West Bend Vegetation Management and Forest Plan...

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

December 2013

Record of Decision West Bend Vegetation Management Project and Forest Plan Amendments

Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District, Deschutes National Forest Deschutes County, Oregon

Record of Decision Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................1

DECISION AND RATIONALE ...............................................................................................................................2

REASONS FOR THE DECISION ............................................................................................................................5

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COLLABORATION ..................................................................................................9

OTHER ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED ................................................................................................................... 11

THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................................... 12

CONSULTATION WITH GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND TRIBES ........................................................................ 12

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND POLICY ............................................................................................................... 13

IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................................................................................... 15

CONTACT PERSONS / FURTHER INFORMATION .............................................................................................. 16

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL ................................................................................................................................... 16

APPENDIX A – MAPS OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................................... 17

APPENDIX B – UNIT PRESCRIPTIONS ............................................................................................................... 23

APPENDIX C - RESOURCE PROTECTION MEASURES ......................................................................................... 32

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual

orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call

(202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

ii

Figure 1. Location of the West Bend Project area, Deschutes National Forest.

Record of Decision

Page 1

RECORD OF DECISION West Bend Vegetation Management Project

USDA Forest Service

Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District, Deschutes National Forest Deschutes County, Oregon

Legal Location: T17S, R11E, S 32-34; T18S, R10E, Sections 8, 9, 12-15, 17, 19-30, 36; T18S, R11E, Sections 3-11, 14-23, 27-33; T19S, R10E, Sections 1; T19S, R11E, S 5-7; Willamette Meridian

Introduction and Background This Record of Decision (ROD) documents my decision and rationale for the selection of Alternative 3 of the July 2013 West Bend Vegetation Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. This project will address forest health issues within the project area including tree density and fuels accumulations and will provide timber products to the local wood products industry.

The 25,696-acre West Bend project is located to the west of Bend, Oregon and adjacent to its urban growth boundary. It is bounded by the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) of Bend to the east; primarily the Deschutes River, Forest Road 41, and Highway 46 to the south; Forest Service managed lands and private lands to the north; and the Bend Watershed Inventoried Roadless Area to the west (see Figure 1).

The Forest identified a need to create more resilient conditions on the landscape. The purpose of the project is to maintain and restore forest health; reduce the threat of large-scale wildfire effects to people, property, and important ecosystem components including habitat for interior forest wildlife species; contribute wood products to the local and regional economy; and to reintroduce fire in fire-dependent ecosystems. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) documents the Forest’s consideration of alternative ways to meet the purpose and need, and discloses and compares the environmental effects of the alternatives. Alternative 3 was identified as the preferred alternative in the DEIS and FEIS.

The current condition of the forests in the West Bend project area largely results from historic logging practices and fire suppression. A large proportion of the project area was clearcut logged in the 1920s and 30s when the lands were in private logging company ownership. This past harvest removed nearly all of the large trees. The typical stands are now mostly uniform dense blackbark ponderosa pine. Stocking levels and species mix leave the stands susceptible to beetle attack. Fire suppression has allowed more lodgepole and true fir to grow into the understory and brush to accumulate. These hazardous fuels conditions put the project area, including the wildland-urban interface of the city of Bend, at risk of stand-replacing wildfire, such as occurred in 1990 with the Awbrey Hall stand-replacing fire (FEIS p. 125).

Higher elevation lodgepole pine stands are predominantly dead, killed by bark beetles over the last decade. Live trees are primarily smaller; a few larger lodgepole exist. Within lodgepole plantations the seed trees are infected with mistletoe and are infecting the younger trees.

Record of Decision

Page 2

The West Bend project area is a popular recreation destination in Central Oregon, with its proximity to the Cascade Lakes National Scenic Byway, Skyliner Road, and the city limits of Bend. These corridors provide access to many recreational opportunities. The area supports about 140 miles of biking, hiking, snowmobile, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing trails where the Forest is the central component of the recreation experience and contributes greatly to the recreation and tourism economy of Central Oregon. The location of these attractions and the current condition of the forest surrounding them is part of the context for the purpose and need for action (FEIS pp. 1-5).

This project is a part of the larger Deschutes Collaborative Forest Project, which is a Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Act (CFLRA) Project (http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLRP). The CFLRA was enacted in 2009 and encourages collaboration to restore forest resiliency at the landscape scale. During the planning process, the collaborative group1 developed recommendations for restoration in second-growth ponderosa pine, mistletoe-infested stands, and dry mixed conifer, as well as recommendations for considering recreation and tourism values during planning and implementation. The recommendations were incorporated into Alternative 3, the selected alternative.

Decision and Rationale I have reviewed the FEIS for the West Bend Vegetation Management Project and the information contained in the project file. I have also reviewed and considered the public comments submitted on this project. I have determined that there is adequate information to make a reasoned choice among alternatives. It is my decision to select Alternative 3, including associated connected actions, forest plan amendments, resource protection measures, and monitoring, as described in the FEIS (pp. 31-35, 43-62), with some modifications. Modifications to Alternative 3 have been made in order to address certain concerns about the project raised during the objection process. These modifications are discussed below under Public Involvement.

Specifics of Decision Table 1 displays a summary of the treatments in the selected alternative. In most cases the tree and surface fuel treatments overlap, but there are approximately 4,166 acres where only fuels need to be treated. Maps of the actions involved in the project are included in Appendix A of this ROD and a list of all units with the integrated prescription is included as Appendix B. The following tables are summaries of the activities.

1 The Deschutes Collaborative group is comprised of representatives from environmental interests, timber industry, local government, recreation/tourism interests, and the public at large. For more information on the Deschutes Collaborative Forest Project (DCFP) see the web site: http://www.deschutescollaborativeforest.org.

http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLRP

http://www.deschutescollaborativeforest.org/

Record of Decision

Page 3

Table 1. Summary Treatment Acres. Treatments Acres1

Commercial Harvest (thinning and lodgepole regeneration harvest), generally followed by understory and fuel treatments

13,996

Understory treatment in combination with commercial harvest (precommercial thinning, ladder fuel reduction, larger diameter planation thinning)

11,434

Understory treatment only 827 Fuels Treatments2 (brush mowing and/or prescribed burning) in combination with commercial harvest or understory treatment

18,838

Fuels Treatments only 4,166 1Acres are an estimate. Actual acres will be fewer due to retention areas, avoidance areas, and recent unit modifications. 2“fuel treatments” refers to mowing and/or underburning of natural fuels. Activity fuels are treated in all units as needed, according to the method listed in Appendix A. As shown in the following table, overstory treatments total 13,996 acres (Table 2), of which 11,981 acres is thinning. Areas of fuels-only treatment total 4,166 acres. The descriptions of overstory treatments are in the FEIS pp. 43-44 and in more detail at FEIS Appendix B pp. 531-535. Natural and activity fuel treatment descriptions are in the FEIS on pages 45-46. All of the treatments are expected to produce approximately 31 mmbf of timber. Of this, 18 mmbf would be ponderosa pine sawlog; 3 mmbf lodgepole pine sawlog; and 10.5 mmbf fiber.

Descriptions of harvest methods listed in Table 2 are located in the FEIS on pages 43-46 with further detail in Appendix B. Maps of the units are included in Appendix A of this ROD. Table 2. Summary of Harvest and Fuels Treatments

Overstory / Commercial Harvest Treatments Acres

• Thinning & Improvement Cut

⋅ Thin from below to average basal area 60 ft.² 7,240

⋅ Thin from below and enhance Castilleja populations 1,268

⋅ Thin with openings within Deer Winter Range 1,124

⋅ Thin to enhance NSO connectivity 55

⋅ Thin to allow more sun on Highway 46 631

⋅ WUI thinning (west end) 46

⋅ Thin in mixed conifer with gaps 58

⋅ Thin within goshawk PFA 1,559

Total Thinning Acres 11,981 • Regeneration Harvest

⋅ Seed tree cut with reserves (lodgepole) 1,443

⋅ Overstory removal (lodgepole) 572

Total Commercial Harvest Acres 13,996 • Other

Record of Decision

Page 4

⋅ Aspen enhancement 22

⋅ Girdle overstory lodgepole seed trees 225

Understory Treatments (occurring along or in combination with thinning/harvest)

• Whip falling 1,167 • Ladder fuel reduction 1,514 • Precommercial thin 6,327 • Skid and deck 2,302

Fuel Treatments (occurring alone or in combination with thinning/harvest; may overlap)

• Slash piling 7,587 • Mow and/or Underburn 18,838 • Lop and Scatter 1,085

Because of the large footprint of the project’s landscape approach, approximately 54 miles of temporary roads will be needed to access harvest units. As described in the FEIS (p. 51), about 37.6 miles will be newly impacted ground, and 17 miles will be located where previous logging systems are still evident. These temporary roads will be decommissioned and restored to a productive state when activities are complete.

Road closures – Several previous planning decisions with the West Bend area have closed roads. Approximately 30 miles of roads are categorized as maintenance level 1, which means that people are not allowed to drive on them. Most of these closures are either being breeched, or have yet to be implemented. This project will perform maintenance on the existing closures and further implement previous decisions so that the 30 miles of maintenance level 1 roads in the area are not used by vehicles, which will reduce wildlife disturbance. Also under this decision, user-created roads in the project area will be obliterated by subsoiling or other methods to return them to a productive condition. The emphasis here is to prevent cross-country travel by vehicles and OHVs, thereby implementing the Travel Management rule and restoring vegetation to the area.

Forest Plan Amendments: This decision includes non-significant and site-specific forest plan amendments as described in the FEIS pp. 46-50 and 472-477. First, the thermal cover objective of 30% for the Deer Habitat Management Area cannot be met because it is already below that. Thinning in the selected alternative will reduce it by 1%. Second, Scenic Views standards and guidelines recommend prescribed fire be limited to areas of about five acres or less. Based on current science on fuels reduction as well as the desire to return fire to fire-dependent ecosystems, the standard is amended to allow larger blocks of prescribed fire. And third, an Eastside Screens standard and guideline is amended to allow thinning to occur in ponderosa pine stands that have large tree structure. Non-significance of these amendments is discussed in the FEIS pp. 472-477.

Resource Protection Measures: This decision includes all resource protection measures described for Alternative 3 in the FEIS. Resource protection measures are listed in Appendix C of this ROD.

Record of Decision

Page 5

Reasons for the Decision My decision to select Alternative 3 was made by considering how well the alternative meets the purpose and need, how the alternative responds to the issues, if public comments have been adequately considered, and what the likely environmental effects will be. In selecting Alternative 3, I carefully reviewed disclosures in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. The analysis discloses predicted environmental consequences of the actions, including effects to northern spotted owl, northern goshawk and other wildlife, benefits to forest health, reductions in wildfire risk, compliance with water and air quality regulations, and maintenance of soil productivity. My conclusions are based on a review of the entire project record, which includes a thorough review of relevant scientific information, and a consideration of responsible opposing views. The following narratives go into detail on my reason for the decision.

1. Response of Alternative 3 to the Purpose and Need Landscape area objectives are addressed with Alternative 3 by incorporating wildlife habitat objectives that span the project area and address focal species’ needs based on management direction and the elevation and habitat type. These objectives are summarized on pp. 6-7 of the FEIS.

The West Bend project will make substantial progress in thinning blackbark ponderosa pine stands which are so prevalent in central Oregon. The landscape scale approach of the selected alternative reduces stand density on over 12,000 acres which makes 85% of the ponderosa pine stands in the project area resistant to density-related insect mortality (FEIS p. 88). A full 48% of the ponderosa pine stands are put into an open canopy condition where they are best suited to move towards LOS or continue to grow older. This moves the landscape towards the HRV for open ponderosa pine which is shown to have been above 55% historically. Over 13,235 acres will also be resistant to fire mortality.

Fire hazard and risk reduction occurs on a sizable portion of the project area. While there is currently about 14,772 acres in a “low” hazard condition, Figure 34 p. 125 of the FEIS displays how moderate, high, and extreme wildfire hazard ratings occur across the entire project area, including in large blocks within the lower elevation ponderosa pine where so much recreational use takes place. Alternative 3 effectively moves most of these areas into a low wildfire hazard rating. Fuel treatments will create conditions where wildfire can be more safely suppressed which is important for firefighter safety and because more options for control are available (p. 131-132, 144). It’s also important that we restore conditions that allow for the use of prescribed fire on the landscape, and as shown in Figure 42 p. 144, thinning, mowing, and underburning will create conditions that reduce the severity of wildfire if it were to occur, and also make it possible to apply fire in a prescribed manner.

The project area involves WUI along the eastern border and along major transportation routes. Fuels reduction in these areas will allow effective suppression action to be taken and safe evacuation of the public in the event of a wildfire. This work addresses the recommendations in the Community Wildfire Protection Plans that cover the area (FEIS p. 142).

Management of lodgepole pine stands is a component of the selected alternative that addresses the heavy amount of mortality caused by bark beetles in the last decade and the desire to manage for healthy stands that provide the backdrop for recreational uses in the

Record of Decision

Page 6

western portion of the project area. Alternative 3 treats about 2,015 acres of lodgepole pine stands through regeneration harvest methods.

Creating a more resilient forest and reducing the risk of widespread mortality contributes to a desirable recreation experience. The recreation and tourism economy is tied to the health of the forest. The forests west of Bend provide the setting for world-class recreation activities through all seasons. By treating hazardous fuels, reducing stand density, and addressing beetle-killed lodgepole pine, this project will maintain the natural setting and environment that is the primary attraction for outdoor recreation.

The Forest Service relies on the forest products industry to accomplish our forest management work. It’s important that vegetation management projects such as this one address the Forest Plan’s goal for providing wood products from management areas where timber production is the emphasis. Wood products are also an important benefit from management areas where the emphasis is on providing high quality scenery or where wildlife objectives depend on healthy resilient stands. Alternative 3 is expected to provide 31.8 million board feet (mmbf) of timber. Of this 18.2 mmbf will be ponderosa pine sawlog volume and 3.1 mmbf will be lodgepole pine sawlog volume.

2. Response of Alternative 3 to the Key Issues Landscape and Within-stand Variability The FEIS describes several objectives incorporated into thinning prescriptions that will provide additional variation on the landscape (p. 9). These measures along with the use of variable density thinning techniques and the retention strategies employed across the landscape will ensure that thinning does not create a homogenous uniform forest. Although much of the project area is relatively uniform because it is blackbark ponderosa pine that has grown back from extensive clearcutting in the early 20th century, thinning will enhance existing variability, and induce some diversity into these homogenous stands.

It’s not possible to achieve an old growth condition in stands that are between 70 and 90 years old. But by beginning now to actively create conditions that will increase resilience and enhance existing variability, ponderosa pine forests in the West Bend project area will achieve those conditions in the long term. For example, a gappy-clumpy character can be obtained within stands by retaining clumps of larger residual trees, by removing patches of heavily mistletoe-infected trees, and retaining dense patches of un-thinned forest.

Additional provisions are included in the selected alternative to address public comments. For example, following the comment period, 5-10% of larger blocks in the mid-elevation ponderosa pine and mixed conifer units will be left unthinned to provide for additional canopy cover diversity. All retention strategies are described in the FEIS Table 1, pp. 6-7.

Lodgepole pine overstory treatments Under the selected alternative, 225 acres of lodgepole pine units that were proposed for overstory removal will instead have the overstory trees girdled, and 27 fewer acres of overstory removal were included. These stands have well-stock understories of seedlings and saplings but the overstory seed trees are infected with mistletoe which can prevent the development of a healthy stand. Girdling these trees addresses a public issue about removing large woody structure and would provide some foraging opportunity for some wildlife. This treatment still meets the objectives for the management of lodgepole pine. Following public

Record of Decision

Page 7

comment and objection, 14 acres of the overstory removal were dropped. Some overstory treatments will still occur through harvest which addresses the other part of the purpose and need for providing wood products.

Mature trees in the wet mixed conifer PAG Some public were concerned with the removal of mature trees in some plant association groups (PAGs). The IDT addressed this issue with Alternative 3 by retaining all white fir over 24” dbh west of the owl line. When favoring ponderosa pine because of its resilience to fire and because it was historically the dominant species, thinning would remove lodgepole pine and white fir. With the selected alternative larger white fir would be retained providing some within-stand diversity of species. It is acknowledged that these trees are not sustainable in the long run but would provide some wildlife habitat.

Goshawk Habitat Management There are no active goshawk nests within the project area, confirmed by this year’s surveys. But within the mid-elevation mixed conifer area under Alternative 3, treatments were developed around two of the most recently active historic territories with the goal of promoting long-term sustainable habitat. Based on recent science, treatments are designed to maintain existing large tree structure while promoting development of greater forest diversity for nesting and foraging. One unit has been dropped from the selected alternative and additional retention patches will be identified during implementation.

Ryan Ranch Key Elk Area Thermal Cover Thinning through thermal cover within the KEHA was identified as an issue during scoping. The IDT analyzed an alternative that avoided treatment within thermal cover inside the KEHA; however, the FEIS states that the objectives in this area are to promote development of high quality forage base. When dense stands are not thinned, the forage is shaded out by high canopy closure. The selected alternative remains consistent with the Forest Plan direction for the level of thermal cover provided within the KEHA.

Deer Habitat Thermal Cover Some members of the public expressed concern about the project’s impacts to the amount of thermal cover available in the Deer Habitat Management Area. However, the Interdisciplinary Team worked with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to identify a landscape approach to the habitat needs of mule deer. Recreational use in the project area has increased substantially since the Forest Plan was written. The amount of human disturbance makes hiding cover a more important component of deer habitat in the area. The selected alternative will thin within thermal cover inside the Deer Habitat management area, and also create areas for the development of quality hiding cover. This approach is the preferred option for managing deer habitat in the West Bend project area and addresses the most pressing issues.

3. Consideration of Public Comment and other Resource Issues In making this decision I thoroughly considered the comments received during the 45-day public comment period. Appendix G of the Final EIS details the consideration and response to public comments. In responding to comments the interdisciplinary team has supplemented

Record of Decision

Page 8

and improved some of the analysis, made factual and editorial corrections, and made clarifications. Some of the specific concerns are discussed in the following paragraphs.

The Deschutes National Forest provides much of what makes central Oregon an attractive destination. The variety of Forest activities and attractions that are concentrated in the West Bend project area makes forest management planning a complex undertaking, but also heightens its importance. We heard concerns from members of the public about potential degradation of the user experience through the effects of forest management including effects to scenery, access, or air quality. The ID Team has worked directly with recreation user groups as well as through the Deschutes Collaborative group to address concerns and to also help the public understand the nature of active forest management and the long-term benefits that can result.

The FEIS discloses first-order effects that the public will notice during and after implementation for a certain period of time. Resource protection measures have been developed to minimize impacts and reduce potential for displacement during operations. I am confident that our operations will maintain and enhance the natural setting for recreation uses of all types. And by reducing hazardous fuels we provide for public and firefighter safety and reduce the risk of stand-replacing wildfire that could create long-term degradation of the recreation resource.

Several comments were made about the amount of roads that exist in the project area and the amount of temporary access that will be needed for implementation of the project. Because of the landscape-level treatments occurring in the selected alternative, the existing road system does not provide enough access to harvest units. Temporary roads are needed for that access and are to be obliterated and returned to a productive state following project activities so that they cannot be used by vehicles. Within the project area’s largest watershed, efforts to reduce the amount of open roads has occurred with previous planning projects so that it is moving towards the LRMP objectives for open road density. Implementation of this project will involve re-closing and reinforcing closures so that roads that are not intended for public use will not be accessible. Ongoing planning of reasonably foreseeable projects will also reduce the amount of open roads when cumulative effects are considered, so that the watershed will actually be within LRMP objectives for open road density.

Commenters expressed concerns about potential impacts to water quality and fisheries. The project area is divided between Northwest Forest Plan on the west and the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) on the eastern portion. Each of these plans incorporate objectives and standards and guidelines intended to maintain and restore the productivity and resiliency of riparian and aquatic ecosystems. This project is consistent with direction in both of these plans. The selected alternative will have No Impact to Columbia River redband trout, No Impact to A Caddisfly or Indian Ford Juga (R6 Sensitive aquatic invertebrates), and No Adverse Effect to Chinook salmon essential fisheries habitat. There will also be no adverse effect to the fishery Outstandingly Remarkable Value of the Deschutes River, and no adverse effect to wetlands or floodplains. The IDT has considered potential effects, developed appropriate project design criteria, and I find that the proposed actions within the Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) and Riparian Reserves is necessary to address forest health and will promote better streamside habitat in the future.

Record of Decision

Page 9

The selected alternative does not treat within spotted owl nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF) habitat of the northern spotted owl. It does, however, reduce the fire hazard around existing NRF by thinning from below and removing concentrations of dead lodgepole pine. Fuel continuity will be broken up reducing the fire hazard to the existing spotted owl habitat. Twenty-eight acres of dispersal habitat within a critical habitat unit (CHU) will be thinned to promote the development of late and old structure. This is less than 1% of the dispersal habitat in the CHU. Future LOS would provide highly suitable and more fire-resilient stands for dispersal habitat.

The western portion of the West Bend project extends to the Inventoried Roadless Area boundary. Some areas along that boundary meet the criteria for potential wilderness and therefore analysis was conducted to determine if there would be effects to that potential. The FEIS concludes that 37 acres where understory and fuels treatment will occur would no longer meet the criteria for potential wilderness (FEIS p. 408). The treatments there are important because of the proximity to the Intensive Recreation areas, private property, and wildlife habitat.

Public Involvement and Collaboration The FEIS describes scoping efforts that were initiated in 2010. Extensive public involvement has occurred by providing current information on the web, holding public meetings, providing informational mailings, hosting field trips for recreation users and collaborating with the DCFP group (see below). These activities are detailed in the FEIS Chapter 1. Additionally, The Bulletin, newspaper featured the West Bend project on several occasions. The public comment period is addressed in the FEIS in Chapter 4. Comments received from 24 individuals, agencies, and organizations were carefully reviewed and substantive comments have been responded to individually in Appendix G of the FEIS. Some comments led to changes from the Draft EIS to the Final EIS.

As previously noted, this project is part of the Deschutes Collaborative Forest Project landscape. Public involvement has been enhanced through the collaborative which is a large group of diverse stakeholders that represent various interests. The collaborative offered these comments on the West Bend project: “Our stakeholders express extreme interest in restoration of the West Bend planning area for many reasons....We have tracked the NEPA planning process for West Bend closely and have worked hard both in the field and in the meeting room to craft collaborative recommendations to the Forest Service that will lead to the kind of forest that our community desires now and for future generations.”

Efforts to engage recreation stakeholders during the planning of West Bend has resulted in several successful outcomes. Through field meetings and feedback, and other communication with interested parties, the Deschutes Collaborative developed recommendations for consideration of recreation and tourism values in the planning and implementation of forest restoration projects within the DCFP landscape. These recommendations were used to draft the resource protection measures written into the EIS. These measures have been shared with the recreation subcommittee and other recreation stakeholders on several field trips. In addition to the Deschutes Collaborative recreation subcommittee, stakeholders that have remained the most involved and interested throughout the planning include Central Oregon Trail Alliance (COTA), Cog Wild, DogPAC, Central Oregon Nordic Club (CONC), and Meissner Nordic. For the most part, these resource protection measures were acceptable to all

Record of Decision

Page 10

interests. Based on further input, the Forest added protection measures to retain trees along specific groomed Nordic trails specifically to retain shade and snow in late winter.

In order to inform the general recreating public, the Forest has posted information kiosks at popular trailheads and has begun staffing information booths at recreation events and trailheads to inform forest users about the project and how their experience may be affected during and after proposed vegetation treatments.

The Forest has set the expectation for monitoring and an adaptive management approach by marking a thinning unit with a trail running through it and then reviewing this with the recreation subcommittee. This provided the Forest an opportunity to explain timber and fuel reduction operations and what the public should expect during operations. Recreation users were able to provide feedback to the Forest Service on if the marking met their expectations for retaining trees that define the trail and protection of the trailhead. The collaborative will continue to be involved through implementation and monitoring, providing additional public involvement and feedback. Predecisional Administrative Review Process

This project was subject to pre-decisional administrative review pursuant to 36 CFR 218, Subpart B. Also called the “objection process” the predecisional administrative review process replaced the appeal process in March of 2013. The primary difference with the objection process is that a person may object to a project prior to the final decision, whereas under the appeal procedures, appeals were made after the decision. The full text of the rule can be found here: http://federal.eregulations.us/cfr/title/5/28/2013/title36/chapterII/part218.

A draft ROD was distributed according to 36 CFR 218.7 providing a 45-day period for objections to be filed prior to making a final decision. Four objections were received. In conjunction with the Deputy Regional Forester, a resolution meeting was conducted on November 8, 2013. Based on the results of the resolution meeting, I agreed to make the following changes to be incorporated into this decision:

• Defer treatment in units 48, 195, 204, 251, 299, 304, 305, 389, 455, 505, and 506 in order to further provide for diversity, snag habitat, and wildlife habitat and structure. The commercial thinning in Unit 186 will be dropped, but mowing and burning will be retained. In addition, two units, 341 and 355 were reduced in size and the need for temp road access eliminated.

• Maintenance level 1 roads in the “good dog” area that are being used as trails will continue to be available. Also, I have asked my staff to identify a route to the Deschutes River that could eventually become an official route through a separate planning process. Operations around this route would follow resource protection measures as outlined in the FEIS for system trails; and

• I am committed to working with the Collaborative to potentially develop a citizen’s monitoring group to review impacts to trails during project implementation.

One objection has been withdrawn. I believe this is the right course of action in order to continue our collaborative efforts in central Oregon. I assessed these changes and find them to be within the range of environmental effects analyzed in the final EIS. The Deputy

http://federal.eregulations.us/cfr/title/5/28/2013/title36/chapterII/part218

Record of Decision

Page 11

Regional Forester (Objection Reviewing Officer) has provided written responses to the objections. No further review from any other Forest Service or USDA official of the reviewing officer’s written response to the objections is available (36 CFR 218.11(b)(2)).

Other Alternatives Analyzed

In addition to the selected Alternative 3, three additional alternatives were analyzed in detail. They include Alternative 1 the No Action, Alternative 2, and Alternative 4. Additional alternatives include those considered in the FEIS but eliminated from detailed analysis (FEIS, pp. 65-66).

Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative, used to provide a baseline for comparison of the effects of all of the alternatives. There would be no density management, fuels reduction, or other vegetation management. Alternative 1 does nothing to address the purpose and need described in Chapter 1 of the FEIS. The FEIS shows that under Alternative 1 the trend of lower tree growth and increased mortality to disturbance factors will continue. Structural stages which have dense stocking in ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer types have a high probability of beetle mortality and reduced diameter growth (FEIS p. 97). In lodgepole pine stands where the overstory is infected with mistletoe, a majority of the trees in the understory will also be infected with mistletoe (FEIS p. 106). Mistletoe at higher levels reduces tree vigor, health, and growth increasing susceptibility to mortality from other agents such as beetles.

Currently, fire hazard is rated as extreme on 36% of the project area. Extreme fire hazard means that under wildfire conditions, high flame lengths and varying degrees of crown fire occur and suppression efforts become ineffective. Because of the high density of recreation use in the West Bend project area, this type of fire hazard is not acceptable. The result of Alternative 1 would be a continued decrease in stand resiliency to wildfire across the entire project area over time (FEIS p. 135). For these reasons I did not select Alternative 1.

Alternative 2 The proposed action that was scoped with the public in December 2010 became Alternative 2 in the EIS. The project was designed with a large footprint in order to make a landscape-level impact on forest health. About 21,850 acres of tree and fuel treatments were included in this alternative (FEIS p. 25). Thinning was designed primarily to reach an average of 60 square feet of basal area. The lack of other project objectives to address a desire for within-stand and project-level variability might make this alternative easier to implement. However, the additional objectives included in Alternative 3 are important components of a landscape-level project. Alternative 2 also does not address other key issues raised by the public such as historic goshawk habitat management, lodgepole pine overstory removal, and mature trees in wet mixed conifer stands. Therefore, I did not select Alternative 2.

Alternative 4 The fourth alternative was designed to address specific issues concerning deer thermal. With Alternative 3 as the starting point, most of the existing thermal cover was dropped from thinning in both MA-7 and the Ryan Ranch key elk area. Alternative 4 thins 9,618 acres and treats more than 2,000 acres of lodgepole pine stands. The reduction of treatments would

Record of Decision

Page 12

actually do little to benefit the mule deer because the limiting factor in the area is high quality forage and hiding cover rather than thermal cover. And, the stands that were dropped from this alternative would continue to be susceptible to bark beetle mortality and fire mortality. Therefore, I did not select Alternative 4.

The Environmentally Preferable Alternative Under the National Environmental Policy Act, the agency is required to identify the environmentally preferable alternative (40 CFR 1505.2(b)). This is interpreted to mean the alternative that would cause the least damage to the biological and physical components of the environment, and which bests protects, preserves, and enhances, historic, cultural, and natural resources (Council on Environmental Quality, Forty Most Asked Question Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 Federal Register 18026). Factors considered in identifying this alternative include: (1) fulfilling the responsibility of this generation as trustee of the environment for future generations, (2) providing for a productive and aesthetically pleasing environment, (3) attaining the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, (4) preserving important natural components of the environment, including biodiversity, (5) balancing population needs and resource use, and (6) enhancing the quality of renewable resources. An agency may discuss preferences among alternatives based on relevant factors, including economic and technical considerations and statutory missions {40 CFR 1505.2(b)}.

I have determined that the environmentally preferable alternative is Alternative 3. A comparison of the three action alternatives can be found in the FEIS on pp. 64-65.

Consultation with Government Agencies and Tribes The following tribal governments were notified of the project proposal: Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs, Burns Paiute, and the Klamath Tribes (FEIS p. 8). Government to government conferences included discusses of this project. These Tribal governments did not express any concerns about this project.

The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was consulted during project planning following guidelines in the Regional Programmatic Agreement among USDA-Forest Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Oregon SHPO. On June 14, 2013, the SHPO provided concurrence with the Forest’s finding of No Historic Properties Adversely Affected (FEIS p. 486).

The Draft EIS was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for review pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. They provided a Lack of Objections rating (FEIS p. 486). The EPA’s reviewing official wrote on June 3, 2013:

“The EPA is supportive of the overarching goals and objectives of the proposed project, and we find the DEIS to be clear, well organized, and robust. We also appreciate the Forest’s responsiveness to issues raised during the scoping process through the development and adoption of Alternative 3 as the preferred alternative. We support the increases in diversity and variability across the landscape proposed under Alternative 3.”

Other specific comments from the EPA are responded to in Appendix G of the FEIS.

Formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service was not required and did not occur because the project does not adversely affect any

Record of Decision

Page 13

habitat for threatened or endangered wildlife or fish species. Informal consultation occurred with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for effects to northern spotted owl critical habitat. Level 1 review and informal consultation was initiated on January 10, 2013. A Biological Assessment was completed on July 15, 2013 with a conclusion that the project “May Affect But is Not Likely to Adversely Affect” the northern spotted owl and its habitat.

Legal Requirements and Policy In reviewing the FEIS and actions associated with Alternative 3, I have concluded that my decision is consistent with the following laws and requirements:

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) NEPA establishes the format and content requirements of environmental analysis and documentation as well as requirements for public involvement and disclosure. The entire process of preparing this environmental impact statement was undertaken to comply with NEPA.

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) We find this decision to be consistent with the long term management objectives as discussed in the Deschutes National Forest Plan as amended, except as discussed below. All other Forest Plan direction, including from the Northwest Forest Plan and the Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2 (Eastside Screens) has been adhered to and incorporated into the project’s design.

Site-Specific Forest Plan Amendments: These amendments will not have an impact on the goals and objectives for the Forest Plan and they provide for activities that contribute to meeting the Scenic Views management area objectives. All other aspects of the selected alternative are consistent with the direction in the Forest Plan and Eastside Screens. I find the amendments described in the FEIS (pp. 478-479) to be non-significant based on the analysis in the FEIS. The selected alternative is consistent with direction contained in the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH). Some Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) are not being met under current conditions. The analysis concludes that Alternative 3 would benefit two RMOs-water temperature and large woody material (FEIS p. 457).

I find that this decision complies with the Northwest Forest Plan as amended by the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. It considers suitable habitat for survey and manage species applies appropriate project design providing for a reasonable assurance of species’ persistence.

This decision also complies with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) of the Northwest Forest Plan. ACS Objectives are addressed in the FEIS on pages 458-464. I reviewed the management activities from a project and watershed scale. The fuels and vegetation management authorized with this decision are necessary to meet project objectives and will also provide benefits to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. This project has no consequences to listed fish or water quality and it meets the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. The selected alternative will help maintain and restore riparian vegetation and aquatic conditions within the North Unit Dam – Deschutes River and Tumalo Creek 10th field

Record of Decision

Page 14

watersheds by reducing fuel loadings, prescribing silvicultural treatments including harvest and thinning. The treatments would help prevent negative effects to Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives in the event of wildfire, and includes project design features, including Best Management Practices, to limit any potential adverse effects to aquatic resources during implementation. Treatments within riparian reserves are consistent with the NWFP standards and guidelines and are designed to retain desirable habitat components. The reduction of excessive fuel loadings outside of stream buffers will reduce the potential damage to the physical integrity of aquatic systems by wildfire. I am confident that the mitigation measures, project design features and Best Management Practices will protect beneficial uses of the streams in the project area in a manner consistent with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy and the Clean Water Act.

I find the selected alternative to be consistent with the requirements of the National Forest Management Act implementing regulations; specifically under Alternative 3, there is no timber harvest on lands classified as unsuitable for timber production and Alternative 3 is consistent with the seven management requirements and the vegetation requirements from 36 CFR 219.217. The Preservation of American Antiquities Act of June 1906 and the National Historic Preservation Act: The Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) A cultural resource inventory has been completed for the project area. On March 12, 2013, the Deschutes National Forest completed the “Project Review for Heritage Resources under the Terms of the 2004 Programmatic Agreement” with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The activities in the selected alternative have been designed to have no effect to cultural resource sites through both protection and avoidance (FEIS pp. 418-420, 486). A finding of No Historic Properties Adversely Affected has been made for this project and the SHPO concurred with this finding on June 14, 2013. The project is compliant with the SHPO regulations (FEIS p. 486).

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended A Biological Evaluation was prepared to document the possible effects of the proposed activities to threatened and endangered wildlife species within the project area. The selected alternative is determined to have “No Effect” to Oregon spotted frog and California wolverine. A Biological Assessment was prepared to document the possible effects to the northern spotted owl and its critical habitat. The selected alternative is determined to “May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect” the northern spotted owl and its habitat. It has been determined that implementation of all of the proposed activities will have no effect to any threatened or endangered fish or plant species and would have either no impact on any sensitive wildlife species or associated habitat or may impact individuals or habitat but not cause a trend toward federal listing (FEIS p. 157).

The Clean Water Act, 1982 and 303(d) The selected alternative will comply with the Clean Water Act. This Act establishes a non-degradation policy for all federally proposed projects. Effects to water quality are analyzed for the Deschutes River which is included on the Oregon DEQ’s list of water quality impaired waterbodies for several parameters. Design of the West Bend project was structured to avoid, minimize, or rectify potentially adverse effects to the water quality of the Deschutes. Measures include stream setbacks, buffers for mechanized equipment, slope limitations, tree

Record of Decision

Page 15

height-based restrictions for thinning, and hand piling. The analysis concludes that parameters of temperature sedimentation, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and chlorophyll a would not be of the Deschutes (FEIS pp. 448-449).

Tumalo Creek is included in the water quality impaired list for temperature. The project does not enter the riparian habitat conservation area of Tumalo Creek and would have no effect to water temperature (FEIS p. 449).

The Clean Air Act The selected alternative will comply with the Clean Air Act. The Act prescribes air quality to be regulated by each individual state. The Forest Service will follow directions of the Oregon State Forester in conducting prescribed burning in order to achieve strict compliance with all aspects of the Clean Air Act and adherence to the Oregon Smoke Management Plan (FEIS pp. 148-149).

Civil Rights and Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice requires federal agencies to identify and address any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low income populations. The analysis focuses on potential effects from the project to minority populations, disabled persons, and low-income groups.

After evaluating the discussion in the FEIS, page 480, I have determined that there would be no discernible impacts from any of the alternatives on Native Americans, women, other minorities, or the Civil Rights of any American citizen.

Implementation Implementation will likely begin in the winter of 2013-2014. I reviewed the FEIS and associated appendices and believe there is adequate information within these documents to provide a reasoned choice of action. I am fully aware of adverse effects that cannot be avoided and believe the risks are outweighed by the benefits. Implementing the selected alternative will cause no unacceptable cumulative impact to any resource.

Minor changes may be needed during implementation to better meet on-site resource management and protection objectives. In determining whether and what kind of further NEPA action is required, we will consider the criteria to supplement an existing Environmental Impact Statement in 40 CFR 1502.9(c) and FSH 1909.15, sec. 18, and in particular, whether the proposed change is a substantial change to the intent of the Selected Alternative as planned and already approved, and whether the change is relevant to environmental concerns. Connected or interrelated proposed changes regarding particular areas or specific activities will be considered together in making this determination. The cumulative impacts of these changes will also be considered.

Minor adjustments to unit boundaries may be needed during final layout for resource protection, to improve logging system efficiency, and to better meet the intent of our decision. Many of these minor changes will not present sufficient potential impacts to require any specific documentation or action to comply with applicable laws.

Record of Decision

Page 17

Appendix A – Maps of Selected Alternative

Record of Decision

Page 18

This page intentionally left blank

FE4601

FE4606

FE4609

FE4133FE4602

FE 4180

FE4614

FE4603

FE4612

FE4130

FE4110

FE4615 FE4610

FE4613 9:;41

7450

514746

224445

36 3724

2740

34

113241

29119120

245 31238 128 124

250256

33111

125233121

88370

235236252 253

234122172

171 168 104262 105254

164167

165166231 176 177 162230

224271268

163178279227

364

278

132182228 161

158

359223276

222 152145149

219291 220 185213212

157

217350211

292 214

4952

112117116

107

108

8582

281285

282191 192 154

312189

406201

344 311319337

320331

202

418193328 326 200 426421 420194

428 415424422197 196500 446450

441499

502503

435452 440498 454 436

460504

495493

464461

496

463469

468 470466494465 472

489 488

492491 473 476475

490485

480510511

270

261 259

265

267 255

247

240

2625

20 38

97

95

140

147

153

405404155

155

155

156156

448451

486

479

274 272357

353

342341 340 343

336308

338

362

216

226

221

416

402403 407

423

434

437

444

439456

487

208325

327324

316315

296

307

301

69

64

184

210

183181

187

190

289290

2

8

1718 15

1614

263

269

150

133129

109380126

393530

55

401

409

410411

643

5

515462

514

229

53

188

203

355

4601

46

T 17 S

T 18 S

T 19 S

R 10 E R 11 E

0 2 41 Miles

.

West BendProject Area

UV41

UV46

UV46

UV4601

Estimated Temp. Rd. Location

Alternative 3Overstory Treatments

Girdle - Overstory LP with Mistletoe

Aspen - Cut & Leave Conifers

Thin From Below to 60 BAOverstory Removal - LP Seed Tree Removal

Seed Tree Cut - Cut Overstory & Dead LPMC with Gaps - Thin to Favor PP with OpeningsWUI Thin - Remove LP > 7" DBH & Ladder Fuels

Green Tinged Paintbrush - Thin Stand to 60 BAWith Openings Around PopulationsConnectivity Thin - Favor PP, Cut LP, Retain Clumps of WFThin Within Deer Winter Range - Thin With OpeningsThin For Sun to Road - Wide Thinning in Full Stand

Goshawk Post-Fledgling Area40 BA

80 BA80 BA MixCut LPRetention Areas - Fuels Treatments Only

60 BA

Land Based InformationWest Bend Project Boundary

Private LandsInventoried Roadless Area

This product is reproduced from geospatial information prepared by theU.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. The Forest Service cannot assure

the reliability or suitability of this information if used for a purpose other than which it was created. Original data elements were compiled from various sources.

Spatial information may not meet national map accuracy standards. The information may be updated, corrected, or otherwise modified without notification. For additional

information about this data, contact the Deschutes National Forest.

T:\FS\NFS\Deschutes\Project\bfreaWestBend2010\GIS\Workspace\mldurrant\MXDs\WestBend_Alt3_OS.mxdMAp Created 12-11-13

4601

4601

4646

46

1518

30

38

57

250

34

239

56

224

226 147

162

17

401

125

342

94

282

201

26

86

255

178164

20

341

152

8

416

410

462

376

512

267

110

308

467

414

285216

362

413

95

41

486489

27296

474

355

114

301

113

104

464

487

37282

451

5249

326

432

16

504

434

190

411

200328

46

88

327

25

270

458

36

60

242

130

340

153

503

14

456

112

97

74

51

43

457

431

225

321

422

298

377

202324

502

211

471477

428

496

514

290

409

109

325

259

439

208

403

482

247

243

240

478

495

295

407

262

331

491

264

402289

42

360

354

485

122

315

128

296

492

307

438

55

336

107

197

475

131

149300

266

513

68

245

168

333

369

498

427

279

293

234

214

246 33

145

446

138

62

473

98

210

66

316

124

277

361

483

353

183

261

263

156

45

64

370

347

75

448

337

237

24

429

404

367

375

111

265

510

338 405

412

260

54

310

368

493

244

484

366

334

165 105

461463

223276

85

480

476472

364

343

151273

248

373

344312

437

236

229

371

13

275

249

268

166

311

430

453

359

509

490

436442

156

391

363

28

365

286

9:;41

FE4613

FE4609

FE4615

FE4610

FE4110

FE4612

FE4130

FE4603

FE4601

FE4602FE 4180

FE4614

FE4133

FE4606

FE4601

FE4615

FE4614

T 17 S

T 18 S

T 19 S

R 10 E R 11 E

0 2.5 51.25 Miles

.


UV46

UV46

UV41

UV4601

Alternative 3Understory Treatments

Ladder Fuel ReductionPre-Commercial ThinPre-Commercial Thin - MechanicalSkid & Deck - PP Plantation ThinningWhip Felling






information about this data, contact the Deschutes National Forest. T:\FS\NFS\Deschutes\Project\bfreaWestBend2010\GIS\Workspace\mldurrant\MXDs\WestBend_Alt3_US.mxd

MAp Created 12/10/2013

4646

46

4601

4601

9:;41

9:;41

9:;41

408

184

15

7

18

30

38

57

250

191

34

239

136

87

12356

224

226 147

35

44

157

58

106

129

192

148

162

17

401

47

90

31

125

278

37

150

203

342

94

282

102

84

201

140

271

256171

154

26

40

390

61

86

255

29

178164

20

91

341

81

152181

27

8

416

410

462

222

376

512

1

163

155

380

308

467

414

135

285

228

216

159

362

415

185

116

413

406

137

382

95

41

5

486

92

489

272

32

96

474

355

301

113

0

104

464

487

6

372

121

2

158

82

451

254

22

3

281

426

5249

0

326

186

0

10

432

16

133

504

434

219

190

411

80

0

50

200328

46

88

327

134

72

25

252

270

458

36 384

177

60

242

130

386

340

153

503

120

0

182

59

205

14

233

456

112

97

189

74

51

43

457

77

431

225

127

321

221

422

71

227

39

298

377

70

202324

502

187

73

115

211

471

383

477

428

496

514

290

409

235

217

4

109

325

259

0

515

439

83

208

403

482

247

297

195

231

421

0

243240

253

274

478

495

424

295

466

407

469

262

357

331

491

0

479

264

89

402

206

230

435

42

444

354

238

485

122251

117

315

128

499

296

53

492

420

307

220

0

452

21

438

0

55

336

291

107

213

0197

118

148

385

475

131

149300

266

513

0

68

245

168

333

194

369 100

0

427

279

89

293

0

0

0

234

214

246

0

374

143

33

284

1450

446 0

0

126

138

65

62

473

0

0

98

210

66

316

124

132

277

483

353

183

0

261

263

01760

156

45

64

488

370

418

347

75

0

0

448

337

237

0

160146

460

425

172

468

63

24

429

404

78

212

0

367

0

375

111

265

0

510

465

338 405

161

0

12

412

445

260

67

450

54

310

144

368

497

493

244

139

79

484

366 99

294

423

142

440

334

258

0

165

0

105

461463

223

494

119

276

085

0

480

476472

0

364

0

0

343

449

151

1880

0

196

441

11

511

273

248

373

344

69

312

218

437

103

0

229

371

13

0

275

0

249108

166

419

0

193

311

179

0

0

430

453

359

470

481

0

0

0

0

455

509

500

292

490

436

0

156

0

391

0

155

363

0

28

167

0365 101

286

0

0

0

387

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

00

0

0

0

0

0

0

00

00

0

00

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

FE4613

FE4609

FE4615

FE4612

FE4130

FE4603

FE4601

FE4614

FE4602FE 4180

FE4133

FE4606

FE4601

FE4614

FE4615

R. 10 E. R. 11 E.R. 9 E.

T. 17 S.

T. 18 S.

T. 19 S.

0 2 41 Miles

.


UV46

UV41

UV46

UV4601

Alternative 3Fuels Treatments

BurnMowMow / BurnPilePile / BurnPile / MowPile / Mow / BurnLop & ScatterLop & Scatter / MowLop & Scatter / Mow / BurnRetention Areas with Fuels Treatments Only






information about this data, contact the Deschutes National Forest.

T:\FS\NFS\Deschutes\Project\bfreaWestBend2010\GIS\Workspace\mldurrant\MXDs\WestBend_Alt3_Fuels.mxdMAp Created 12-11-13

Record of Decision

Page 23

Appendix B – Unit Prescriptions

Unit2 Overstory Rx Activity Code

Understory Rx Fuels Rx HSV Acres

1.0

Mow/Burn

39 2.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn

27

3.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn


Mow/Burn

17

5.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn


Mow/Burn

27

7.0

Mow/Burn

137 8.0 60 BA thin HTH LFR Lop & Scat/Mow/Burn

41

10.0

Mow/Burn

38 11.0

Mow/Burn

6

12.0

Mow/Burn

9 13.0

PCT Pile/Mow/Burn

6

14.0 60 BA thin HTH PCT Pile/Mow/Burn

53 15.0 60 BA thin HTH PCT Pile/Mow/Burn

234

16.0 60 BA thin HTH PCT Lop & Scat/Mow/Burn


109

18.0 Deer WR Thin HTH PCT Mow/Burn

214


72 21.0

Mow/Burn

18

22.0 Road Sun HTH

Mow/Burn


10


32 26.0 Road Sun HTH PCT Pile/Mow/Burn

79

27.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn

69 27.1 (1)

Mow/Burn

4

28.0

LFR Mow/Burn


Mow/Burn

72

29.1 (7)

Mow/Burn


203

31.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn

103 32.0

Mow/Burn

49


14 34.0 CACH15 HTH PCT Pile/Mow/Burn

166

35.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn


30

37.0 CACH15 HTH

Mow/Burn

100

38.0 Deer WR Thin HTH PCT Pile/Mow/Burn

200

39.0 Road Sun HTH

Mow/Burn


Mow/Burn

77

41.0 Skid & deck Skid & deck Mow/Burn

52 42.0 Skid & deck Skid & deck Mow/Burn

20


42

2 Units that have a .1 (i.e. 27.1) indicates retention areas within units (27.0). When retention areas are indicated, more than one retention area within a unit may exist. Mowing and/or burning will occur within retention areas. Numbers in parenthesis (i.e. 29.1 (7)) indicate the number of retention areas within a unit, in this example 7 within unit 29 also have t the same treatments.

Record of Decision

Page 24



44.0 Road Sun HTH

Mow/Burn


12



Mow/Burn

108



Mow/Burn

34



41

53.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn

18 53.1 (1) Hawk Nest

39



18



191

58.0

Mow/Burn

114 58.1 (4)

Mow/Burn

20

59.0

Mow/Burn

56 59.1 (3)

Mow/Burn

11


29 61.0

Mow/Burn

77

61.1 (2)

Mow/Burn


13

63.0

Mow/Burn


12

65.0

Mow/Burn

13 66.0

PCT Pile/Mow/Burn

13

67.0

Mow/Burn


16

69.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn

6 70.0

Mow/Burn

34

70.1 (1)

Mow/Burn

6 71.0

Mow/Burn

37

72.0

Mow/Burn

32 73.0

Mow/Burn

32



11

77.0

Mow/Burn

41 78.0

Mow/Burn

10

78.1 (1)

Mow/Burn

2 79.0

Mow/Burn

9

80.0

Mow/Burn

35 80.1 (2)

Mow/Burn

7

81.0

Mow/Burn

71 81.1 (1)

Mow/Burn

11


44 83.0

Mow/Burn

21

84.0

Mow/Burn


7


77 87.0

Mow/Burn

143

87.1 (1)

Mow/Burn

11

Record of Decision

Page 25




33 89.0

Mow

36

90.0

Mow

105 91.0

Mow

71

92.0

Mow/Burn

50 94.0

PCT Pile/Mow/Burn

94



49



13

99.0

Mow/Burn

9 100.0

Mow/Burn

22

101.0

Mow/Burn

4 102.0

Mow/Burn

127

103.0

Mow/Burn

8 104.0 60 BA thin HTH LFR Pile/Mow/Burn

65

105.0 60 BA thin HTH LFR Pile/Mow/Burn

11 106.0

Mow/Burn

164

106.1 (2)

Mow/Burn


25

108.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn


38

110.0 Skid & deck Skid & deck


13



62


63 115.0

Mow/Burn

44


Mow/Burn

74 117.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn

25

118.0

Mow/Burn

23 119.0 60 BA thin HTH

Burn

10


Mow/Burn

30 121.0 CACH15 HTH

Mow/Burn

63

122.0 CACH15 HTH PCT Pile/Mow/Burn

26 123.0

Mow

199



143


Mow/Burn

18 127.0

Mow/Burn

55


26 129.0 CACH15 HTH

Mow/Burn

165



23


Mow/Burn

18

133.0 Deer WR Thin HTH

Mow/Burn

51

134.0

Mow/Burn

45 135.0

Mow/Burn

82

136.0

Mow/Burn

211 136.1 (4)

Mow/Burn

46

Record of Decision

Page 26



137.0

Mow


18

139.0

Mow/Burn

12 140.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn

118

141.0

Mow/Burn

5 142.0

Mow/Burn

12

143.0

Mow/Burn

20 144.0

Mow/Burn

12


19 146.0

Mow/Burn

15


194

148.0

Mow/Burn

179 148.1 (1)

Mow/Burn

3


23


Mow/Burn

136


10


97


34 154.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn

112

154.1 (7)

Mow/Burn


Mow/Burn

93

155.1 (1)

Mow/Burn


22


Mow/Burn

172

157.1 (1)

Mow/Burn

9


Mow/Burn

60

158.1 (4)

Mow/Burn

10 159.0

Mow/Burn

80

160.0

Mow/Burn

15 161.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn

13


153 162.1 (1)

Mow/Burn

4


Mow/Burn


102

165.0 CACH15 HTH PCT Pile/Mow/Burn


8


Mow/Burn


22


Mow/Burn

115 172.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn

15


Mow/Burn

15 176.1 (1)

Mow/Burn

2


Mow/Burn

40 178.0 PFA 60 HTH PCT Pile/Mow/Burn y 103 179.0 PFA retention

Mow/Burn

7

181.0 PFA 80 HTH

Mow/Burn

97

Record of Decision

Page 27



181.1 (2) PFA retention

Mow/Burn

8 182.0 PFA 80 HTH

Mow/Burn

106

182.1(13) PFA retention

Mow/Burn


17

184.0 CACH15 HTH

Mow/Burn

335 185.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn

76


Mow/Burn


Mow/Burn

46

188.0 PFA 80 HTH

Mow/Burn

9 189.0 PFA 60 HTH

Mow/Burn

61

190.0 PFA 60 HTH PCT Pile/Mow/Burn

50 191.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn

236

192.0 CACH15 HTH

Mow/Burn

157 192.1 (3)

Mow/Burn

14


Mow/Burn


Mow/Burn

22


Mow/Burn

9 197.0 60 BA thin HTH LFR Mow/Burn

24

200.0 Thin MC & gaps HIM PCT Pile/Mow/Burn

48

201.0 PFA 60 HTH LFR Mow/Burn


47

203.0 PFA 60 HTH

Mow/Burn

126 203.3 (1) PFA retention

Mow/Burn

1


Mow/Burn

8 205.0

Mow

76

206.0

Mow/Burn

29 208.0 Seed tree HCR PCT Pile y 36 209.0 Girdle OS

40

210.0 Seed tree HCR whip Pile/Mow/Burn y 18 211.0 Seed tree HCR whip Pile/Mow/Burn y 43 212.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn y 14


Mow/Burn y 25 214.0 HOR HOR PCT Lop & Scat/Mow y 20 216.0 Seed tree HCR whip Pile y 80 217.0 PFA 80 HTH

Mow/Burn

40

218.0 PFA retention

Mow/Burn

8 219.0 PFA 80 HTH

Mow/Burn

50

220.0 PFA 80 HTH

Mow/Burn


Mow/Burn

6


Mow/Burn

53 222.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn

94

223.0 60 BA thin HTH PCT Mow/Burn y 11 224.0 60 BA thin HTH PCT Lop & Scat/Mow/Burn

196



Mow/Burn

7

226.0 PFA 60 HTH LFR Mow/Burn y 195 226.1 (2) PFA retention

Mow/Burn

24

226.5 (1) PFA retention HTH

Mow/Burn

6 227.0 PFA 80

Mow/Burn

45


Mow/Burn

4

Record of Decision

Page 28



228.0 PFA 60 HTH

Mow/Burn


Mow/Burn

6

229.0 PFA Cut LP HTH PCT Pile/Burn y 8 230.0 PFA 80 HTH

Mow/Burn

28


Mow/Burn

1 231.0 PFA 80 HTH

Mow/Burn

32


Mow/Burn

14 233.0 PFA 60 HTH

Mow/Burn

73

233.1 (1)

Mow/Burn

4 234.0 PFA 40 HTH PCT Pile/Mow/Burn

20

234.1 (1)

Mow/Burn


Mow/Burn

40

235.1 (2)

Mow/Burn


8

237.0

LFR Pile/Mow/Burn

15 238.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn

27



33



39


33 243.1 (1)

Mow/Burn

2



22



34

248.0 Skid & deck Skid & deck Pile/Mow/Burn

9 249.0 Skid & deck Skid & deck Pile/Mow/Burn

8

250.0 PFA 60 HTH PCT Pile/Mow/Burn


Mow/Burn

18

251.1 (1)

Mow/Burn


Mow/Burn

44


Mow/Burn

32 253.1 (1)

Mow/Burn

3


Mow/Burn

60 255.0 60 BA thin HTH LFR Pile/Mow/Burn y 106

255.1 (1)

Mow/Burn


Mow

115

257.1 (1) NSO Connect

38 258.0

Mow

11

259.0 Connect thin HTH LFR Pile/Mow y 38 260.0

LFR Pile/Mow

13

261.0 Connect thin HTH LFR Pile y 17 262.0 HOR HOR PCT Pile y 30 263.0 Seed tree HCR PCT Pile y 17 264.0

PCT Pile/Mow

29

265.0 Seed tree HCR whip Pile y 14 266.0 Girdle OS LFR Lop & Scat/Mow

23

267.0 Seed tree HCR whip

y 88 268.0 HOR HOR PCT Mech

8

269.0 Seed tree HCR

y 9

Record of Decision

Page 29



270.0 Seed tree HCR whip Pile y 43 271.0 Seed tree HCR

Pile y 116

272.0 Seed tree HCR whip Pile y 69 273.0 Girdle OS PCT Pile

9

274.0 Seed tree HCR

Pile y 32 275.0

PCT Pile

8

276.0 Thin MC & gaps HIM LFR Pile y 10

277.0 Girdle OS PCT Lop & Scat/Mow

18 278.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn

132

279.0 HOR HOR PCT Lop & Scat/Mow

21 280.0 60 BA thin HTH PCT Mow/Burn y 149 281.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow

59

282.0 HOR HOR PCT Pile

127 283.0 Seed tree HCR

y 18

284.0

Mow/Burn

19 285.0 HOR HOR PCT Lop & Scat

82

286.0 Girdle OS PCT Lop & Scat

4 289.0 Seed tree HCR whip

y 29

290.0 60 BA thin HTH PCT Pile/Mow y 41 291.0 Seed tree HCR

Mow y 25

292.0 Seed tree HCR

Mow y 6 293.0 Skid & deck Skid & deck Burn

21

294.0

Mow/Burn

12 294.1 (1)

Mow/Burn

2

295.0

PCT Lop & Scat/Mow

31 296.0 Seed tree HCR whip Pile y 26 297.0

Pile/Mow

34

298.0 Skid & deck Skid & deck Mow/Burn y 49 300.0 Girdle OS PCT Lop & Scat

23

301.0 Seed tree HCR whip Pile y 65 307.0 Seed tree HCR whip Pile y 25 308.0 Seed tree HCR whip Lop & Scat y 87 310.0 Girdle OS PCT Lop & Scat

13

311.0 Seed tree HCR whip Pile/Burn y 7 312.0 Seed tree HCR whip Pile

8

315.0 Seed tree HCR whip Lop & Scat y 26 316.0 Seed tree HCR whip Lop & Scat y 18 319.0 HOR HOR

63

320.0 HOR HOR

41 321.0 Girdle OS PCT Lop & Scat

53

324.0 Seed tree HCR whip Pile y 47 325.0 60 BA thin HTH PCT Lop & Scat

38

326.0 Seed tree HCR whip Pile y 57 327.0 Seed tree HCR whip Pile

45

328.0 HOR HOR PCT Pile

47 331.0 HOR HOR PCT Pile

30

333.0 Girdle OS PCT Pile

22 334.0 Girdle OS PCT Lop & Scat

12

336.0 Seed tree HCR whip Pile y 25 337.0 HOR HOR PCT Lop & Scat

15

Record of Decision

Page 30



338.0 Seed tree HCR PCT Pile y 14 340.0 60 BA thin HTH PCT Pile y 34 341.0 60 BA thin HTH PCT Pile y 45 342.0 Seed tree HCR PCT Lop & Scat y 132 343.0 Seed tree HCR PCT Pile y 10 344.0 HOR HOR PCT Lop & Scat

9

347.0

PCT Lop & Scat

16 350.0 HOR HOR

37

353.0 Seed tree HCR PCT Pile y 17 354.0

PCT Lop & Scat/Mow

27

355.0 Seed tree HCR PCT Pile y 58 357.0 WUI Cut HIM

Pile y 30

359.0 Seed tree HCR PCT Lop & Scat

7 360.0 Skid & deck Skid & deck

28


18

362.0 Seed tree HCR whip Pile y standing 80

363.0

LFR Pile

5 364.0 HOR HOR PCT Pile

10

365.0

LFR Pile

5 366.0

PCT Pile/Mow

12

367.0

PCT Pile/Mow

14 368.0

PCT Pile

12

369.0

PCT Pile

22 370.0 WUI Cut HIM PCT Pile/Mow

16

371.0 Girdle OS PCT Pile/Mow

8 372.0

PCT Mech Pile/Mow

64

373.0

PCT Mech Pile

9 374.0

Mow

20

375.0

PCT Mech Pile/Mow

14 376.0

PCT Mech Pile/Mow

92

377.0

PCT Mech Pile/Mow

48 380.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn

87

382.0

Mow/Burn

75 383.0

Mow/Burn

44

384.0

Mow/Burn

42 385.0

Mow/Burn

24

386.0

Mow/Burn

36 387.0

Mow/Burn

4

390.0

Mow/Burn

108 391.0

PCT Lop & Scat

5

401.0 Road Sun HTH LFR Pile/Mow/Burn

151 402.0 Road Sun HTH LFR Pile/Mow/Burn

29

403.0 Road Sun HTH PCT Pile/Mow/Burn


14


14 406.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn

75


31 408.0

Mow/Burn

304

408.1 (6)

Mow/Burn


40

Record of Decision

Page 31





47

411.1 (1)

Mow/Burn


13



83

414.1 (1)

Mow/Burn


Mow/Burn

79

415.1 (1)

Mow/Burn


96


Mow/Burn

16 419.0

Mow/Burn

7

420.0 Road Sun HTH

Mow/Burn

26 421.0 Road Sun HTH

Mow/Burn

33

422.0 60 BA thin HTH PCT Mow/Burn

53 423.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn

12


Mow/Burn

32 425.0

Mow/Burn

15


Mow/Burn

58 427.0

PCT Pile

21


43 429.0 Skid & deck Skid & deck Pile/Mow/Burn

14


7 431.0 Skid & deck Skid & deck Pile/Burn

58


53 433.0 Skid & deck Skid & deck Pile/Burn

5


51 435.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn

29



8



37


Pile/Mow/Burn

12 440.1 (1)

Mow/Burn

2


Mow/Burn


6


Mow/Burn

28 445.0

Mow/Burn

13


19 448.0 60 BA thin HTH PCT Mow/Burn

15

449.0 Road Sun HTH

Mow/Burn

10 450.0 Road Sun HTH

Mow/Burn

13

451.0 60 BA thin HTH LFR Pile/Burn

61 452.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn

25



Mow/Burn

6

456.0 Seed tree HCR whip Mow/Burn y 72 457.0 Skid & deck Skid & deck Mow

59


42 460.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn

15


11

Record of Decision

Page 32





11

464.0 60 BA thin HTH PCT Mow/Burn

64 465.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn

14


Mow/Burn


83


Mow/Burn

15 469.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn

30


Mow/Burn


45



18



23



44


32 479.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn

29


10 481.0

Mow/Burn

6


35 483.0

PCT Pile

18



26


71 487.0 60 BA thin HTH PCT Pile/Mow

64


Mow/Burn


70



30



12


Mow/Burn y 11 495.0 60 BA thin HTH LFR Mow

30

496.0 60 BA thin HTH PCT Pile/Mow/Burn y 42 497.0

Mow

12

498.0 Aspen HIM LFR

22 499.0 60 BA thin HTH

Mow/Burn

26

500.0 Road Sun HTH

Mow/Burn


46

503.0 HOR HOR LFR Pile/Mow


51



14


Mow/Burn


92



42


Mow/Burn

38

Appendix C - Resource Protection Measures

Record of Decision

Page 33

Measure Number Protection Measure Units affected and/

or Direction

To preserve Air Quality 1. Conduct prescribed fire in compliance with National Ambient Air Quality

Standards, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality regulations and restriction, and under the Oregon Smoke Management Plan regulations and restrictions.

All burn units

2. Prescribed burning will be conducted under favorable smoke dispersal conditions to avoid impacts to urban areas and Class I airsheds. Inversion conditions, which would increase the potential for smoke pooling in valleys and drainages, would be avoided during burning operations.

All burn units

General Silvicultural Design 3. In overstory removal harvests, green tree replacements (GTRs) will be left in

groups (TM-4) and where trees with mistletoe are left over advanced regeneration of susceptible species, those overstory trees will be killed in place (LRMP TM-48).

All HOR units

4. During treatment activities in overstory removal (HOR) units, advanced regeneration will be protected (TM-44 & 53).

All HOR units

4.5 Retain trees regardless of size that exhibit old tree characteristics (from Van Pelt) except where they are either 1) ladder fuels which pose a threat to larger diam. trees or 2) individual DMT-infected trees that contribute to infection potential of desired understory trees.* Ponderosa old tree characteristics include all of the following 1) orange bark with plates generally more than three times wider than the darker fissures that separate them, 2) rounded crown, and 3) below the main crown, few if any dead branches present and knots not noticeable. *Clumps of larger mistletoe-infected trees within the larger ponderosa pine plantations (“Skid and Deck units) will be retained and thinned around.

All units

5. To reduce the potential for long-term growth and bark beetle-induced mortality of ponderosa pine, underburning will be accomplished during conditions which will leave at least 40% crown on dominant and codominant trees. This generally should result in a crown scorch less than 50% of leave tree crowns, outside of Scenic Views.

6. Locate slash piles to minimize the scorch effect on adjacent trees. All burn units 7. When underburning in plantations, do not light around trees less than 6 inches in

diameter (TM-53). All burn units

8. Openings larger than 2 acres caused by management activities which do not contain adequate advanced regeneration will be evaluated for reforestation.

All units

To Protect Recreation Infrastructure, Provide for Public Safety, and Preserve Visual Quality at Recreation Sites and along Trails

9. Avoid creating vegetative conditions that would facilitate creation of unauthorized trails, or that would facilitate unauthorized motorized access from a designated route. Ensure that temporary roads and fireline used for project administration do not become future unauthorized roads and trails by effective obliteration after use. Utilize opportunities during operations to obliterate unauthorized routes. Where possible, bury large rocks (2-3 feet in diameter) one-third of the way up the rock and scattered over the first 100 yards of road.

All treatment units

10. To the extent possible, implementation of treatments will be designed to maintain access to the larger trail system. For example, if a large trail system is accessed by two primary trails within separate units, implement treatments within those units on different years to maintain access.

All overstory, understory and fuels treatment units with winter and/or summer trails

11. Maintain safe public access to the Lava Island and Big Eddy Day Use sites during 409, 401

Record of Decision

Page 34


or Direction the spring, summer and fall seasons. These sites are important river take-out sites and need to remain accessible to the public to maintain public safety.

12. To the extent possible mitigate hazard trees surrounding developed recreation sites. Coordinate with the developed recreation staff to complete hazard tree assessment prior to activity.

77,260,295,328,341, 401,409,419-421

13. To the extent possible, protect recreation infrastructure including: site identification signs, kiosks, informational signs, fences, buildings, and other recreation investments that are either owned by the US Forest Service or privately owned and authorized under a special use permit. Notify recreation staff should recreation infrastructure be damaged or destroyed during operations.

All treatment units

14. Emphasize retention of trail defining vegetation, including trees and in some areas brush. This vegetation is part of the trail infrastructure and should be protected. Incorporate specific components into the silvicultural prescription that will retain these features. Highlight areas with sparse vegetation or soil conditions that offer fewer opportunities to define trail width and location.


15. Minimize trail damage by machinery. Mow across trails and minimize turning on a trail. For other equipment, to the extent possible, cross trails with machinery at intervals no closer than 200 feet apart along the length of the trail. Inspect for trail damage and safety concerns like 'pungi sticks' after treatment.


16. Snow berms created by commercial logging activities which conflict with winter recreationist routes or create a hazard will be leveled immediately where standards are recognized in Road Use Permit stipulations.

All overstory and understory treatment units with winter and/or summer trails

17. Recreation specialist will inventory all signs prior to activities occurring and ensure signs are restored to original location/condition if damage occurs during operations. Where possible, retain trees that hold signs (including diamonds that mark winter trails).


18. For any cut vegetation within 10 feet of either side of the trail, cut vegetation flat and less than 4 inches to the ground to prevent creating a "pungi stick" and other hazards to trail users. At a minimum, following completion of all treatment activities, review and evaluate the trail conditions to ensure that they meet safety standards.


19. Maintain trees along trails that will help define the trail within lodgepole stands with overstory prescriptions for seedtree removal and overstory removal where understory stands are not tall enough to define the trail. Coordinate with trails staff prior to treatment design and implementation to define site specific goals.

Units: 211,262,263,265,267 270,271,272,274,282 285,289,291,296, 301, 307,308 311,315,316,319,326 327,328,331,336,337 338,342,343,344,350 353,355,362,364

To Maintain Scenic Quality 20. Locate landings, skid trails, slash piles or staging areas using existing openings

and skid trails and minimize bole damage to remaining vegetation in Scenic Views Foreground treatment areas on Cascade Lakes Scenic Byway (Hwy 46), Road 41, Road 4601, Road 4606, adjacent to developed recreation sites and trails, and areas designated as Scenic in Wild & Scenic River corridors. Flush cut stumps (6 inches or less with angle cut away form line of sight) in immediate Foreground areas (0-300 feet).

21. Design underburning activities to minimize short-term visual effects by maintaining crown scorch at less than 30 percent and minimize bole scorch up to

Record of Decision

Page 35


or Direction 10 feet in height.

22. Minimize amount of leave-tree markings and black out tagging of trees along scenic travel corridors, trails and developed recreation site after sale closes.

23. Five years after work has been completed, clean-up activities along Cascade Lakes Scenic Byway (Hwy 46), Road 41, Road 4601, Road 4606, adjacent to developed recreation sites and trails, and areas designated as Scenic in Wild & Scenic River corridors including landings, skid trails, slash piles or staging areas and removal of flagging, unit boundary tags and other markings will not be visible to the casual Forest visitor (Forest Plan Amendment).

24. To the extent possible, avoid using the trail as a fireline which leaves a condition of black on one side of the trail and green on the other.

To Protect Soil 25. Overstory treatments

• Restrict operations to winter only if feasible. • Retain as leave patches dense stands on inoperable ground (i.e., too rocky or steep).

Understory treatments • Avoid post-harvest mechanical operations, conduct by hand as is practicable or combine with fuels treatment. • For young stand management, limit equipment travel and utilize machines. with long boom reach, designate and maximize distance between primary travel routes.

Fuels Treatments • Prohibit heavy equipment operations off of existing primary skid trails. • Maintain effective ground cover and organics; retain >50% of litter/duff depth wherever it exists.

• Retain as much existing large CWD as is practical where it exists

Where extent of detrimental soil conditions is high and all sensitive soils (see FEIS Appendix D)

26. Overstory Treatments • Avoid operating late in the dry season. • Minimize sideslope movements by heavy equipment. • Require a parallel skid trail network when practicable.

Fuels Treatments • Minimize upslope pre-heating when underburning to minimize litter and duff consumption.

Units with sensitive soils – steep slopes (>30%) Refer to FEIS Table 225, p. 571 Appendix D

27. Sensitive Soils – steep-sided confined drainage ways Overstory Treatments • Prohibit the placement of temporary roads and skidding in the bottom of old drainage ways, channel features, swales, and draws.

Units with sensitive soils – steep-sided confined drainage ways Refer to FEIS Table 225, p. 571, Appendix D

28. Overstory Treatments • Prohibit heavy equipment within 100 feet of the river.

Understory and Fuels Treatments • Conduct all activities by hand.

Sensitive Soils – slopes adjacent to the Deschutes River Refer to FEIS Table 225, p. 571, Appendix D

29. Overstory Treatments • Too shallow to subsoil, avoid new landings and temporary roads as is feasible, locate new landings in existing roadways.

Sensitive soils - shallow soils on forested lavas Refer to FEIS Table 225, p. 571, Appendix D

Record of Decision

Page 36


or Direction 30. All Activities

• Avoidance - Defer activities and retain existing patches where practicable Sensitive soils - frost pockets Refer to FEIS Table 225, p. 571, Appendix D

Apply appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to all ground-disturbing management activities, as described in National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands (USFS 2012). Listed here are BMPs most commonly practices to minimize detrimental

31. Convey to all equipment operators the need to limit ground disturbance as much as is feasible. Avoid traveling over untrammeled ground unless necessary.

32. Avoid repetitive passes by heavy equipment except over designated primary routes (i.e., roads or skid trails). Restrict travel of heavy equipment off designated primary routes to two passes or fewer.

33. Limit as is feasible heavy equipment, particularly tracked machinery from pivoting or unnecessary side-hill travel on slopes greater than 15 percent. Travel should mostly be down the fall-line and perpendicular to the contour of the slope.

34. Minimize travel of heavy equipment on slopes greater than 15 percent late in the season when soils are extremely dry and susceptible to excessive soil displacement.

35. Suspend operations during wet periods when soil moisture is high and heavy equipment tracks sink deep below the soil surface, particularly during spring thaw or after heavy rains.

36. Skidding or forwarding operations should avoid using the bottom of dry swales as primary travel routes.

37. Operations on sensitive soils or where the extent of existing detrimental soil impacts is high should be conducted over frozen ground as is feasible, or when the snowpack is at a depth sufficient enough to protect mineral soil. Travel of heavy equipment off of designated primary routes on sensitive soils should be avoided as much as is feasible. All attempts should be made to avoid new landings and skid trails in previously managed stands on sensitive soils.

38. Re-use existing log landings and primary skid trails whenever feasible. Locations of new landings, primary skid trails, and temporary roads must be approved by the Forest Service prior to use.

39. For whole-tree harvest systems, primary skid trails will be spaced at least 100 to 150 feet apart, except at convergence zones around landings or where terrain limitations dictate otherwise.

40. For cut-to-length harvest systems, spacing of primary forwarder trails should be at least 65 feet, except where terrain limitations dictate otherwise. To the extent possible, slash mats should be deposited over primary forwarder trails during cutting operations.

41. Restrict grapple skidders to designated areas only (i.e., roads, landings, primary skid trails) and on slopes 30 percent or less.

42. The location of temporary roads will be approved by the Forest Service prior to construction. Temporary roads shall be located on terrain where minimal width can be maintained, and where the least amount of cut-and-fill construction is needed.

43. Avoid locating temporary roads on sensitive soils, and prohibit them from being routed down through the bottoms of swales, draws, abandoned channels, or dry natural drainageways.

44. Landings and temporary roads shall be constructed using drainage control structures. Erosion and sediment control measures should be emplaced to prevent accelerated erosion and off-site transport of sediment to a water source.

45. Install water control structures (i.e. waterbars) on all segments of primary skid

Record of Decision

Page 37


or Direction trails and temporary roads on slopes 10% or greater. Spacing of waterbars shall depend on the steepness of the slope and its length.

46. Conduct preventive road maintenance regularly to avoid deterioration of the prism and prevent accelerated erosion and sedimentation.

47. Subsoil or decompact all temporary roads to a depth of at least 16 inches after use. Outslope any segments requiring a cut into the hillslope.

48. Piling of post-activity fuels should be limited as is feasible to existing primary travel routes and skid trails. Restrict travel of heavy equipment off designated primary routes to two passes or fewer. On sensitive soils, prohibit machine travel off of primary skid trails altogether.

49. Locate machine constructed slash on primary designated skid trails as much as possible.

50. Minimize the amount of large diameter CWD that is incorporated into slash piles, particularly those that are relatively sound or “buckskin” (i.e. decay classes 1 through 3, particularly pieces that are gray and without bark). Except where there are heavy concentrations of residual dead and downed wood, retain as much residual large CWD as possible (where it exists). In previously harvested areas, refrain from incorporated existing CWD in slash piles as much as is feasible.

51. Underburning activities should be conducted so that at least 40 percent of the duff and litter layer across an activity area is retained. Target underburning when relative humidity and fuel moistures are favorable for litter and duff retention so that as much of the effective ground cover as possible is maintained. Litter and duff layers should have enough moisture to detect by hand, and not be too brittle.

52. Sites where the organic layers are thin such as frost pockets or heavily disturbed areas where effective ground cover is less than 50% conduct underburning in a manner that retains at least 50% of the duff and litter layer depth.

53. Retain a portion of live understory (where it exsits). To facilitate an increase after fire in the production and turn-over of the litter, fine roots, and soil biota a proportion of the underburn should be non-lethal so that a mosaic of the understory is retained.

54. Minimize the consumption of sound, large diameter CWD during prescribed underburns. Where CWD is close to or in contact with the ground attempt to minimize the duration and intensity that it burns to lessen the effects to soils.

55. Restore as much machine-constructed fire lines as is feasible by redistributing displaced topsoil and unburned woody debris over the disturbed surface.

To Protect Water Quality and Riparian Vegetation Best Management Practices prescribed for the West Bend Project were derived from the National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management On National Forest System Lands (USDA 2012a) Vegetation Management Activities BMP Veg-2 – Erosion Prevention and Control Within RRs/RHCAs

56. Operate equipment when soil compaction, displacement, erosion, and sediment runoff would be minimized. Avoid ground equipment operations on unstable, wet, or easily compacted soils and on steep slopes unless operations can be conducted without causing excessive rutting, soil puddling, or runoff of sediments directly into waterbodies. No mechanized equipment will operate on slopes greater than 30% in RHCAs

212, 213, 214, 216, 277, 278, 281, 289, 291, 292, 355, 401, 409, 410, 451,456, 464, 480, 482, 487, 498

57. Evaluate site conditions frequently to assess changing conditions and adjust equipment operations as necessary to protect the site while maintaining efficient project operations.

212, 213, 214, 216, 277, 278, 281, 289, 291, 292, 355, 401, 409, 410, 451, 456, 464, 480, 482, 487, 498

Record of Decision

Page 38


or Direction BMP Veg-3 – Aquatic Management Zones (AMZ)

58. Design silvicultural or other vegetation management prescriptions and operations in the AMZ to maintain or improve the riparian ecosystem and adjacent waterbody. Retain trees as necessary for canopy cover and shading, bank stabilization, and as a source of large woody debris within the AMZ.

212, 213, 214, 216, 277, 278, 281, 289, 291, 292, 355, 401, 409, 410, 451, 456, 464, 480, 482, 487, 498

The Riparian Reserves (RRs) and Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) are the Aquatic Management Zones for the West Bend Project. The RHCA of the Deschutes River (which is 300 feet slope distance from edge of channel) is divided into zones for the purpose of applying specific silvicultural prescriptions. Refer to Figure 1 for a diagram of these zones that are referenced in the following thinning setbacks.

401,409, 410

Zone 1 (high water line of stream edge to 12 feet): No thinning of trees of any size. Zone 2 (12 feet to 28 feet): Hand thinning of trees < 20 feet tall dbh allowed. Machinery is excluded. Zone 3 (28 feet to machinery boundary): Hand thinning of trees < 10” dbh with no height restriction. Machinery is excluded Zone 4 (machinery boundary (100 feet or greater) to outer limit of RHCA,): Thinning of trees <21” dbh with machinery allowed. Thinning prescription can be the same as adjacent unit located outside the RHCA. Figure 1: Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) Zones of the Deschutes River (only applies to west bank)

59. Heavy equipment limited to 100 feet or greater from the edge of the Deschutes

River 401, 409, 410

60. For intermittent channels, heavy equipment limited to 50 feet or greater from edge of channel. Equipment can utilize boom to harvest trees within the 50 foot buffer. Intermittent channels are defined as a drainage feature with an identifiable channel and evidence of annual scour or deposition.

212, 213, 214, 216, 277, 278, 281, 286, 291, 292, 299, 355, 389, 480, 482, 487

61. Fisheries Biologist or hydrologist to assist tree marking crews in identifying stream buffers in the field.

212, 213, 214, 216, 277, 278, 281, 286, 291, 292, 355, 401, 409, 410, 456, 464, 480, 482, 487, 498

62. Mechanized equipment limited to 25 feet or greater from edge of wetland 355, 410

Zone 1 Zone 3 Zone 4

Machinery

Boundary

Zone 2

Record of Decision

Page 39


or Direction vegetation.

63. No skid trail crossings of channels, including intermittent. 212, 213, 214, 216, 277, 278, 281, 289, 291, 292, 355, 451, 456, 464, 480, 482, 487, 498

64. Directionally fall hand –thinned trees away from steams and rivers to limit streamside disturbance.

379, 401, 409, 410

65. Retain maximum number of snags in RRs and RHCAs. For hazard trees (that are felled) with potential to fall into streams, fall toward stream and leave on-site.

212, 213, 214, 216, 277, 278, 281, 289, 291, 292, 355, 379, 401, 409, 410, 451, 456, 464, 480, 481, 482, 483, 487, 498

66. Retain all aspen and other hardwoods. 355, 401, 409, 410, 498

BMP Veg-4 – Ground-based Skidding and Yarding Operations Within RRs/RHCAs

67. Locate skid trails outside of RRS/RHCAs to the extent practicable. When within RRs/RHCAs, maximize skid trails perpendicular to slope. Avoid long runs on steep slopes.

212, 213, 214, 216, 277, 278, 281, 289, 291, 292, 355, 379, 401, 409, 410, 451, 456, 464, 480, 481, 482, 483, 487, 498

68. Use existing road and skid trail network to the extent practicable. 69. Use suitable measures to stabilize and restore skid trails after use. Reshape

surface to promote dispersed drainage, mitigate soil compaction to improve infiltration and revegetation conditions, and apply soil protective cover on disturbed areas where accelerated erosion may occur.

BMP Veg-6 – Landings 70. No landings or temporary roads will be located within RRs/RHCAs. 212, 213, 214, 216,

277, 278, 281, 289, 291, 292, 355, 379, 401, 409, 410, 451, 456, 464, 480, 481, 482, 483, 487, 498

71. Locate landings to minimize the number of required skid trails.

Prescribed Fire Management Activities BMP Fire-2 – Use of Prescribed Fire

Within RRs/RHCAs 72. Keep high-intensity fire out of RRs/RHCAs. To minimize potential

sedimentation, plan prescribed fire with an intensity that will not result in hydrophobic soils or excessive consumption of ground cover and downed coarse wood.

212, 213, 278, 401, 409, 410, 451, 456, 464, 480, 481, 482

73. Minimize machine fireline construction within RRs and RHCAs. Utilize handline construction whenever feasible. Construct firelines to the minimum size and standard necessary to contain the prescribed fire and meet overall project activities. Maintain firebreaks in a manner that minimizes exposed soil to the extent practicable. All firelines will be rehabilitated immediately after underburn is completed.

74. Ignitions during underburning should be at least 50 feet or more from streams. Fire is allowed to creep toward streams.

75. Handpiling is allowed 50 feet or greater from streams. Placement of handpiles 216, 355, 379, 401,

Record of Decision

Page 40


or Direction would focus on upslope areas and avoid areas of washes and depressions that may facilitate water run-off toward streams. Burning would occur under conditions that do not allow excessive creeping from the pile, generally 10 feet or less. Handpiles should not exceed 50 ft².

409, 410, 451, 480

76. Evaluate the completed burn to identify sites that may need stabilization treatments or monitoring to minimize soil and site productivity loss and deterioration of water quality both on and off the site. Provide for rapid revegetation of any denuded areas through natural processes supplemented by artificial revegetation where necessary.

212, 213, 278, 401, 409, 410, 451, 456, 464, 480, 481, 482

77. Machine or grapple piling is allowed 150 feet or greater from the Deschutes River and 100 feet from other streams, seeps, wetlands, and waterbodies in the project area. Locates slash piles in areas where the potential for soil effects is lessened and that do not interfere with natural drainage patterns.

216, 355, 401, 409, 410, 451, 480, 487

Road Management Activities BMP Road-5 – Temporary Roads 78. No temporary roads will be constructed within RRs/RHCAs. 212, 213, 214, 216,

277, 278, 281, 289, 291, 292, 355, 379, 401, 409, 410, 451, 456, 464, 480, 481, 482, 483, 487, 498

79. Temporary roads and landings will be obliterated after use, with the surface deeply ripped; natural drainage features re-established, road effectively drained and blocked; and road returned to native vegetation through either replanting or natural succession.

All units with temp. roads and landings (none are within RRs/RHCAs)

All Management Activities (Vegetation, prescribed fire, temporary road construction and decommissioning) BMP Road-10 – Equipment Refueling and Servicing 80. Develop or use existing fuel management plans (e.g. spill response plan) when

assigning the equipment and refueling and servicing sites. 212, 213, 214, 216, 277, 278, 281, 289, 291, 292, 355, 379, 401, 409, 410, 451, 456, 464, 480, 481, 482, 483, 487, 498

81. To prevent pollutants from entering water, all servicing and refueling of equipment shall occur outside of RRs/RHCAs.

82. Storage of fuels and other toxicants used during management activities shall be stored outside of RRs/RHCAs.

To Minimize Impacts to Wildlife Raptors

To prevent disturbance to nesting birds during breeding season 83. Restrict disturbance activities within ¼ mile of any known or newly discovered

nests. This condition may be waived in a particular year if nesting or reproductive success surveys reveal that the species indicated is non-nesting or that no young are present that year. The following are a list of raptors and their nest restriction dates in which habitat is identified within the project area:

• Red-tailed hawk: March1 – August 31 • Northern goshawk: March 1 – August 31 • Cooper’s and Sharp-shinned hawks: April 15 – August 31 • Osprey: April 1 – August 31 • Northern Spotted Owl: March 15 – September 3 • Golden eagle: February 1 – August 15 • Great gray owl: March 1 – June 30

Great blue heron: March 1 – August 31

Deschutes LRMP, Eastside Screens, and NWFP

Record of Decision

Page 41


or Direction 84. Goshawk: If a new goshawk territory is discovered, a 30 acre no treatment area

around the nest will be identified and a 400 acres Post Fledging area will be delineated.

85. Northern Spotted Owl: If a new spotted owl territory is discovered, a 100 acre nest core/ no treatment area around the nest will be identified.

86. For treatments such as clearcuts with reserves and shelterwood harvests, 15% of the area associated with each cutting unit is to be retained. This does not apply to intermediate harvests (thinning). At a minimum, snags are to be retained within the harvest unit at levels to sufficient to support species of cavity nesting birds at 40% potential population levels based on published guidelines and models. A minimum of 120 lineal feet per acre greater than or equal to 16 inches in diameter and 16 feet long should be retained. Decay class 1 and 2 logs count towards these totals and down woody material already on the ground should be retained and protected to the greatest extent possible during activities

Northwest Forest Plan Matrix

Landbirds 87. To minimize disturbance and direct impact to nesting landbirds, which includes

Neotropical Migratory Bird species, limit the amount of thinning, mowing, and burning to the extent feasible March 15 to June 15

Retention Areas 88. Within black-bark thinning units, previously-identified retention areas (from

earlier projects) will be retained. (LRMP WL-59)

Snags and Green Tree Replacements 89. For sale activities: 1) maintain snags and green tree replacements (GTRs) of ≥15”

dbh at 100% maximum potential population (MPP) for all vegetation types except lodgepole pine; 2) for lodgepole pine, maintain snags and green tree replacements of >10”dbh at 100% MPP; and 3) maintain down logs ranging between 3 and 20 pieces per acre depending upon vegetative series

90. During prescribed fire operations, consumption of down wood at least 12 inches diameter at small end and at least 6 feet in length at rate of 40 lineal feet per acre in ponderosa pine and 140 lineal feet per acre in mixed conifer will not exceed 3 inches total (1 ½ inches per side)

Eastside Screens Forest Plan Amendment #2 (USDA 1995)

Lewis’ Woodpecker – monitoring sites 91. Mowing and burning should be completed between August 15 and April 15.

Early spring or fall implementation is preferred. Units 89, 90, 91

To Prevent the Introduction and Spread of Invasive Plants 92. Clean all equipment before entering National Forest System lands. Remove mud,

dirt, and plant parts from project equipment before initially moving it into project units and before proceeding to the next project.

93. To prevent the introduction of weeds, the district botanist or designee will inspect all fill material for the presence of weeds prior to use on the project.

94. To avoid the spread of weeds, if a significant weed site is located on a landing or skid trail, an alternate, uninfested site will be used, unless a workable solution is found between the noxious weed coordinator and the sale administrator to avoid having to move it.

95. All weed sites listed in FEIS Table 157, p. 323 that lay within project activity units, will be treated as described in the Forest’s Invasive Plant FEIS prior to project initiation.

96. Any water source proposed for this project will be evaluated for weeds by the district botanist or designee and if weeds are found, another source may be recommended, or if possible, the site will be treated prior to use.

To Protect Sensitive Plant Species 97. To avoid impacts to Newberry’s Gentian, (Gentiana newberry) the stringer Unit 355

Record of Decision

Page 42


or Direction meadow within EA unit 355 will be an “Area to Protect” (ATP) during any part of project implementation, including post-sale and fuels work.

98. To avoid direct impacts to green-tinged paintbrush populations, CACH populations will be flagged out of units in all action alternatives by the district botanist or her designees. They will be Areas to Protect.

99. The Areas to Protect will include CACH populations and the Newberry’s Gentian population. The ring immediately adjacent to the CACH population will be clearcut to a distance of one tree length (about 70’). The second ring, another tree length, adjacent to the clearcut, will be heavily cut but not clearcut.

100. Regarding fuels treatments, there will be no mowing or lighting within the CACH ATPs, including the outermost ring; measures will be taken to prevent fire creeping into the CACH populations.

101. To avoid impacts and added shading to the green-tinged paintbrush (CACH), the CACH sites within units will not be planted post-sale within any of the concentric ring areas surrounding the actual sites in any action alternative.

102. All skid trails, temporary roads, landings and cut trees and/or slash will be placed outside CACH15 areas.

To Protect Cultural Resources and to avoid potential effects on eligible and unevaluated sites 103. In units to be underburned, light flames are permissible through ground-based

eligible prehistoric sites. Eligible historic sites will be avoided with a 100 foot buffer by flames. No fireline construction through, staging of fire vehicles on, or mop up within eligible prehistoric sites..

Units listed in Heritage Report

104. No slash piles will be built within 100 feet of eligible historic or prehistoric sites. 105. Mowing will avoid all eligible historic sites. No turning and maneuvering of the

equipment within ground-based eligible prehistoric sites.

106. Precommercial thinning by hand (chainsaw) will not affect historic or prehistoric sites but mechanical thinning and machine piling will avoid all eligible historic and prehistoric sites.

107. Commercial thinning, will exclude all eligible sites from treatment units, landings, temporary roads and skid trails. Avoidance areas will be marked in contractor files or maps as area to be protected (ATP) and not as archaeological sites.

108. Where sites need to be avoided by project activities, an archaeologist will mark the area to be avoided prior to layout and/or design, and implementation.

West Bend Vegetation Management and Forest Plan...

Documents

Transcript of West Bend Vegetation Management and Forest Plan...