,596 acres that may be considered for treatment on National Forest System lands. Elevation ranges from 1,600 to 6,400 feet. It is located within the East Fork Horse Creek, Middle Horse Creek, Salt Gulch, Middle Creek, Buckhorn Creek, Lower Horse Creek, Kohl Creek, Collins Creek-Klamath River, Sambo Gulch-Klamath River, Middle Seiad Creek, Tom Martin Creek-Klamath River, Negro Creek, and Schutts Gulch-Klamath River 7th field watersheds. See Appendix A for vicinity and project treatment maps. The 40,834-acres project area includes the area burned in the Gap Fire plus one-quarter mile around the fire perimeter to incorporate hazardous fuel reduction treatments and fuel breaks (also identified as fuel management zones in the final EIS) near structures on private property. Management Areas within the Project Area This project is our proposal to treat specific areas, based upon the management areas that burned within the Gap Fire. Each management area has a different goal that is pertinent to the project. Appendix A displays the different management areas and the preferred alternative treatments. Late successional reserves: The objective of late successional reserves is to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and old growth forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for late-successional and old growth related species including the northern spotted owl. These reserves are designed to maintain a functional, interacting, latesuccessional and old growth forest ecosystem. Special interest areas: Manage for ecological processes and the unique features for which the area was designated. Promote public use, education, interpretation, and enjoyment of the special interest values of the area when such activities do not harm the values for which the area was designated. Develop partnerships with local or regional groups to foster public education and enjoyment of these special resources and research opportunities where possible. Riparian reserves: Maintain and restore riparian-dependent structures and functions of intermittent streams. Provide benefits to riparian-dependent and associated species other Page 3

8 than fish, enhance habitat conservation for organisms that are dependent on the transition zone between upslope and riparian areas, improve travel dispersal corridors for many terrestrial animals and plants and provide for greater connectivity of the watershed. Provide connectivity corridors among the late successional reserves. Be consistent with aquatic conservation strategy goals. Retention visual quality: Provide a level of attractive, forested scenery by maintaining the areas in a natural or natural-appearing condition. Manage human activities so they are subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Also manage human activities so they are not evident to the casual Forest visitor. Manage for a programmed, sustained harvest of wood products in areas that are capable, available, and suitable for timber management. Maintain stand health, as well as resilience to wildland fire, insect, disease, and other damage. Designated and recommend recreational rivers: Preserve the recreational rivers in a freeflowing condition. Protect the rivers and their immediate environments for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. Protect and enhance the outstandingly remarkable value(s) for which the river(s) are or would be designated, while providing for public recreation and resource uses that do not adversely impact or degrade those values. Management recreation activities to assure that the character and quality of recreation use would not cause adverse impacts on the resource values for which the rivers were designated or recommended. Partial retention visual quality: Provide an attractive, forested landscape where management activities remain visually subordinate to the character of the landscape. Manage human activities so they are subordinate to the character of the landscape. Manage for a sustained yield of wood products in areas capable, available, and suitable for timber production. Maintain stand health as well as resilience to wildland fire, insect, disease, and other damage. General forest: Provide a programmed, non-declining flow of timber products, sustainable through time. These levels may vary year to year, based on ecological processes. Maintain conifer stocking levels and high growth rates commensurate with the capability of the site to produce wood fiber. Intensively manage young regenerated stands to maximize growth potential. Maintain stand health, as well as resilience to wildland fire, insect, disease, and other damage. Emphasize salvage and restoration from catastrophic events. Reforest capable, but currently non-stocked, lands. Emulate ecological processes and stand and landscape patterns where possible. Within harvest units, maintain appropriate structure, composition, and ecological functioning of the area. Provide for snags and hardwood habitat to help maintain viable populations of wildlife species that require these structural components. Meet the visual quality objectives. Achieve less modified visual conditions when possible. Develop a transportation system to transport Forest commodities efficiently to available markets. Where possible, adjust planting levels to reduce pre-commercial thinning and fuel hazard costs in the future. Management areas within the project area are shown in Table 1 below. Table 1. Management areas found within the project boundary. Page 4

9 Management Area Acres (percent) of Project Area Pages in Forest Plan Goals Pertinent to This Proposal Management Area 5 Special Habitat Late Successional Reserves Management Area 7 Special Interest Areas (Horse Creek Botanical Area and Condrey Mountain Blueschist Geologic Area) Management Area 10 Riparian Reserves Management Area 11 Retention Visual Quality Objective 10,153 (40) 4-82 to (1) 4-97 to ,492 (25) to ,536 (6) to The objective of late successional reserves is to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and old growth forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for latesuccessional and old growth -related species including the northern spotted owl. These reserves are designed to maintain a functional, interacting, late-successional and old growth forest ecosystem. Manage for ecological processes and the unique features for which the area was designated. Promote public use, education, interpretation, and enjoyment of the special interest values of the area when such activities do not harm the values for which the area was designated. Develop partnerships with local or regional groups to foster public education and enjoyment of these special resources and research opportunities where possible. Maintain and restore riparian-dependent structures and functions of intermittent streams. Provide benefits to riparian-dependent and associated species other than fish, enhance habitat conservation for organisms that are dependent on the transition zone between upslope and riparian areas, improve travel and dispersal corridors for many terrestrial animals and plants and provide for greater connectivity of the watershed. Provide connectivity corridors among the late successional reserves. Be consistent with Aquatic Conservation Strategy goals. Provide a level of attractive, forested scenery by maintaining the areas in a natural or natural-appearing condition. Manage human activities so they are subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Also manage human activities so they are not evident to the casual Forest visitor. Manage for a programmed, sustained harvest of wood products in areas that are capable, available, and suitable for timber management. Maintain stand health, as well as resilience to wildland fire, insect, disease, and other damage. Page 5

10 Management Area Management Area 13 Designated and Recommend Recreational Rivers Management Area 15 Partial Retention Visual Quality Objective Management Area 17 General Forest Acres (percent) of Project Area Pages in Forest Plan 1,220 (5) to ,939 (19) 3,442 (14) to to Goals Pertinent to This Proposal Preserve the Recreational Rivers in a free-flowing condition. Protect the rivers and their immediate environments for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. Protect and enhance the outstandingly remarkable value(s) for which the river(s) are or would be designated, while providing for public recreation and resource uses that do not adversely impact or degrade those values. Management recreation activities to assure that the character and quality of recreation use would not cause adverse impacts on the resource values for which the rivers were designated or recommended. Provide an attractive, forested landscape where management activities remain visually subordinate to the character of the landscape. Manage human activities so they are subordinate to the character of the landscape. Manage for a sustained yield of wood products in areas capable, available, and suitable for timber production. Maintain stand health as well as resilience to wildland fire, insect, disease, and other damage. Provide a programmed, non-declining flow of timber products, sustainable through time. These levels may vary year to year, based on ecological processes. Maintain conifer stocking levels and high growth rates commensurate with the capability of the site to produce wood fiber. Intensively manage young regenerated stands to maximize growth potential. Maintain stand health, as well as resilience to wildland fire, insect, disease, and other damage. Emphasize salvage and restoration from catastrophic events. Reforest capable, but currently non-stocked, lands. Emulate ecological processes and stand and landscape patterns where possible. Within harvest units, maintain appropriate structure, composition, and ecological functioning of the area. Provide for snags and hardwood habitat to help maintain viable populations of wildlife species that require these structural components. Meet the visual quality objectives. Achieve less modified visual conditions when possible. Develop a transportation system to transport Forest commodities efficiently to available markets. Where possible, adjust planting levels to reduce precommercial thinning and fuel hazard costs in the future. Page 6

11 Purpose and Need Over the coming decades, snags (dead trees) created by the Gap Fire will break or fall and become ground fuels. As snags continue to decay, break, and fall, surface fuel loading and the severity and intensity of future fires will increase. Increased fire intensities and fallen snags will inhibit the effective control of future fires and put fire suppression crews at increased risk. Fallen hazard trees will also impact road access along miles of roadways, impairing fire suppression efforts and our flexibility to manage natural fire to reduce hazardous fuels. Local communities and residential enclaves are nestled within and adjacent to forests that are part of a larger fireadapted ecosystem. Hazardous trees and fuel conditions need to be abated where they exist within the wildland urban interface, especially within one-quarter mile of private property in burned areas, and areas identified as strategic. Strategic areas are where there is a greater likelihood that fires can be successfully contained or controlled in order to have better conditions for suppressing future fires. The goal is to protect the lives and properties of our local communities. Since the Gap Fire created unsafe conditions, the project will address the need for safety of the public, adjacent private landowners, forest workers, and firefighters. Within general forest and associated management areas, there is a need to recover timber volume from fire killed trees, reduce the probability and extent of future high-severity fire, and develop fire-resilient coniferous forests in severely burned areas. Within late-successional reserves and the Horse Creek Special Interest Area, there is a need for reduced fuels to decrease the risk of future large-scale high severity fire and loss of late successional habitat and for fire-resilient coniferous forest areas to meet the desired conditions described in the Forest Plan. See the Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for Action section of the FEIS for more details. 2. DECISION The Selected Alternative [This section may be updated prior to my decision in order to reflect the latest information.] Based on the analysis presented in the final EIS, supporting documentation, and review of tribal, public, and other agency input, I have decided to implement Alternative 4 (the preferred alternative) as the draft selected alternative. Alternative 4 was developed internally to meet the purpose and need and further reduce the effects to the northern spotted owl. Project actions were adjusted or removed in this alternative in areas that are more likely to be used by northern spotted owls. Each northern spotted owl activity center was evaluated to determine if it was a high value activity center, meaning it was an activity center more likely to support reproduction and contribute towards the species recovery. Within high value activity center core use areas, this alternative removes salvage harvest, reduces roadside hazard along dead-end roads, reduces roadside fuels, and minimizes the fuel management zone footprint. This alternative also reduces the amount of roadside fuels treatments within suitable northern spotted owl habitat and removes salvage units within the high value core use areas. Page 7

12 For a full description of this alternative and a detailed comparison with other alternatives considered, see Chapter 2 of the FEIS. See the treatment maps in Appendix A. The selected alternative incorporates the implementation of project design features and best management practices which are shown in Appendix B of this draft ROD and Chapter 2 and Appendix C of the FEIS. Table 2 below summarizes the acres by treatment type of the selected alternative. Table 2. Treatment Types and Areas of the Selected Alternative. Treatment Type Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Roadside Fuels Fuels Reduction Adjacent to Private Property Developing and Maintaining Fuels Management Zones Salvage Harvest with Site Preparation and Planting Site Preparation and Planting without Salvage Restoration Activities in the Horse Creek Special Interest Area Area 87 miles 315 acres 1,412 acres 684 acres 1,680 acres 458 acres 184 acres Project implementation is scheduled to begin in fall 2017 and will last about ten years. To facilitate treatment prescriptions, less than five miles of temporary roads will be needed. Seven existing temporary roads (2.44 miles) and 10 new (2.18 miles) temporary roads will be needed for short-term access to the project. These will be hydrologically stabilized following project completion. Existing landings will be used to the extent possible. Pursuant to 36 CFR 218, this project is subject to a pre-decisional administrative review (or objection) process. More information on the results of the objection resolution is provided in the Public Involvement section of this ROD. I chose the Selected Alternative because it meets all the elements of the Project s purpose and need (final EIS, Chapter 1, pp ) and is also the environmentally preferable alternative (as described below). The Selected Alternative is intended to strike a balance between the needs to provide public safety, recover timber value to accomplish needed work, reduce hazardous fuels to decrease the probability and extent of future high-severity fire, reestablish fire-resilient coniferous forests in severely burned areas, restore ecological functions within the Horse Creek Botanical Area, and minimize possible short-term impacts of implementation on northern spotted owls. Actions that are part of the Selected Alternative 1) Roadside Hazard Tree Removal (87 miles) Trees adjacent to National Forest System roads or along county roads adjacent to National Forest System lands within the project area will be evaluated for hazards. Three different assessments Page 8

13 will be made to determine roadside hazard trees, and within riparian reserves, identified hazard trees will be further evaluated to determine if they are removed or felled and left on site, as described below. First, we will identify any existing trees that pose a moderate or high risk hazard to the roadway using the criteria Report #RO Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region (Angwin et al. 2012). This report provides guidance on whether or not the tree is a hazard to a road. A tree can be fire-killed, green with a high hazard potential, or not fire affected but dead with a high hazard potential. Trees identified as having high hazard potential would be marked for cutting, and either removed or abated and left on site where necessary to meet the requirements of the Forest Plan. Trees identified as having a moderate hazard would be monitored and evaluated for possible future removal. Second, for trees under 40 inches in diameter, we will identify any fire-injured trees that have a 70 percent probability of dying in the next three to five years using the criteria in Report #RO Marking Guidelines for Fire-Injured Trees in California (Smith and Cluck, 2011). Those fire-injured trees that have 70 percent or greater probability of mortality would be considered potential hazards and would be marked for cutting, and either removed or abated and left on site if necessary to meet the requirements of the Forest Plan (e.g., for hazard trees within riparian reserves, as described below). Third, for trees equal to or greater than 40 inches in diameter, we will identify any fire-injured trees that have a 90 percent probability of dying in the next three to five years using the criteria in Report #RO Marking Guidelines for Fire-Injured Trees in California (Smith and Cluck, 2011). Those fire-injured trees that have 90 percent or greater probability of mortality would be considered potential hazards and would be marked for cutting, and either removed or left on site if necessary to meet the requirements of the Forest Plan (e.g., for hazard trees within riparian reserves, as described below). In stream course riparian reserves, all hazard trees will be felled according to the hazard evaluation described above; the difference is in what happens to a hazard tree once it has been felled. Within stream course riparian reserves, roadside hazard trees equal to or greater than 24 inches diameter at breast height will be felled and left on site if the following criteria are met: 1) the faller can safely fell the hazard tree away from the road without causing excessive damage to residual tree crowns or boles; 2) removal would cause excessive soil disturbance such as gouging; 3) the tree does not lean towards the road; 4) once fallen the tree would not disrupt flow through a drainage structure; 5) where leaving the felled tree would not contribute to or cause excessive fuel loading (this threshold may be met sooner in areas identified for fuels reduction); and 6) felled trees that are the furthest from the road, below the road, and on steeper slopes below the road will be favored for leaving. Hazard trees in stream course riparian reserves where these criteria are not met, or that are less than 24 inches in diameter at breast height, will be felled and removed. Removal of merchantable roadside hazard trees would include the use of ground-based and skyline logging systems. Non-merchantable trees would be cut and left when they are not along a road defined as strategic for fire suppression and needing fuels treatment. These nonmerchantable trees would be piled and burned where the treatment is along a strategic road for roadside fuels treatments, described below. Per agency policy, the public may obtain a permit to remove felled trees for firewood in accordance with permit requirements. The agency anticipates Page 9

14 the local public would remove firewood along roadways, especially near the communities of Horse Creek and Seiad Valley, California. See the discussion in the FEIS of roadside hazard tree abatement in the Special Interest Area for additional criteria that apply to roadside hazard only in that land allocation. No roadside hazard tree removal is proposed within inventoried roadless areas. Roadside hazards would be identified using the methods above, but some spur roads will not be treated as they are located in high valued core areas for the northern spotted owl. See the map in Appendix A for exact locations of treatments. Specific prescriptions for the selected alternative include: Roadside Hazard 1 (39 miles) Hazards to the roads would be identified using both the mortality and hazard tree guidelines. These hazards would be abated as proposed above. Roadside Hazard 2 (48 miles) All hazards would be abated as proposed above, except that different criteria will be used within northern spotted owl critical habitat or late successional reserves to determine when to leave felled trees on site. Within these areas, all hazard trees 40 inches and greater in diameter or fire injured trees (using the 90 percent probability of mortality) will be left on site except where it would be unsafe for the faller to direct the tree away from the road or where the fallen tree presents a direct hazard to the road. There is no attempt in this design feature to leave identified hazards standing; the hazards must be abated. 2) Roadside Fuels Treatment (315 acres) The National Forest System Road 46N60 would receive treatment within 150 feet on either side of the road. The 12 Road and 46N50 Road (part of the modified proposed action) would not receive this treatment. Treatments will still meet the purpose and need of the project but will reduce effects to the northern spotted owl in high valued core areas. To maintain strategic ingress and egress roads and to decrease the amount of activity-generated fuels in hazard tree removal areas, we propose to remove dead vegetation up to 18 inches diameter at breast height as well as small diameter live understory vegetation including live conifer trees up to 8 inches diameter at breast height and live hardwoods up 6 inches in diameter. Pruning retained conifers up to seven feet high within these zones would increase canopy base height and reduce the potential for crown fire initiation. Activity-generated fuels would be disposed of by a variety of methods, including manual and mechanical treatments, to meet desired conditions. Every piece of ground will be different, but in general the fuels reduction would use a spacing of 15 feet, keeping the larger, healthier trees in place. Where roadside fuels treatment crosses riparian reserves, no vegetation that provides effective shade to the stream channel or floodplain will be cut. Specific prescriptions include: Roadside Fuels 1: 150 feet on either side of the road; Page 10

15 Cut dead trees up to 18 inches diameter at breast height and pile and burn fuels up to the size class that is possible given implementation methods; Cut live conifer trees up to 8 inches diameter at breast height with 15 foot spacing and pile and burn fuels; Cut hardwoods up to 6 inches diameter at breast height, maintaining 20 to 25 foot spacing between cut trees; and Prune retained conifer trees up to seven feet high. 3) Fuels Reduction Adjacent to Private Property (1,412 acres) Fuels reduction treatments are proposed within the 500 feet of National Forest System lands adjacent to private property with an existing structure or that had a structure that was affected by the fire. Treatment would include removing dead vegetation up to 14 inches in diameter at breast height and live understory vegetation, including conifer trees up to 12 inches in diameter at breast height, and live hardwoods up to 6 inches in diameter, to reduce fire behavior activity, specifically reduced flame length and crown fire potential and intensity, to meet desired conditions. Pruning retained conifers up to seven feet high within this zone is proposed to increase canopy base height and reduce the potential for crown fire initiation. Activity-generated fuels would be disposed of by a variety of methods, including manual and mechanical treatments, to meet the desired conditions. Every piece of ground will be different, but in general the fuels reduction would use a spacing of 20 to 25 feet, keeping the larger, healthier trees in place. Where fuel reduction adjacent to private property prescriptions cross riparian reserves, no vegetation that provides effective shade to the stream channel or floodplain will be cut. The fuels reduction units adjacent to private property have three prescriptions throughout the project area. All three treatments will still meet the purpose and need of the project but will reduce effects to the northern spotted owl in high valued core areas. Specific prescriptions include: Private Property 1 (1,064 acres): same as above Private Property 2 (329 acres): Cut live trees up to 8 inches diameter at breast height with 20 to 25 foot spacing, pile and burn fuels; and Cut dead trees up to 12 inches diameter at breast height, pile and burn fuels up to the size class that is possible given the implementation methods. Private Property 3 (19 acres): Cut live trees up to 8 inches diameter at breast height with 15 foot spacing. Leave trees should be left in a clumped fashion over at least ten percent of the unit. Pile and burn the fuels; and Cut dead trees up to 10 inches diameter at breast height, pile and burn fuels. 4) Developing and Maintaining Fuels Management Zones (684 acres) During the Gap Fire, strategic dozer lines built during the Beaver Fire in 2014 or from past wildfires were reopened. Strategic ridge systems, many containing historic firelines already in Page 11

16 place, would be maintained by removing dead vegetation up to 18 inches diameter at breast height and small diameter live understory vegetation including live conifer trees up to 12 inches diameter at breast height, and live hardwoods up to 6 inches in diameter. Pruning retained conifers up to seven feet high within these zones is proposed to increase canopy base height and reduce the potential for crown fire initiation. Activity-generated fuels would be disposed of by a variety of methods, including manual and mechanical treatments, to meet desired conditions. These treatments are located on ridgetops and should not intersect with riparian reserves, however, if fuel management zones cross riparian reserves, no vegetation that provides effective shade to the stream channel or floodplain will be cut. The fuel management zone would be the same footprint as proposed above except for the fuels management zones between Hicks Gulch and Negro Creek. Although the same number of acres of fuels treatment would occur as in the proposed action, the fuels management zones between Hicks Gulch and Negro Creek are slightly shifted to position the fuels management zone more on the southern aspect. Each segment of the fuel management zones would receive one of three possible prescriptions (fuels zone 1, fuels zone 2, or fuels zone 3). Specific prescriptions: Fuels Zone 1 (342 acres): same as above Fuels Zone 2 (319 acres): Cut live trees up to 8 inches diameter at breast height with 20 to 25 foot spacing, pile and burn fuels; and Cut up to 18 inches diameter at breast height. For dead trees up to 16 inches at breast height, pile and burn the fuels up to the size class that is possible given he implementation methods. Leave cut dead trees 16 inches to 18 inches at breast height on site as woody debris; leave whole when possible. Fuels Zone 3 (23 acres): Prescription is applied only to the existing dozer line footprint for three fuel management zone segments; and In these three segments, the dozer line would be maintained by removing brush and trees up to 8 inches diameter at breast height. The fuels would be piled and burned. 5) Salvage Harvest with Site Preparation and Planting (880 acres Ground-based and 800 acres Skyline (Cable)). To reduce potential effects on spotted owl habitat, 363 acres of salvage harvest units in certain spotted owl activity centers would be deleted from the project, and an additional 52 acres of snag retention areas within remaining units would be added. Otherwise, this alternative is the same as that of the proposed action, below. Standing dead trees 14 inches in diameter at breast height or greater would be considered for salvage using the guidelines in Report #RO Marking Guidelines for Fire-Injured Trees in California (Smith and Cluck 2011). Fire-killed and fire-injured trees with a 70 percent or greater probability of dying within the next three to five years would be considered for salvage harvest. The Marking Guidelines for Fire-Injured Trees in California also addresses the evaluation of trees with signs of insect activity. Trees with this evidence will be removed as Page 12

17 described by the guidelines. Trees identified as hazards using the Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region along roads within salvage units will be felled to abate the hazard. Snags for wildlife will be retained based on 100-acre landscape areas according to numerical and diameter standards in the Forest Plan (p. 4-26). In any 100-acre area, snags within and outside salvage harvest units may contribute to these standards. Within harvest units, snags will be retained in all riparian reserves (stream and inner gorges) and in clumps in designated snag retention areas as necessary to meet these standards. Individual snags within harvest units will not be retained unless they have high quality habitat characteristics such as signs of decay and defect, cavities, broken or multiple tops, very large lateral branches and flattened canopy. In order to contribute to Recovery Action 12, very large snags that have these characteristics and are likely to persist until the next stand is capable of producing large snags should be retained wherever they occur, provided safety considerations can be addressed. If a wildlife snag must be felled for safety reasons, the entire tree will be left in place and shall not be bucked into smaller logs. Salvage logging treatments would be accomplished by a combination of ground-based and skyline logging systems. Seventeen temporary roads (ten new (2.18 miles) and seven existing (2.44 miles)) will be needed to access salvage units. All salvage units would be reforested as described in the site-preparation and planting section below. No salvage harvest is proposed within wilderness, backcountry, research natural areas, designated or recommended wild rivers, inventoried roadless areas, or riparian reserves. Proposed salvage units are shown in Table 3. Additional information about the logging systems used, please refer to the supplementary report on logging systems available in the project record. Table 3. Summary of Salvage Units Unit # Logging System Temporary Roads Management Areas Gross Area (acres) Snag Retention (acres) 1 Net Area (acres) Tractor N/A LSR Cable N/A LSR, Riparian Reserve Cable N/A LSR, Riparian Reserve Tractor N/A LSR, Riparian Reserve Cable N/A LSR Cable N/A LSR, Riparian Reserve Cable N/A Partial Retention VQO, Recreational River, Retention VQO, Riparian Reserve Tractor N/A Tractor N/A General Forest, Partial Retention VQO, Riparian Reserve 2 General Forest, Retention VQO Page 13

18 Unit # Logging System Temporary Roads Cable New Tractor New Management Areas General Forest, Partial Retention VQO, Retention VQO, Riparian Reserve 2 General Forest, Partial Retention VQO, Retention VQO Gross Area (acres) Snag Retention (acres) 1 Net Area (acres) Tractor N/A General Forest Tractor N/A Tractor N/A Cable N/A Tractor N/A Tractor N/A Tractor New Tractor Existing Roadbed Tractor New Cable New Cable Existing Roadbed Cable New Tractor N/A General Forest, Partial Retention VQO General Forest, Riparian Reserve 2 General Forest, Partial Retention VQO, Riparian Reserve 2 General Forest, Partial Retention VQO, Riparian Reserve 2 General Forest, Partial Retention VQO General Forest, Partial Retention VQO, Riparian Reserve 2 General Forest, Partial Retention VQO, Riparian Reserve 2 Partial Retention VQO, Retention VQO, Riparian Reserve 2 Partial Retention VQO, Retention VQO, Riparian Reserve 2 Partial Retention VQO, Retention VQO, Riparian Reserve 2 General Forest, Partial Retention VQO, Retention VQO, Riparian Reserve 2 General Forest, Partial Retention VQO, Riparian Reserve Tractor N/A Partial Retention VQO Cable New General Forest Tractor Existing Roadbed General Forest, Partial Retention VQO, Riparian Reserve Page 14

19 Unit # Logging System Tractor Temporary Roads Existing Roadbed Cable N/A Tractor Existing Roadbed and New Tractor New Management Areas General Forest, Partial Retention VQO, Riparian Reserve 2 General Forest, Partial Retention VQO, Riparian Reserve 2 General Forest, Partial Retention VQO Partial Retention VQO, Riparian Reserve 2 Gross Area (acres) Snag Retention (acres) 1 Net Area (acres) Tractor N/A Partial Retention VQO Cable N/A Partial Retention VQO, Riparian Reserve Tractor N/A Partial Retention VQO Cable N/A Partial Retention VQO, Riparian Reserve Totals: 2, ,771 1 Snag retention is riparian reserves and geologic riparian reserves. 2 Acres shown in riparian reserves are snag retention areas within the unit boundaries. There is no proposed salvage harvest in stream-related riparian reserves within salvage units. VQO = Visual Quality Objective 6) Site Preparation and Planting (without salvage) (458 acres) Forest stands selected for site preparation and tree planting are predominately plantations composed of standing dead trees generally under 16 inches in diameter at breast height. Both manual and mechanical methods would be used to cut or masticate standing dead trees depending on slope steepness, accessibility, and feasibility. Dead vegetation within plantations will be strategically cut, piled, and burned to prepare the site for reforestation activities. Some dead vegetation may be left standing on harsh sites to improve survival of seedlings by creating shade. Hardwood species that resprout after being top-killed by fire will not be intentionally removed from the stand and seedlings will be planted outside of the dripline of the resprouting hardwoods. Resprouted shrubs may also be cut, piled, and burned for site preparation. Activitygenerated fuels would be treated using a variety of methods including piling and burning, underburning, or lop and scattering. Reforestation would be accomplished by directly planting nursery-grown seedlings or by allowing natural regeneration. Tree species and spacing would depend on a variety of environmental factors, including considerations of climate change, elevation, slope steepness, slope position, aspect, and soil productivity. Reforestation would avoid creation of denselystocked plantations that would prevent the reintroduction of low-intensity prescribed fire at a later date by planting with variable densities to create highly textured stands with clumps and small openings. Seedling survival rates and competition from brush species will create a natural mosaic of species and stocking densities. Hardwoods would be considered when determining whether desired stocking objectives have been met. Page 15

20 Conifer seedlings would be released in the season following planting; if necessary, additional release would occur to provide for establishment. Manual release would include clearing woody herbs and small brush in a radius around selected trees. If the site is south-facing or droughty, dead vegetation may be strategically left on the south-side of the tree to moderate heat stress, especially in the first release. 7) Restoration Activities in the Horse Creek Special Interest Area (184 acres) Treatment within the Horse Creek Special Interest Area includes hazard tree removal, placing trees with or without rootwads attached into the stream channel, and planting hardwood and conifers within the riparian reserves. The Horse Creek Botanical Area is located on the main stem of Horse Creek between Crawfish Gulch and Hamburg Gulch. It parallels the creek, spanning both sides and encompassing the riparian zone and some of the adjoining hillside. It was selected for Administrative Withdrawal as a Special Interest Area (SIA) for its unique characteristic as an intact and highly diverse oldgrowth riparian ecosystem. Located near the community of Horse Creek, California, it is easily accessed by vehicle and little-to-no hiking is required for visitors to observe and appreciate the unique characteristics of the area. Prior to the Gap fire, the riparian zone was dominated by bigleaf maple and white alder, with large old-growth conifers interspersed throughout. Conifers in the SIA include Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, sugar pine, incense-cedar, and white fir. Unlike most botanical areas, the Horse Creek Botanical Area is not known to contain any federallylisted or protected botanical species. The entirety of the Horse Creek Botanical Area was affected by the 2016 Gap Fire. While the upstream half experienced only light to moderate fire severity, the downstream half below the confluence of Fish Gulch Creek was particularly impacted by the fire, with large portions experiencing moderate to high fire severity. The downstream area suffered large losses of both overstory and ground vegetation. Much of the conifer and riparian hardwood forest in the lower third of the Botanical Area has been lost. The resulting altered condition has triggered the need to initiate restoration efforts to allow the area to return to the condition for which it was designated a special interest area. Forest Service Road 46N50 runs parallel to Horse Creek throughout the entirety of the Botanical Area. This road is crucial to the communities of Horse Creek and Seiad Valley as the main egress and ingress route for residents in Horse Creek and Seiad Valley if State Highway 96 closes (due to wildfire, flooding, road damage, etc.) As a result of the widespread damage to trees caused by the 2016 Gap Fire, there is a need to reduce the hazard of dead trees falling on this frequently travelled route. Under this proposed action hazard trees in the Horse Creek Botanical Area would first be identified and marked by the district foresters along the 46N50 and 47N77 roads. Specialists (botanist, fisheries, and hydrologist) would then select which hazard trees would be the best candidates for use in restoration projects. The hazard trees selected by resource specialists would be used as 1) in-stream large woody debris; 2) forest coarse woody debris; or 3) stockpiled for future restoration work. Hazard trees not meeting these needs would either be removed as a forest product or moved to a cull deck to be used as firewood or burned. If needed, specific details such as directional falling and wood placement criteria will be determined by resource specialists. Page 16

21 Selected hazard trees would be felled or uprooted and placed within the Botanical Area as part of the restoration effort. Hazard trees not uprooted would be felled in such a way as to disguise signs of felling. Where practical, explosives would be used for uprooting and falling trees as well as for stump obliteration. Hazard trees would not be uprooted where they are located on road fill slopes since such action would destabilize the road prism, potentially causing slope failure and sediment discharge into Horse Creek. Within the Horse Creek Botanical Area, trees possessing either a combination of high quality wildlife habitat characteristics or having a minimum diameter at breast height of 40 inches will be subject to a 90 percent probability of mortality standard. Trees under 40 inches diameter at breast height will be subject to the 70 percent probability of mortality standard according to the roadside hazard tree removal treatment unless they demonstrate high quality wildlife habitat characteristics. For trees under 40 inches diameter at breast height to be subject to a 90 percent probability of mortality standard, at least two of the following high quality wildlife habitat characteristics must be present: 1) flat-topped crown that is not the result of mechanical damage; 2) very thick bark (3 inches plus) with fissures closed over (for Douglas-fir, white fir, and red fir) or large flat bark plates at least 4 inches across (for ponderosa pine) or at least 2 inches across (for sugar pine); and 3) large limb size (8 inches plus in diameter). Mainstem Horse Creek, including the section of mainstem that runs through the Special Interest Area, is critical habitat for federally-listed Southern Oregon/Northern California Coho salmon Coho salmon critical habitat in mainstem Horse Creek is considered to be in poor condition due to very high road density in the Horse Creek watershed that has resulted in excess sediment delivery to the mainstem and reduced the amount of large trees and woody debris available for natural recruitment into the mainstem. Long periods of fire exclusion coupled with extensive stand-replacement forestry is also a principal factor for the lack of large woody debris in mainstem Horse Creek. Under this proposal, many of the large dead hazard trees within the Special Interest Area that will need to be fallen for public safety will be placed into mainstem Horse Creek to restore the large woody debris component of Coho salmon critical habitat. Conifer species are preferred over hardwood species for placement into the stream because conifers have a much slower rate of decomposition in water. Uprooted or felled snags up to 30 feet in length, with a minimum diameter of 24 inches at breast height would be placed in the channel of Horse Creek to improve aquatic habitat conditions. These in-stream logs would be placed at a rate of 20 pieces per stream-mile, according to site potential of reference streams on the Forest. They would be positioned in a manner to secure them in place, minimizing risk to downstream properties in the event of a flood. Outside of the streambeds, fallen trees with a minimum diameter of 12 inches diameter at breast height would be left on the ground, optimally in full contact with the soil if possible, at a rate of up to 20 pieces per acre. These trees would be placed with the intention of creating beneficial ecological conditions to aid in restoration, while avoiding the creation of large accumulations of fuels or hazards to people visiting the botanical area. In areas of bare or severely-burned soil, fine organic material (typically fine branches or boughs harvested from fallen trees) would be used to achieve a minimum cover of 50 percent. Wherever possible, trees to be placed in-stream or on the ground would be sourced from the immediate area in order to minimize the disturbance caused by moving large trees. If the number Page 17

22 of hazard trees within the Botanical Area exceeds the need of the area, the excess hazard trees equal to or greater than 24 inches in diameter at breast height would be collected and staged offsite for use in future aquatic habitat restoration projects. Access to the restoration area by heavy equipment such as excavators or skidders would be restricted to the 46N50 road and landings, in order to minimize soil impacts. Excess trees less than 24 inches in diameter at breast height would be included in the timber sale to help offset the cost of implementation or moved to a cull deck to be used as firewood or burned. Activities generated material will be hand piled and burned where such concentrations would create hazardous fuels loading. As part of the restoration effort, portions of the Botanical Area would be planted or seeded with native, locally-sourced vegetation. This would be carried out with the intent to aid in the recovery process by: Restoring native species diversity; Accelerating development of large trees that can provide shade to the mainstem; Providing future recruitment of large woody debris; and Deterring invasion by non-native invasive plant species. The species used in planting would consist of mostly riparian hardwood, shrub, and forb species, with some conifers and grasses if deemed necessary or appropriate. Non-native invasive plants located within or near the Horse Creek Botanical Area would be treated manually or mechanically in order to prevent their spread into or within the area. Treatments would occur prior to, during, and after project implementation, with yearly repeated treatments as deemed necessary to achieve restoration goals. Connected Actions Connected actions are those actions that are an interdependent part of the Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project, and would not occur unless the Horse Creek Project is implemented. Road Access Project access will require the use of National Forest System, State, and County roads. Forest System roads will be maintained as needed for implementation as part of the regular Forest Road Maintenance program. There will be no roads added to the Forest System as a result of this Project. Seventeen temporary roads (ten new (2.18 miles) and seven existing (2.44 miles)) will be needed to access salvage units. All salvage units would be reforested as described in the sitepreparation and planting section above. Landings Existing landings from previous timber harvests will be used where possible. Landing size will be commensurate with operational safety. Cable and ground based logging systems will use the existing road prism as landings for logs wherever possible. Estimated individual landing size is between 0.1 and 1 acre. See project design features for protections regarding landings and postimplementation conditions (Appendix B). Page 18

23 Environmentally Preferable Alternative The environmentally preferable alternative is often interpreted as the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment or the alternative which best protects and preserves historic, cultural, and natural resources. Other factors relevant to this determination are provided in Section 101 of NEPA (42 USC 4321) which states that it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to: Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as a trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradations, risk to health of safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; Preserve important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our national heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice; Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life s amenities; and, Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources. Based on my consideration of the factors listed above and the effects disclosed in the final EIS, I believe that the Selected Alternative is the Environmentally Preferred Alternative. Although Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and the Karuk Alternative each had aspects that were suggested to be environmentally preferable, I ultimately do not believe they are environmentally preferable compared to the Selected Alternative. Alternative 1 would have no direct impacts (as it proposes no treatments) but it would result in undesirable negative environmental impacts in the future. An example of future undesirable environmental impacts would be an increased probability of high severity fire across the landscape due to untreated dead and dying fuels created by the Gap Fire. Alternatives 2 and 3 were also less desirable from an environmentally preferred standpoint, as the mix of treatments included in each would not result in as great an overall environmental benefit as the selected alternative. Alternative 2 would treat an increased amount of fire-affected landscape, further reducing the probability of future high severity fire impacts, but this benefit would be tempered by short-term environmental effects to endangered species. Alternative 3 would treat fewer acres of fire-affected landscape, which would not contribute as well to decreasing the probability of high severity fire impacts in the future. Although Alternative 3 would have fewer impacts to Coho salmon, because of existing conditions after the Gap Fire, it would still have the same Likely to Adversely Affect determination as Alternatives 2, 4, and the Karuk Alternative. It also had greater short-term effects to northern spotted owls. The Karuk Alternative was also less desirable from an environmentally preferred standpoint, as it does not contribute as much as the selected alternative to reducing the probability of future high severity fire. It also has greater environmental effects to endangered species due to inclusion of increased treatments to green fuel break areas within critical habitat for the northern spotted owl, which are estimated to downgrade an additional 80 acres of critical habitat. The Karuk Alternative also Page 19

24 proposes a decreased amount of reforestation, thus achieving a reduced environmental benefit from the accelerated re-establishment of forested conditions in larger blocks of high severity fireaffected areas. For more specific information on each Alternative s respective impacts, please refer to the effects analysis for each resource within Chapter 3 of the FEIS. Reasons why Alternative 4 is Environmentally Preferable In addition to consideration of the guidance above, I believe that Alternative 4 is the environmentally preferable alternative because it: Best provides for the long-term management of the project area in a manner consistent with the Forest Plan of the Klamath National Forest. Removes hazard trees to provide for public safety and Forest Service employee safety which includes firefighters accessing the area in possible future fires. Reduces the size and continuity of future fuels conditions, providing for more resilient forested conditions and reduced high-severity wildfire fire risk for the benefit of community protection and wildlife and watershed habitat. Includes salvage harvest treatments that complement proposed fuel reduction and strategic fuel management zones as part of a landscape-scale strategy to reduce the size and severity of future fires. Creates large blocks where fuel loads have been reduced; in concert with ridgetop fuel breaks it provides control points for fire suppression and increases the likelihood that large fires could be contained along watershed boundaries. Reduces the size and severity of future fires, serves to reduce risk to wildlife habitat and improves the likelihood of firefighting success. Salvage harvest would also promote ecosystem sustainability by increasing the likelihood and speed by which burned forested areas are reforested by opening areas for safe planting. Provides an excellent means of capturing economic value through salvage logging in a cost-effective way while simultaneously providing for other important project objectives. The actions implemented by this decision will generate revenues through the sale of salvaged timber to offset the need for public expenditures through Congressional appropriation to create a safe environment for current and future public use. Includes additional protective measures beyond the minimum required by the Forest Plan and agency policy for the protection of watershed conditions and federally-listed species. This alternative is designed to strike a reasonable balance between minimizing short-term impacts on some species and long-term conservation of the same and other species, including the northern spotted owl and Coho salmon. Regulatory Agency Requirements Prior to Implementation Requirements of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board After decision but prior to implementation of the project, the Forest Service will meet all the relevant conditions for the Non-point Source Sediment Discharge Waiver of Waste Discharge Page 20

25 Requirements for Nonpoint Source Discharges Related to Certain Federal Land Management Activities on National Forest System Lands in the North Coast Region (Order No. R ; hereinafter Waiver ). The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) may require treatment of a number of existing legacy sites as conditions for enrolling the Horse Creek Project under the Waiver. This will meet the requirements for the Clean Water Act, the Total Maximum Daily Load and the Basin Plan. The Standards and Guidelines in the Forest Plan are met through project design and analysis (see the Forest Plan Consistency Checklist in the project record and the Hydrology Resource Report, available on the project website). The Water Board was informed about progress on the project and the Forest Service responded to their scoping comments (see Horse Creek Scoping Outcome Summary on the project website) and comment period comments (see Response to Comments on the project website). Project Monitoring Project monitoring will occur during and after implementation to ensure that the objectives of the project are achieved, and where necessary, additional actions are taken. Monitoring elements include: Continued protocol surveys for northern spotted owls known to be in the project area. Sample effectiveness monitoring of water quality BMPs. This determines whether the measures taken to protect water quality worked as designed. Project implementation and contract administration by Forest Service timber sale administrators to ensure that the terms of timber sale contracts are followed, project design features are implemented as planned, and water quality BMPs are adhered to. Follow-up surveys after tree planting is completed. This validates whether reforestation was successful. If necessary, sites will be replanted to meet stocking objectives. Follow-up surveys of new and known noxious weed populations. The Forest Noxious Weed Detection and Treatment Program will continue to monitor for new infestations of invasive plant species that may be introduced or spread throughout the project area and Forest lands. Follow-up surveys of planting of native species in the Horse Creek Special Interest Area. Surveys of at-risk historic properties and cultural resources during implementation to ensure the effectiveness of resource protection measures pursuant to the Regional Programmatic Agreement. 3. REASONS FOR MY DECISION My thanks to all the people, organizations, governments, tribes and agencies who took the time to submit comments, attend field trips and public meetings, or otherwise engage in helping inform my decision on this important restoration project. It is a testament to the amazing characteristics of the Klamath that so many people, both those who call this place home and those who live far away, care so deeply about its future. All of my decisions as Forest Supervisor are enriched by these perspectives and the information that is shared with us during the Page 21

26 development of projects. This breadth of interest also means that there are often opposing and conflicting viewpoints of how projects should be planned and accomplished. Everyone brings a different lens to their view. For some, the lens is tinted with 10,000 years of traditional ecological knowledge. For others, it s affected by seeing the effects of 100 years of fire suppression. For some, the lens focuses on burned houses or the effects of smoke on an asthmatic child. For others, it s only influenced by an online blog claiming that the Forest Service is planning to clearcut old growth forests again, and that the agency is disregarding local tribal interests. 2 While each (and others) of these lenses are valuable in understanding how the world is viewed, none of them individually can capture the world in its entirety. The count of similar or identical comments, therefore, does not drive decisions. Decisions are based upon considering all of these shared perspectives through the lens of the Forest Service mission to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. It is our responsibility to consider all these voices and come to a single decision to provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people in the long run. After fire suppression efforts on the Gap Fire reached containment, the decision on what to propose (if anything) in response to the fire-created conditions on the landscape was initially not an easy one. The Klamath is an active Forest with many projects at various stages of planning, implementation, and post-implementation monitoring. Even prior to the Gap Fire, our resource specialists and other employees were already stretched thin working on multiple simultaneous projects and often covering multiple positions to fill in for staff vacancies. Many of us had already spent long hours working through the Salmon Salvage Project (2014) and the Westside Fire Recovery Project (2016) and were reluctant to take on another large project, especially one that would require meeting an accelerated timeline. I also knew that putting forth a post-fire project would mean putting other green projects on hold, potentially risking having other areas burn in the future that could have been treated had we not reallocated resources for this project. In the end, our decision on whether to propose a post-fire project was made by listening to the communities affected by the Gap Fire. After meeting with individuals and families affected by the fire, and seeing how much the community pulled together to improve post-fire conditions on private lands, we could not in good conscience walk away from doing our part to complement and secure their efforts. We will no doubt continue to have areas of the Forest that would benefit from pre-fire treatments, but at this time, my decision is to treat the immediate hazards that exist on the landscape created by the Gap Fire and improve conditions to reduce the chances of a future fire creating a high severity burn. Management Areas of the Forest Plan Once the decision to propose a post-fire project was made, our next step was to consider the entire area of the burn and compare that with our management areas laid out in our Forest Plan, which gives us overall objectives and standards and guidelines for managing resources within those specific areas. In this case, late successional reserves, riparian reserves, partial retention visual quality objective, and general forest management areas combined cover the vast majority 2 As we noted in the glossary of the FEIS, clear-cut logging, or clearcutting, is An even-aged management silvicultural system applied to green (emphasis added) forest stands for the purpose of regenerating a new age class. Trees are selected and removed in groups up to 40 acres in size followed by artificial or natural regeneration. Page 22

27 of the project area (98 percent, not accounting for overlap of riparian reserves with other management areas). See Management Areas within the Project Area section above and the treatment map with management areas in Appendix A for more specific details. Wildland Urban Interface Although not a management area within our Forest Plan, the wildland urban interface (WUI) within the project area strongly shaped our proposed treatments for the Horse Creek Project. The wildland urban interface is divided into three zones: 1. Home Ignition Zone (Zone 1): This is a 100-foot zone around structures as identified by State of California Public Resource Code The goal of this zone is to have no crown fire and for flame lengths to be less than two feet, and Fuels shall be maintained in a condition so that a wildfire burning under average weather conditions would be unlikely to ignite the structure on 100 percent of the land base (State of California Public Resource Code 4291). 2. Defense Zone (Zone 2): This is a quarter mile buffer around structures and other human developments. The goal of this zone is to create an environment where firefighters can safely and effectively suppress wildfires by treating fuels and vegetation to reduce flame heights below four feet and have no crown fire under 90 th percentile weather conditions on 100 percent of the land base (USDA USDI 2001b, Nowicki 2002) 3. Threat Zone (Zone 3): This is a 1.5 mile buffer around structures and other human developments. The goal of this zone is to treat fuels and vegetation to reduce crown fire to a surface fire before reaching the community fire defense zone under 90 th percentile weather conditions (USDA USDI 2001b). Research suggests (Finney 2007, Schmidt et al. 2008) that at least 20 percent of the land base should be strategically treated to increase landscape level fire resilience. Table 4. Wildland urban interface (WUI) acres with the project boundary by WUI zone. WUI Zone Federal Acres Private Acres Total Acres Percent Federal Home Ignition Zone Defense Zone 1,025 3,075 4, Threat Zone 16,215 9,700 25, Flame length potential may be used as a proxy for community safety or resilience to wildfire. Nowicki (2002) states The protection of houses and communities from the threat of forest fire depends upon the proper treatment of the wildland-urban interface, the area directly adjacent to houses and communities. The protection of the house depends entirely on treatment of the home ignition zone regardless of what treatments are implemented in the adjacent forest. Cohen (2008) also notes that the home ignition zone principally determines a home s ignition potential. Lowering flame lengths to a level conducive to safe and effective firefighting is the main goal of fuel reduction in the wildland urban interface. In order to reduce both direct flame impingement and resulting home ignition, as well as to provide space for firefighters to suppress the fire directly, the 100-foot home ignition zone should have flame lengths of two feet or less. In the Page 23

28 surrounding quarter mile defense zone, flame lengths of four feet or less are essential in providing an extra buffer for firefighter safety, and lessen the chances of firebrands from nearby vegetation igniting structures. Fuel reduction in the outlying 1.5 mile threat zone can help to lower the intensity of an approaching front into the defense zone, but does not have a noticeable effect on reducing home ignitions. Strategically based treatments, such as on ridgelines and roads, help reduce fire behavior in areas often utilized by fire suppression resources. In addition, roads serve as important ingress and egress routes during emergencies such as wildfire and may serve as alternative routes for safety and evacuation if needed. The interdisciplinary team designed the project around the wildland urban interface. Figure 1 shows the three different WUI zones and the proposed treatments as scoped. Page 24

29 Figure 1. Alternative 2 proposed treatment map with WUI zones. Page 25

30 Burn Severity After considering the management areas within the burn area and wildland urban interface, our next questions were: what are the areas most affected by the fire? Where would potential treatments create the most benefit for public safety and hazardous fuels reduction? Where is it best to leave small, natural gaps where there are plenty of seed sources nearby for natural regeneration? These questions were informed in large part by the fire severity map shown in Figure 2 and contrasted in Table 5 below. The majority of high-severity fire occurred right around the community, which helped us focus the location of our treatments to propose. Page 26

31 Figure 2. Gap Fire severity by RAVG class map. Page 27

32 Table 5. Burn Severity Acres by Land Ownership and RAVG Class Land Owner Klamath National Forest (acres) Klamath National Forest (percent) Private Lands (acres) Private Lands (percent) All Ownership acres All Ownership percent Low: less than 25 percent severity Low to Moderate: 25 to 50 percent severity Moderate to High: 50 to 75 percent severity Greater than High: greater than 75 percent severity Total* 16,590 1, ,295 21, , ,565 12, ,640 1,490 1,040 4,860 34, High severity patch size ranged from less than one acre to 1,050 acres. Numerous contiguous patches of over 100 acres occurred within the project boundary. It is important to note that previous wildfires in the area (e.g., 2014 Beaver Fire, 2014 Happy Camp Complex Fire, 2012 Goff Fire, 2008 Klamath Theatre Fires) have shown significant increases in delayed mortality over time. The Happy Camp Complex Fires of 2014 increased severity by an estimated 10 percent after the first year and delayed mortality is still occurring. In other words, severity in Table 5 is anticipated to increase from delayed mortality (e.g. delayed fire effects, drought, stress, and insects) by at least seven to 12 percent or higher resulting in increased high severity patch sizes. In addition, many of these patch sizes are uncharacteristically large compared to the historic fire regime of the Klamath Mountains described by Skinner et al Restoration Treatments Ultimately, the proposal to treat around the community was relatively straightforward, but the question remained regarding what to do within the rest of the burn area. After any fire, a lot of the comments we receive advocate for us to leave the entire burn area without treatment and to rely solely on natural regeneration to return the area to forested conditions. People talk of natural fire regimes and the increased biodiversity following a fire as new species move in to the burned areas and rates of growth are fastest without competition. Although the percentages of burn severity might be relatively within the normal range for local fire regimes, the distribution of high-severity patches is not. In the Gap Fire, high severity patch size ranged from less than 1 acre to 1,050 acres. Many of these patch sizes are uncharacteristically large compared to the historic fire regime of the Klamath Mountains described by Skinner et al (see the Fire and Fuels Report for more details). The Klamath National Forest contains 381,100 acres allocated to wilderness, where management goals are to manage for wilderness characteristics, natural conditions, and ecological processes. No wilderness exists within the Gap Fire area. Instead, the fire burned areas where our Forest Plan directs us to take action on the landscape. Wherever conflicts between standards and guidelines exist, it is my duty as Forest Supervisor to make the determination of which standards and guidelines apply at the project level. Page 28

33 In this project, it was discussed internally and in public comments whether the project should include treatments within the Horse Creek Special Interest Area and also within the Siskiyou Crest area. Generally, the proposed restoration treatments within the Horse Creek Botanical Area were widely accepted by interested parties, including by the Karuk Tribe and the Environmental Protection Agency. Treatments within the Siskiyou Crest, however, were vigorously discussed, even before the Gap Fire. In the Horse Heli 2006 EIS, the existing conditions for the Siskiyou Crest units (which were dropped from the Horse Heli Project) state that fire suppression kept wildfires out of these stands, so survival was high for young trees that normally would have been thinned out by repeated ground fires or crowded out by large trees, resulting in high stand densities. Stand density index (defined as the number of trees per acre with an average stand diameter of 10 inches) is used to measure stand densities (Zhang et al. (2005) found a strong correlation between stand density index values and tree mortality in red fir. As stand densities increase, so does competition for water and nutrients. Trees become stressed and weakened with limited nutrients to go around, leading to slower growth rates and increased susceptibility to insects and disease. Trees on the Siskiyou Crest are infested with dwarf mistletoe, Cystospora, and Annosus root disease. Many Siskiyou Crest stands are declining due to the combined impacts of disease, drought stress, and fir engraver beetles. Mortality is beginning to outpace growth. Late-successional forest characteristics are disappearing as canopy closure is lost and large trees succumb to disease. Openings of 5 to 25 acres are being created. (Silviculture section Horse Heli EIS) High disease and mortality rates are increasing fuel loading, causing significant accumulations of fine and coarse fuels. This is particularly severe in the red fir stands, which cover 80 percent of the Horse Heli EIS area and have not experienced a fire in over 100 years. Due to the vegetation and location, fire behavior (the way a fire reacts to fuels, weather, and topography) will likely be driven more by fuels and weather than topography. The Horse Creek Ecosystem Analysis, fuel surveys and field visits done during the Horse Heli project, indicate that the project area is at substantial risk of a stand-replacing wildfire from the effects of drought, disease, pests, overcrowding, and fire exclusion. (Fuels section Horse Heli EIS) Several commenters expressed the need to maintain habitat connectivity along the Siskiyou Crest to allow species to migrate and to adapt to changing climate. Land allocations in the Klamath Forest Plan are intended to maintain habitat and connectivity for species dependent on late successional and old growth forests by providing large reserves (the late successional reserves) to maintain species meta populations and dispersal corridors (the riparian reserves) to allow migration and movement. At the project scale, elements such as green tree retention, retention of coarse woody debris, snag retention, the Survey and Manage requirements to protect rare species and their habitats, and consultation with regulatory agencies under the Endangered Species Act provide additional protections. These strategies are not inconsistent with those identified by Olson et al (2012). We also agree that logging and road building can adversely affect habitat if these circumstances are not considered. By following the strategies outlined in the Klamath Forest Plan, and consulting with regulatory agencies, we believe we are minimizing those impacts to habitat connectivity. While the comments cite a recent journal article on refugia (Olson et al, 2012), commenters provide no evidence that the land allocations and management Page 29

34 prescriptions in the Klamath Forest Plan are incongruent with Olson et al. (2012) or that the Horse Creek Project is not consistent with the direction in the Forest Plan with respect to species conservation. In alternatives 2 and 4, proposed salvage units near the Siskiyou Crest are in matrix lands in patches of high severity burn where most, if not all, of the trees are dead. There are no salvage units along the Siskiyou Crest in late successional reserves in any of the action alternatives. Riparian reserves are flagged out of any salvage unit and will remain uncut. Snag retention areas have also been designated where needed to provide connectivity. Coarse woody debris will be retained in the amounts specified in the Forest Plan. Alternative 3 was developed to be responsive to comments and drops all salvage harvest near the Siskiyou Crest. Alternatives 2 and 4 have the highest probability of restoring habitat connectivity along the Siskiyou Crest. They will reestablish coniferous forests decades sooner than large severely burned areas that are not planted because alternatives 2 and 4 reduce the risk of future high severity fires and accelerate the development of late successional forests. Alternative 3 would have the same effect as "no action." In alternative 3, these large patches of high severity burn near the Siskiyou Crest are likely to become semi-permanent brushfields that are maintained by high-severity fire (FEIS pg. 218). This trajectory is not likely to provide the refugia or connectivity that is the concern of the commenters. For these reasons, I have decided to include the Siskiyou Crest units within the draft decision, as I believe that our proposed treatments would be more consistent with our Forest Plan and the basis of concerns raised by the public than would leaving the area untreated. 4. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The following sections present the other alternatives considered in detail but not selected and the alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study. Alternatives Considered in Detail but not Selected Alternative 1 Alternative 1, the alternative to take no action, was not selected because it failed to address the purpose and need of the Project. Hazard trees would not be abated from roads, fuels would not be treated along roadways and boundaries with private property containing structures (or that had a structure before the Gap Fire), and fuel management zones would not be developed or maintained. Salvage harvest, site preparation, and planting would not occur. Finally, restoration treatments would not occur in the Horse Creek Special Interest Area. For this reason, in my opinion this option is unacceptable. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the refined proposed action, and treated the most acres of any of the action alternatives. Alternative 2 was not selected primarily because of the potential impacts on northern spotted owls and their habitat. Page 30

35 Alternative 3 Alternative 3 was developed in response to concerns raised in scoping about the potential effects of salvage harvest along the Siskiyou Crest and temporary road construction. This alternative would have eliminated treatment in 18 units (14 within the Siskiyou Crest, and four additional units that proposed use of new or existing temporary roads). Alternative 3 would have the same effect as "no action" within the Siskiyou Crest. In alternative 3, these large patches of high severity burn near the Siskiyou Crest are likely to become semi-permanent brushfields that are maintained by high-severity fire (FEIS p. 218). This trajectory is not likely to provide the refugia or connectivity that is the concern of the commenters, which is why the alternative was not selected. In addition, the proposed treatments in areas outside of the Siskiyou Crest would not have the protections put in place to minimize effects to northern spotted owls. Alternatives Considered through Tribal Consultation Eight days prior to the close of the 30-day comment period (which closed on December 23, 2016), we started receiving form letters requesting we work with communities, scientists, and the Karuk tribe and to listen to and respect native people, in this case the Karuk Tribe. On January 29, 2017, we received final scoping comments from the Karuk tribe. The tribe s comments (including a proposed alternative, referred to as the Karuk Alternative) were incorporated into the draft EIS. Several commenters pointed out that they were confused about how we considered the Karuk Tribe s alternative proposal, since we did not clearly categorize it in the draft EIS under alternatives considered in detail or alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study. Rather, we created a new section between those two, entitled Alternative Developed as a Result of Tribal Consultation with the Karuk Tribe (Karuk Alternative). We determined this was the best approach to describe our analysis of the Karuk Alternative. We incorporated comments on the draft EIS into the final EIS to clarify that we considered the Karuk Alternative but that it was eliminated from further detailed study for reasons described below. The central theme in the Karuk Alternative is taking action that, according to the Karuk Tribe, facilitates returning low and moderate severity fire to the landscape, while providing for public safety. The Karuk Alternative contains some degree of all of the elements of the proposed action except reforestation of salvage units and burned plantations. Acres treated or specifications differ from the proposed action described by the Forest Service in some treatment types, as shown in Table 6. Table 6. Karuk Alternative compared to Forest Service action alternatives. Action (Unit of Measure) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Karuk Alternative Karuk Alternative Actions in Proposed Action Karuk Alternative Actions not in Proposed Action 1) Roadside Hazard Tree Removal (miles) ) Roadside Fuels Treatments (acres) * Page 31

36 Action (Unit of Measure) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Karuk Alternative Karuk Alternative Actions in Proposed Action Karuk Alternative Actions not in Proposed Action 3) Fuels Reduction Adjacent to Private Property (acres) 1,412 1,412 1,412 1,616 1, * 4) Fuels Management Zones (acres) * 5a) Salvage with Site Preparation and Plant- Ground-Based Yarding (acres) 1, b) Salvage with Site Preparation and Plant- Cable Yarding (acres) ) Site Preparation and Plant without Salvage (acres) ) Horse Creek Special Interest Area (acres) Temporary Roads (miles) *See specific treatment types below for descriptions of why these additional acres were not included in the proposed action. The Karuk Alternative is generally in agreement with the following actions or principles found in the Forest Service proposed action: 1. Fuels reduction adjacent to private property (500 foot buffer); 2. Roadside fuels treatment (150 foot buffer, each side of the road); 3. Fire fighter safety; and 4. Protection of private property. The primary differences between the Karuk Alterative and Alternative 2 (originally the Proposed Action) are an increase in the acres of roadside fuels, fuels reduction adjacent to private property, and fuel management zones; and a decrease in the acres of salvage harvest (see Chapter 2, pp of the FEIS for more details on the Karuk Alternative and its differences from the proposed action). Except for the Special Interest Area, the Karuk alternative proposes no site preparation and planting within high fire severity burned forested areas such as those proposed in Alternative 2 (i.e. plantations or salvage harvest units). Proposed treatments within the Karuk Alternative for roadside hazard tree removal and for restoration activities in the Horse Creek Special Interest Area are not substantially different from the proposed action and therefore were not analyzed in detail in a separate alternative. Roadside fuels treatments proposed in the Karuk Alternative did substantially differ from our proposed action by adding 109 acres. The location of this addition within LSR and critical habitat for northern spotted owl would lead to downgrading about 80 additional acres of suitable habitat. Since roadside hazards would be abated in this area without the additional treatment, we are unwilling to accept the additional toll Page 32

37 on northern spotted owl critical habitat and this proposed treatment is not further considered in detail. Fuels reduction adjacent to private property is only different in the Karuk Alternative because the Karuk proposal added areas that are already under approved NEPA and a current service contract or that does not have a current or pre-fire structure to protect; since this is not substantially different from the proposed action, it is not analyzed in detail in a separate alternative. Similarly, the only difference for the fuels management zones is that the Karuk Alternative proposed incorporation of an area that is already covered under previous NEPA, and thus it is not analyzed in detail in a separate alternative. The main difference between Alternative 2 and the Karuk Alternative is a reduction of salvage, site preparation, and planting. The Karuk Alternative has a reduction of approximately 2,460 acres of these combined treatments when compared to Alternative 2. These areas would no longer benefit from treatments described in Alternative 2, and would resemble the No Action Alternative. As a result, there would be an increase in flame length potential, fireline intensity, and resistance to control. Desired conditions would no longer be met in the mid- to long-term within or adjacent to the areas removed from treatments in the Karuk Alternative. This includes areas adjacent to the private property buffer to the community of Horse Creek. This would decrease community and firefighter safety and reduce the effectiveness of private property buffer treatments in the event of future wildfire, thereby not meeting the purpose and need of the project. One of the primary threats to the NSO recovery is the loss of habitat which includes habitat burned by high severity wildfire. NSO have been reported to use areas affected by high severity fire in the short-term, but as the high severity patches start to deteriorate and the standing snags that provided cover for NSO start to fall over, NSO use of these areas is likely to decline. Using this information, the Horse Creek Project attempts to minimize effects on NSO habitat including habitat affected by high severity fire by balancing the short-term effects to NSO habitat with the longer-term threat of future high severity fire. Although the Karuk Alternative reduces salvage by 1,940 acres, these retained acres may not be used by NSO at the same level as the areas avoided in project design that was used to create Alternative 2. Generally, the Karuk Alternative would affect a slightly larger number of NSO suitable habitat acres as compared to those presented for Alternative 2, but it retains about 1,940 acres of higher severity burned forest that would be harvested in alternative 2. These salvage units could provide for NSO foraging use in the short-term but in the long-term, these retained 1,940 acres of burned forest may contribute to future NSO habitat loss to high severity fire. This concern for long-term habitat conditions for northern spotted owls, as well as not meeting our purpose and need for community protection, led to the Karuk Alternative s proposal to remove all but about 100 acres of salvage being eliminated from detailed study. Avoiding all replanting was fully analyzed in our No Action Alternative, and similar to removing all salvage treatments, would not meet our purpose and need or Forest Plan objectives. For all these reasons, the Karuk Alternative was eliminated from further detailed study. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study NEPA requires that federal agencies rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR ). In response to public comments during scoping, we Page 33

38 developed and considered three alternatives that were eliminated from detailed study. Public comments received in response to the proposed action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of the need for the proposal, duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or determined to be components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. Therefore, a number of alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed consideration for reasons summarized in Chapter 2 of the final EIS (pp ). 5. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT This section will be updated prior to decision in order to reflect the latest information.] Scoping On November 18, 2016 a scoping letter was sent to local tribes, and on November 22, 2016 a scoping letter was sent to other interested and affected parties, including other public agencies, adjacent property owners, and interested groups and individuals. On November 22, 2016 a legal notice of scoping was published in the Siskiyou Daily Newspaper and the Notice of the Intent was published in the Federal Register on November 23, 2016 beginning the formal scoping process that guides the development of the DEIS. The project was first published to the Forest website in mid-december 2016 and to the Schedule of Proposed Actions on January 1, Scoping identified concerns about the long-term project impacts of logging roads and landings, post-fire logging on the Siskiyou Crest, the impacts on northern spotted owls, and the effects of the project on amenity resources such as recreation opportunities and visual quality characteristics. These concerns led to the creation of Alternatives 3, 4, and project design features for Recreation and Scenic Resources, as described in the Scoping Outcome Summary on the project website and the Issues from Scoping section in Chapter 1 of the draft and final EISs. The Happy Camp/Oak Knoll Ranger District (District) held meetings with individual groups before, during, and after scoping and comment periods. On April 28, 2017, the district hosted a public meeting including a field trip. Several members of the Horse Creek community and fire safe council came, along with Fish and Wildlife, California Water Board, and a member from the neighboring forest. On May 17, 2017, Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center (KS Wild), Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC), and the Karuk Tribe joined the District on a field trip of the project area. On June 1, 2017, American Forest Resource Council (AFRC) joined the District on a field trip of the project area. Due to snow levels, the District plans to host a field trip out to the Siskiyou Crest and Buckhorn areas of the project in July 2017 for anyone involved or interested in the project. A field trip with the Pacific Crest Trail Association is also planned for late June or early July, to discuss the different proposed actions with the group. The District has had the opportunity to speak with the Karuk Tribe and Karuk Resource Advisory Board, Horse Creek Fire Safe Council, Seiad Fire Safe Council, KS Wild, Shasta Tribe Inc., and Shasta Nation. This has allowed the Forest to present the project and for these groups to share their individual concerns. Page 34

39 Draft EIS Comment Period On April 28, 2017, the draft EIS and supporting documents were posted to the project s webpage. notifications and letters for the draft EIS comment period were sent to interested and affected parties, including other public agencies, tribes, adjacent property owners, and interested groups and individuals. On April 28, 2017, a Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register and a legal notice was published in the Siskiyou Daily News, beginning the 45-day comment period. Comments received by June 13, 2017, were considered timely. The comment period for the draft EIS resulted in the receipt of 995 comment letters, including 19 unique letters, 718 form letters, and 24 form letters that included additional information (234 letters were duplicates). Comments were identified in these letters regarding issues and concerns raised by the author. These comments were then categorized according to the primary topics of their content. Within these topics areas, comments were grouped together and summarized together with similar comments. The interdisciplinary team then responded to these summary statements to address the issue or concern identified, or clarify where more information was requested. If a comment was unique in its subject from any other comments, it was addressed individually. Any comments that provided substantive new information were considered and necessary revisions made to the final EIS and supporting documents or addressed in this draft Record of Decision. Responsible scientific literature provided that was not previously considered was reviewed by resource specialists and considered in their final analysis where applicable. A report of the comments received, including a list of commenters, and responses to them is included as Appendix D, which is available in the project record and on the project website. I recognize that because of the need to stick to an accelerated timeline in order to have an implementable project, some of our commenters may be concerned that their comments were not fully considered by the time of this draft record of decision. I appreciate this concern, but would like to take this opportunity to alleviate it by explaining our process. Early this spring, we estimated that in order to have an implementable project, we would need to reach a signed decision by late September. After getting the DEIS released for comment, we recognized that this would mean ending the DEIS comment period on June 13 and beginning the objection period and review of the FEIS on June 23 rd. Because of this challenge, we intentionally focused our resources on reviewing comments as they were received and incorporating changes from additional public meetings, field trips, and comment letters into the FEIS throughout the 45-day comment period on the DEIS. Evidence of how comments were incorporated into the FEIS can be seen in the FEIS section on Modifications or Clarifications between Draft and Final Document, on pages 1-4, and incorporated throughout the entire FEIS. One of the largest changes to highlight is that in the FEIS, in response to concerns raised by the public and our consulting agencies, I identified Alternative 4 as the Preferred Alternative, rather than Alternative 2, which had been the proposed action in the DEIS. Responses to specific comments can be found in the Response to Comments appendix, available on the project website. Any objections received will be considered and addressed in the final record of decision. 6. LEGAL AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS [This section will be updated prior to decision in order to reflect the latest information.] My decision complies with the laws, policies and executive orders listed below and Page 35

40 described in the final EIS. The selected alternative will be located entirely on National Forest System lands and is not in conflict with planning objectives for Siskiyou County. The Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project was prepared in accordance with the following laws and regulations. National Environmental Policy Act I find the selected alternative is consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The final EIS fulfills the requirements for environmental analysis found in NEPA and in the Council on Environmental Quality implementing regulations at 40 CFR, Parts The selected alternative will not result in irreversible damage to soils or other watershed characteristics such as detrimental soil loss, blockage of waterways, or riparian habitat. NEPA requires that all major federal actions significantly affecting the human environment be analyzed to determine the magnitude and intensity of those impacts and that the results be shared with the public and the public given opportunity to comment. The regulations implementing NEPA further require that, to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare EISs concurrently with and integrated with environmental analyses and related surveys and studies required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and other environmental review laws and executive orders. Other laws and regulations that apply to this project are described below. National Forest Management Act I find the selected alternative to be consistent with the provisions of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976, which sets forth the requirements for Land and Resource Management Plans for the National Forest System. The selected alternative was designed to conform to the Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan goals, to meet or move toward desired conditions, and to comply with standards and guidelines for forest-wide management direction (Forest Plan, pp. 4-3 through 4-66) and the direction specific to several individual management areas as described above. The selected alternative is consistent with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives (Forest Plan, pp. 4-6 and 4-7). The Forest Plan requires that projects meet, or not prevent attainment of, the objectives of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (Forest Plan pp. 4-6, 4-106). To address this requirement in the Horse Creek Project, an Aquatic Conservation Strategy Report (see project record) was prepared (final EIS pp ). Based on this review, I find that the Horse Creek Project would not retard or prevent attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives found in the Forest Plan of the Klamath National Forest. The Forest Plan Consistency Checklist document in the project record identifies the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines applicable to this project and provides related information about compliance with the Forest Plan. Based on my review of that document and other information in the project record, I determined that the selected alternative is consistent with the Forest Plan and all other requirements of the National Forest Management Act. Page 36

41 Clean Air Act The Clean Air Act of 1970 provides for the protection and enhancement of the nation s air resources. No exceeding of the federal and state ambient air quality standards is expected to result from any of the alternatives. The Clean Air Act makes it the primary responsibility of states and local governments to prevent air pollution and control air pollution at its source. The selected alternative is compliant with the Clean Air Act and the Conformity Rule (final EIS pp. 79 and 85). Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act of 1948 (as amended in 1972 and 1987) establishes federal policy for the control of point and non-point pollution, and assigns the states the primary responsibility for control of water pollution. The Clean Water Act regulates the dredging and filling of freshwater and coastal wetlands. Section 404 (33 USC 1344) prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters (including wetlands) of the United States without first obtaining a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wetlands are regulated in accordance with federal Non-Tidal Wetlands Regulations (Sections 401 and 404). We have applied for a Section 401 permit to cover the restoration activities (placing trees in streams) within the Horse Creek Special Interest Area, and will comply will all terms of that permit. Hydrology effects are disclosed in the final EIS (pp ). The selected alternative complies with the Clean Water Act through use of best management practices, which were designed to minimize or prevent the discharge of both point and non-point source pollutants from Forest roads, developments, and activities. The Project is also consistent with the California Porter- Cologne Water Quality Act, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan and the mid-klamath total maximum daily load (TMDL). Following this decision, we will apply to the Water Board to secure the appropriate regulatory approval for this Project prior to implementation. See the Requirements of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board section above. Endangered Species Act The selected alternative complies with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) [16 U.S.C et seq.], which outlines the procedures for Federal interagency cooperation to conserve federally-listed species and designated critical habitats. Consistent with the requirements of the Act, and its enabling regulations (50 CFR 402), the Forest Service has been actively engaged with the appropriate federal regulatory agencies responsible for implementation of the Act throughout development of the Horse Creek Project. However, thorough analyses of federally-listed species and consultation with the USDI Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Service (19 U.S.C. 1526(c)) and the National Marine Fisheries Service are still ongoing at the time of this draft record of decision. The Forest Service made a determination of Likely to Adversely Affect for the northern spotted owl and its designated critical habitat and submitted a Biological Assessment to the FWS on June 13, We await a Biological Opinion from the US Fish and Wildlife Service prior to signing a decision. The Forest Service will adjust the project as needed to Page 37

42 comply with any terms and conditions of the final biological opinion. The Aquatic Resources Biological Assessment is being prepared in accordance with legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C et. Seq. 50 CFR 402). The determination for Coho salmon and its critical habitat is May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect. We await a Biological Opinion from the National Marine Fisheries Service prior to signing a decision. The Forest Service will adjust the project as needed to comply with any terms and conditions of the final biological opinion. Forest Service Policy (FSM 2670), and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for Sensitive plant species have been met by managing populations for continued viability (final EIS p ). Effects to botanical threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species were disclosed in the final EIS (final EIS pp. 96, 99). There are no known populations of any threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species present in the project area. The project area contains suitable habitat for Fritillaria gentneri; however, no populations are currently known in the project area. Any populations of threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species that are located will be protected through the implementation of project design features (Botany 1, 3, 4, and 8; final EIS pg ). Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Act The Project complies with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Act (MSA). Section 305(b) of the MSA directs Federal agencies to consult with National Marine Fisheries Service on all actions or proposed actions that may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH). The MSA (section 3) defines EFH as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. Section 305(b) also requires NMFS to recommend measures that can be taken by the action agency to conserve EFH. The final EIS discloses the effects on essential fish habitat for the SONCC Coho salmon and the Pacific salmon as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (final EIS pp ). Although consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service has not concluded, we expect a determination that the proposed project would adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Pacific Coast salmon. However, the proposed Project contains adequate measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or otherwise offset the adverse effects to EFH. Therefore, we do not expect NMFS to recommend additional conservation measures, pending the final biological opinion. Floodplain Management Executive Order requires Agencies to evaluate any activities that may occur in floodplain and to avoid adverse impacts. Activities that could directly influence floodplain inundation are dam installation and removal, large water diversions, and modification of streams channels and floodplains by dredging, infilling, and channel relocation. None of these activities are being proposed in this project; the Horse Creek Project, therefore, has no influence on floodplain inundation. Project effects to peak flow are discussed in detail in the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Assessment (final EIS pp ) and are anticipated to be indistinguishable from increases due to the 2016 wildfires. Landslides and debris flows may also affect floodplains although these events are a natural part of floodplain processes. Watershed monitoring after the Page 38

43 Gap Fire has revealed high flows in streams draining severely burned watersheds, and damage to roads and a few small debris flows (such as Hamburg Gulch). Damages began with the storms of October, 2016 and subsequent heavy precipitation produced near record totals for the winter of in this part of the Forest. As a result, many slumps and earthflows were activated in the project area, and some of these damaged or temporarily closed roads (FEIS, p. 178). The selected alternative would slightly increase the risk ratio of a landslide event in three 7 th field watersheds (Buckhorn, Lower Horse, and Middle Creek), but the increase is too small to warrant a change in the likelihood category compared to existing condition (final EIS pp ). No adverse effects to floodplains are anticipated as a result of the Horse Creek Project. National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and to provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) with a reasonable opportunity to comment. In addition, Federal agencies are required to consult on the effects of their undertakings with any Indian tribes that attach religious and cultural significance to the project area. Both federally recognized and non-federally recognized tribes were contacted early in the project planning and were engaged throughout the planning process, in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and other laws, regulations and policy. Tribal engagement is summarized in chapter 1 of the final EIS under Public Involvement. Consultation was conducted with the Karuk Tribe, Quartz Valley Indian Reservation, and the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians. The Forest conferred with the Shasta Indian Nation and Shasta Nation, Inc. Written and verbal comments received during tribal consultation were considered when refining the proposed action and while developing project alternatives; many tribal concerns were incorporated in these alternatives. Consultation with the tribes regarding the proposed project is on-going. Environmental Justice Executive Order relating to Environmental Justice requires an assessment of whether implementation of this decision would disproportionately affect minority or low income populations. The socio-economic analysis evaluated economic impacts on local communities (final EIS pp ; see also Forest Plan compliance checklist in the project record). There is no reason to suspect that any impacts would have disproportionately high adverse effects on minority or low-income populations. Prime Farmland, Rangeland and Forest Land The selected alternative is in accordance with the Secretary of Agriculture Memorandum 1827 for prime farmland, rangeland, and forest land. The project area does not contain any prime farmland or rangeland. Prime forest land is a term used only for non-federal land which will not be affected by proposed activities under any alternative. Page 39

44 Migratory Bird Treaty Act The selected alternative will not adversely impact migratory species or their associated habitats. The habitat affected by the Project will still provide habitat for many migratory bird species. Potential impacts to migratory species will be minimized through the adherence to Forest Plan standards and guidelines for snags and downed woody debris, riparian reserve buffers, limited ground disturbance, and maintenance of canopy closure. Specific project design features will be used to minimize negative impacts include retaining snags within treatment units which include riparian reserves, and retaining trees with high quality wildlife habitat characteristics and snags mixed in with green trees. Additional cull logs will be left on site from the operation as well. The Project complies with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Memorandum of Understanding (final EIS pg. 268). Invasive Species The selected alternative complies with Executive Order 13112, which directs federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species; detect and respond rapidly to and control such species; not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that the agency believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species unless the agency has determined and made public its determination that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species; and take all feasible and prudent measures to minimize the risk of harm in conjunction with the actions. The requirements of this executive order are met through project design features that minimize or eliminate negative environmental effects as disclosed in the Botanical Resources and Non-Native Invasive Plants section in Chapter 3 of the final EIS. Findings Related to Special Areas Late Successional Reserves The Forest-wide LSR Assessment for the Forest provides criteria for risk reduction, including salvage, in the LSR land allocation. A review by the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO), a coordinating body for implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan, determined that projects consistent with the recommendations of the KNF LSR assessment are not subject to further review by the REO, and may be implemented as designed. All of the action alternatives meet the criteria for risk-reduction salvage in the LSR assessment, and are not subject to further review by the REO. Inventoried Roadless Areas The project area includes 17 acres in the Condrey Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area, but no treatments are proposed in this area and therefore no effects to the Inventoried Roadless Area are expected. The selected alternative will comply with the Roadless Area Conservation Rule and applicable Forest Plan standards (pg of the Forest Plan). Special Interest Areas There are 362 acres of special interest areas within the project area, including the Horse Creek Botanical Area and the Condrey Mountain Blueschist Geologic Area. The Horse Creek Botanical Area was selected for Administrative Withdrawal as a Special Page 40

45 Interest Area for its unique characteristic as an intact and highly diverse old-growth riparian ecosystem. The entirety of the Horse Creek Botanical Area was affected by the Gap Fire. Some areas were severely burned in the Gap Fire, with a large amount of the canopy compromised or killed. Many burned trees pose a hazard to the Horse Creek Road. Understory was completely killed in some areas and may not naturally regenerate in time to prevent invasion by non-native plant species. Restoration of ecological functions to reflect the unique characteristics of the Horse Creek Botanical Area is part of the purpose and need of the project (FEIS, pg. 18). This will be done through replanting the Horse Creek Botanical Area with upland and riparian vegetation, as well as trees, where appropriate, and placing some of the hazard trees into reaches of the Horse Creek that support Coho salmon and their habitat. The resulting altered condition after the fire has triggered the need to initiate restoration efforts to allow the area to return to the condition for which it was designated a special interest area. The Condrey Mountain Blueschist Geologic Special Interest Area contains an assemblage of minerals such as glaucophane and crossite. Aside from roadside hazard tree removal, no activities are planned in the Condrey Mountain Blueschist Geologic Special Interest Area, and there will be no effect to the character of the area. Wild, Scenic, and Recreation Rivers The Selected Alternative complies with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as disclosed in the final EIS. The final EIS disclosed effects to areas designated or recommended as wild, scenic, or recreational rivers (final EIS pp ). There are two designated or recommended Wild and Scenic Rivers within the project area. The Klamath Wild and Scenic River was designated by the Secretary of Interior in 1981 for its outstandingly remarkable anadromous fisheries values. The portions of the Klamath Wild and Scenic River that are within the project area are classified as Recreational. A small portion of the Scott Wild and Scenic River also exists within the project boundary, but project activities will not affect this river corridor. Free flowing conditions, water quantity and quality, and identified outstandingly remarkable value(s) will be protected (final EIS pp ). River classifications will be maintained. The desired future conditions for both scenic and recreational rivers will be met; scenic river areas and shorelines will remain largely primitive and undeveloped, and recreational river waterways will remain generally natural and riverine in appearance (final EIS pp ). One unit with salvage treatments proposed would likely not meet the retention and partial retention visual quality objective within three years time, especially because a majority of the eastern-facing slope, which is visible from the river, was affected by moderate to high severity fire. The Forest Plan allows an exception under Visual Resource Management Standards and Guidelines 11-7 that allows recovery time beyond three years in the case of catastrophic events such as the Gap Fire (FEIS, pg. 253). Implementation Date [This section may be updated prior to decision in order to reflect the latest information.] Timing of my decision is pursuant to 36 CFR : (a) The responsible official may not sign a ROD or DN subject to the provisions of this part Page 41

46 until the reviewing officer has responded in writing to all pending objections (see (b)(1)). (b) The responsible official may not sign a ROD or DN subject to the provisions of this part until all concerns and instructions identified by the reviewing officer in the objection response have been addressed. (c) When no objection is filed within the objection filing period (see and ): (1) The reviewing officer must notify the responsible official. (2) Approval of the proposed project or activity documented in a ROD in accordance with 40 CFR , or in a DN may occur on, but not before, the fifth business day following the end of the objection filing period. Implementation of this project can begin immediately following my decision. My intention is to implement this project through service contracts, timber sale contracts, and possibly stewardship contracts. Project activities will be seasonally restricted, as described in Table 9 of the final EIS. Seasonal restrictions mainly apply to activities relating to the northern spotted owl and its critical habitat. Explanation of Negative Impacts of Implementation Delays Although this project has been planned on an accelerated timeline in order to treat the burned area while the project is still implementable, we have made every effort possible to encourage public participation and input into the planning stages. We recruited additional resources so that we could meet our accelerated timeline without minimizing any public comment opportunities, because we know that any delay in implementing the project will have negative impacts on the communities and resources affected by the Gap Fire. In the Horse Creek Project, the great majority of fire-affected dead and dying trees are relatively small diameter. After dying, trees this size decompose rapidly. The project needs to be implemented as soon as possible in order to capture the already limited value of these small diameter dead and dying trees before they lose their merchantability and economic value. Wanting to implement while the dead and dying trees still have some economic value is not the same as making a profit off the fire; it is the difference between the agency needing to use scarce public funds to pay for the hazard trees to be cut and removed to reduce fuels near communities, versus that same dead or dying material being purchased and cut and removed to achieve that same goal. We are not expecting a profit from this project, but that does not negate the need for the project. The work needs to happen whether it is profitable or not, but we can minimize costs to the American taxpayers if the project can be implemented by fall Contrary to some public opinions, it is not about serving any corporate masters. Every tool at the agency s disposal is needed to get the critical work done that needs to happen, and those tools include selling dead or dying trees, contracting with service providers to accomplish work, and, in some cases, using agency employees for implementation. I hope to use all of those tools in getting the critical hazard reduction and restoration work of the Horse Creek Project accomplished as soon as possible. Page 42

47 Contact Information For additional information concerning this decision or objections, please contact: Lauren McChesney, Environmental Coordinator, Klamath National Forest Supervisor s Office, 1711 South Main Street, Yreka, CA 96097; by phone at , or by at laurendmcchesney@fs.fed.us. [This is a DRAFT document only. The signature and date are purposefully omitted until the final record of decision is signed.] Page 43

48 APPENDIX A: Vicinity Map and Selected Alternative Treatment Map Page 44

49 Page 45