chapter 2.0 alternativesa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2009. 12. 8. · a...

Alternatives

2- 2 Trapper Bunkhouse Land Stewardship Project Final EIS

CHAPTER 2.0 ALTERNATIVES

2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Trapper Bunkhouse Land Stewardship project. It includes a discussion of how the alternatives were developed and a description and map of each alternative considered in detail, as well as alternatives considered but eliminated from further analysis. It also includes an overview of mitigation measures. Chapter 2 is intended to present the alternatives in comparative form, providing a clear basis for choice among options for the Decision Maker and the public.1 Comparison of these alternatives includes a comparison of activities, a comparison of measures of success for meeting the purpose and needs, and a comparison of effects based on identified issues. The information used to compare alternatives in Section 2.6 of this chapter is summarized from Chapter 3, “Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences” of this document. Chapter 3 contains the scientific basis for selecting the specific measurement indicators used to compare alternatives. For a full understanding of the effects of the alternatives and how the alternatives meet the purpose and need, refer to Chapter 3. All acres and other units of measure in this document are approximations.

2.2 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND DESCRIPTIONS The alternatives developed are based on analysis of the information gathered through scoping and comments on the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), and are a reasonable range given that issues raised have been addressed through project design and mitigations. The proposed action (Alternative 2), the no-action alternative (Alternative 1), and two additional action alternatives (Alternative 3 and Alternative 4) are analyzed in detail in Chapter 3. 2.2.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Opportunities for the public to participate in and help shape this project prior to issuing this Final Environmental Impact Statement have been considerable. After the fires of 2000, 14 public meetings were held in the Bitterroot Valley. Participants from these meetings reached consensus on five priorities for post-fire recovery; first among the five was “Manage Fuels in Burned Areas and in Green Wildland-Urban Interface.” Throughout the winter and spring of 2002-2003, a diverse group of interested people met to craft a community fire plan that would guide valley-wide efforts to better prepare for, and minimize the risks of, the next big fire. The authors of the Community Wildfire Protection Plan identified the Trapper Bunkhouse area as a high priority for treatment (PF-FIRE-004). Although fire and fuels were the main considerations in identifying the proposed activities in the Trapper Bunkhouse Project Area, the Responsible Official made a decision that for planning and resource efficiency, all management needs and opportunities in the Project Area would be explored for potential management action. Opportunities sought by the Responsible Official included commercial timber harvest to provide opportunities for employment within the community, and to provide revenues to help offset the costs of the work identified.

1 40 CFR 1502.14

Alternatives

Trapper Bunkhouse Land Stewardship Project Final EIS 2- 3

Spring and Summer 2005 Prior to developing the proposed action, the Forest Service held four meetings and a public field trip to collaborate with interested parties on the development of the proposed action2. The intent of these meetings was to gain public input and ideas to craft a proposed action that reflects public interests while addressing the management needs of the area. Beginning July 1, 2005 the Trapper Bunkhouse Land Stewardship project was included in the Bitterroot National Forest’s Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA), which can be viewed on the internet at www.fs.fed.us/r1/bitterroot/planning. The SOPA is mailed to individuals and organizations who have expressed an interest in management activities on the Forest. Fall 2005 After consideration of public input and field reviews by the members of the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT), a proposed action was developed and a scoping letter describing the project was mailed to 292 individuals and organizations on September 15, 2005 (PF-SCOPE-012). A legal notice soliciting public involvement and comments on the scoping document was published in the Ravalli Republic on September 20, 2005 and a news release was sent to the local media on September 26, 2005, with a front page article appearing in the Ravalli Republic paper on September 27, 2005 (PF-NEWS-006, 008, 009). A total of 43 letters, e-mails, and telephone calls with comments on the proposed action were received (PF-SCOPE-001 to 043). The Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement was published in the Federal Register on September 21, 2005 (PF-NEWS-007). A scoping open house was held on October 12, 2005 in Darby and 16 members of the public attended (SCOPE-015). Winter and Spring 2005 On December 5, 2005 a public meeting was held after we received comments in order to clarify those received and to discuss the proposed action (PUBLIC-017, 018). The meeting was facilitated by Dr. Jim Burchfield, Associate Dean of College of Forestry and Conservation and Associate Research Professor of Forest Social Sciences at the University of Montana. The Ranger held informal meetings with interested parties during the winter and spring of 2005. Summer, Fall, and Winter 2006 A second public field trip was held on August 23, 2006 to discuss Alternative 3that is analyzed in this final environmental impact statement (PF-PUBLIC-019, 020, 021, 035). In response to concerns raised by some of the participants of the August 23, 2006 field trip, related to the OHV management proposal, the Forest Service contacted Dr. Jim Burchfield to explore his interest and willingness to convene meetings as a neutral third party with parties on all sides of the OHV management issue to see if an alternative that met all interests could be developed. Dr. Burchfield convened four meetings (PF-PUBLIC-036, 037, 038, 048, 051). No agreements were reached.3 Members of the public requested that the OHV management portion of the Trapper Bunkhouse project be considered in the context of the Forest-wide travel management planning effort on several occasions (PF-PUBLIC-051, p. 10 and 12 of 14; SCOPE-043, p. 4; PUBLIC-049, p. 2). In the DEIS we attributed this request to the Burnt Ridge Homeowners’ Association, but from their comment letters the Burnt Ridge Homeowners’ Association made it clear they did not officially make this request (PF-DEISCOMM-008, 014, 011). Although the Forest saw benefit to addressing OHV management on a project-specific basis, the Forest also sees value in including the Trapper Bunkhouse area in the Forest-wide travel management planning effort. 2 May 12, 15 and June 14 and 28, 2005 (PF-PUBLIC-001, 002, 032, 005, 007, 033, 008, 009, 010) 3 See Section 2.5 for Alternatives Considered But Eliminated. One issue was voted on at the last meeting (PF-PUBLIC-051) that appeared to pass the groups decision threshold but discussion immediately following the vote disclosed there was confusion among the voters as to the language used in the question posed which influenced their vote and the facilitator did not see it as an agreement (PF-PUBLIC-051).

http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/bitterroot/planning

Alternatives

For these reasons the OHV management proposals were removed from this project; they will be considered during the Forest-wide travel management planning effort. Spring and Summer 2007 The DEIS was released for public review and comment in April 2007. During the 45 day comment period the Forest received 15 letters (PF-DEISCOMM-001 to 015). The IDT considered the comments in the letters and incorporated changes in the FEIS as appropriate. Appendix G summarizes the response to comments. Fall 2007 During August 2007, the Tin Cup Fire burned approximately 146 acres in proposed unit 26, which was included in Alternative 2. The unit, which was originally planned for 189 acres of commercial thinning, experienced medium-to-high effects to vegetation. Consequently, the silvicultural prescription was changed to salvage harvest on approximately 66 acres and commercial thin on approximately 123 acres. A letter dated October 23, 2007 was mailed to the public, informing them of the changes, and asking for comments by November 9, 2007. Four letters and three telephone calls were received (PF-UNIT26-001 to 005). 2.2.2 ISSUES Issues are an integral part of the effects analysis. The IDT reviewed all the comments received through scoping on the Trapper Bunkhouse Proposed Action, and developed a list of issues related to the project (PF-IDT-025, 026). The issues raised through written comment are summarized in Table 2-1 with a description of how they were addressed or analyzed in the FEIS:

Table 2- 1: Project Issues Raised through Scoping and How They Were Addressed in the FEIS

Issue How Addressed in The FEIS Fisheries Effects analyzed in Chapter 3. Concerns addressed

through project design and mitigation Watershed Effects analyzed in Chapter 3. Concerns addressed

through project design and mitigation Soil Productivity Effects analyzed in Chapter 3. Concerns addressed

through project design and mitigation Wildlife – old growth habitat Effects analyzed in Chapter 3. Concerns addressed

through project design Wildlife - old growth associated species Effects analyzed in Chapter 3. Concerns addressed

through project design Recreation and Roadless Effects analyzed in Chapter 3. Concern addressed

through project design Noxious Weeds Effects analyzed in Chapter 3. Concerns addressed

through mitigation Economics Effects analyzed in Chapter 3. Concerns addressed

through project design and alternative development Preliminary analysis by the IDT indicated that the proposed action is not expected to have significant negative impacts on the identified issues. Based on this preliminary analysis, the IDT concluded that all potentially significant issues could be resolved through project design or the incorporation of mitigation measures. The design of the proposal was modified, somewhat, and specific mitigation incorporated into the proposal to address and limit potential adverse effects identified through scoping. As the analysis in Chapter 3 supports, and


Alternatives


the summary in Table 2-13 displays, adverse effects of the proposed action are projected to be limited in both intensity and context. The issues regarding watershed and economics are all part of the purpose and the need for action for this project. The Forest desires to have a positive impact in these resource issues through active management. An alternative was developed around the issue of fuel reduction in the WUI (Alternative 3). Opportunities to improve stand resiliency through stocking reduction are part of all action alternatives. An alternative to both optimize fuel reduction and improve stand resiliency through stocking reduction and provide forest products, was developed (Alternative 4). Sediment reduction opportunities and fuel reduction research are included in all action alternatives. A significant number of the comments received during scoping for this project were related to OHV management, which was part of the purpose and need in the proposed action sent out during scoping, but is not part of this FEIS. 2.2.3 ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION) ~ DEVELOPMENT AND DESCRIPTION This alternative represents the existing condition, and a baseline of data, against which the action alternatives are compared. Under the No-Action Alternative, current management would continue in the Project Area. Work that is ongoing or previously planned within the project area would still occur under this alternative. None of the actions proposed in any of the other alternatives would occur. No fuel reduction, timber harvest, road improvements or decommissioning or culvert removals to accomplish project purposes would occur. Fires, insect and disease attacks on trees, and existing motorized recreation use would continue. The no action alternative is required by regulation. The analysis for the No-Action Alternative in Chapter 3 and the comparison of Alternatives in Section 2.6 describe the possible or likely consequences of not managing the area as proposed in the action alternatives. 2.2.4 ALTERNATIVE 2 (PROPOSED ACTION) ~ DEVELOPMENT AND DESCRIPTION A. Vegetation Management (Fuels, Timber, and Research) Alternative 2 is the proposed action. Three different assessments have identified the Trapper Bunkhouse area as a priority for fuel reduction treatment: The Bitterroot Community Wildfire Protection Plan (DNRC et. al. 2006, p. Appendix E-7); the Bitterroot Fire Management Plan (USDA 2003, p. IV-34); and an assessment conducted by the Bitterroot Ecosystem Management Research Project (BEMRP). The BEMRP4 assessment was initiated in 2002 by researchers from the Rocky Mountain Research Station and managers from the Bitterroot National Forest by posing research questions that could be answered cooperatively (PF-RES-001). Using state-of-the-art landscape models BEMRP modeled potential fire behavior on the western face of the Bitterroot Mountains in 2003. Through this effort the Trapper Bunkhouse area was identified as a high priority for conducting landscape-scale fuel and forest health treatments.

4 BEMRP has had a very active role in this project from its inception, providing the latest in scientific information, modeling, and review. BEMRP has made a clear distinction in their participation by providing information, but not being involved in the Forest’s decisions or management direction.

Alternatives

To maximize efficiency the Responsible Official directed the IDT to look at all resource management needs in the Trapper Bunkhouse Project Area, in addition to fuel reduction. As described in Chapter 1, the four purposes and needs of this project are: Reduce Risk from Stand-Replacing and Uncontrollable Fires - Reduce the number of acres where stand -replacing crown fires and uncontrollable fire intensities in the suitable timber base and wildland urban interface are likely to occur. This will reduce the risk of fires harming human life (firefighters and the public), private property, and natural resources in the Trapper Bunkhouse area. Improve Resiliency and Provide Forest Products - Provide economic value to the community and funding opportunities for the activities related to reducing sediment contributions and forest fuels through timber harvest by capturing the economic value of insect or disease-killed and/or infested trees, and fire killed trees. Provide for green tree thinning in plantations, and in at-risk areas outside of plantations, to improve resiliency to insects and disease. Fuel Reduction Research - Conduct research to evaluate our ability to influence fire spread rates and severity with vegetation management and the effects of our management on the ecosystem components such as soil productivity and weed invasion. Watershed Improvement - Reduce sediment contribution in South Fork Chaffin and Little Trapper Creeks from the identified high-priority road segments and crossings. Improve aquatic connectivity in South Fork Chaffin Creek. Alternative 2, the proposed action, was developed to meet these purposes. The degree to which it meets each purpose and need, compared to the other alternatives, is displayed in Table 2-12 in Section 2.6.2. Commercial and pre-commercial treatments and research are all vegetation management components of this project. The research element is common to all action alternatives; a detailed description of it is in Section 2.2.7 B. Watershed improvement activities are also common to all action alternatives, and are described in Section 2.2.7 C. During the four meetings with the public in May and June of 2005, the public provided input but was reluctant to identify specific vegetation management proposals. The specialists took the information gained from the public meetings and, based on their knowledge of the area at the time, developed a proposal for vegetation treatments to meet the purpose and need. The proposed action was then presented to the public for their feedback and comments in September of 2005. Three additional public meetings were held by the Forest Service and researchers. Specialists also met with representatives of the Department of Environmental Quality, the Environmental Protection Agency, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to discuss elements of the project proposal and receive their professional feedback (PF-002, 003). Each potential treatment area was scrutinized and modified by resource specialists in an interdisciplinary process to address resource issues raised through scoping. Modifications were made based on their experience, professional knowledge, input from the public and agencies, and the specialists’ site-specific resource knowledge. This information was used to modify the proposed action to what is presented in this document. See Table 2-2 for details of unit treatments; Figure 2-1 for a map of treatment units; Figure 2-2 for the haul routes and helicopter landing locations; and Table 2-7 for the watershed work. Larger-scale maps are contained in the Project File. Table 2-11 in Section 2.6.1 shows a comparison of all activities by alternative. See Table 2-12 in Section 2.6.2 for how Alternative 2 meets the purpose and need compared to the other alternatives. Table 2-13 in Section 2.6.3 shows how Alternative 2 responds to the issues raised through public scoping, compared to the other alternatives.


Alternatives

Table 2- 2: Alternative 2 Vegetation Treatments

Unit Planned Treatment* AcresAcres

in WUI

Which P and N** Yarding Method

Future Mtn. Burn

2 Prescribed Burn 30 30 1 N/A Y 3 Commercial Thin 40 40 2 Ground

Research Control 10 10 3 N/A Research Small Tree Thin 20 20 1, 2, 3 N/A Research Commercial Thin 30 30 1, 2, 3 Skyline and Ground

5

Commercial Thin 114 114 1, 2 Skyline and Ground Y 7 Commercial Thin 34 34 1, 2 Skyline 8 Maintenance Burn 136 136 1 N/A Y 9 Commercial Thin 45 45 1, 2 Ground Y

10 Commercial Thin 45 45 2 Ground Research Control 10 10 3 N/A Research Small Tree Thin 20 20 1, 2, 3 N/A Research Commercial Thin 30 30 1, 2, 3 Skyline and Ground

11

Commercial Thin 301 301 1, 2 Skyline and Ground Y 13 Commercial Thin 121 7 2 Skyline and Ground Y 14 Maintenance Burn 122 11 1 N/A Y 15 Maintenance Burn 304 296 1 N/A Y 17 Commercial Thin 91 1 2 Skyline 18 Commercial Thin 39 39 1, 2 Skyline Y 19 Commercial Thin 146 146 1, 2 Skyline Y 20 Commercial Thin 41 41 1, 2 Skyline and Ground Y 21 Commercial Thin 3 3 1, 2 Helicopter Y 22 Commercial Thin 82 82 1, 2 Skyline and Ground Y 23 Prescribed Burn 473 473 1 N/A Y 24 Commercial Thin 27 27 1, 2 Ground Y 25 Maintenance Burn 22 22 1 N/A Y

26 Fire Salvage/Regeneration and Commercial Thin 189 189 1, 2 Skyline and Ground

27 Commercial Thin 144 144 1, 2 Skyline and Ground 28 Small Tree Thin 55 55 1, 2 N/A 30 Commercial Thin 42 42 1, 2 Ground 32 Commercial Thin 97 97 2 Skyline and Ground 33 Small Tree Thin 137 137 1, 2 N/A Y 34 Prescribed Burn 33 33 1 N/A Y 35 Slashing 15 15 1 N/A 36 Aspen Treatment 4 4 1, 2 N/A 38 Commercial Thin 35 35 1, 2 Skyline and Ground 39 Commercial Thin 27 27 2 Ground 39a Sanitation and/or Salvage 41 41 2 Helicopter


Alternatives



in WUI


Future Mtn. Burn

40 Aspen Treatment 3 3 1, 2 N/A 41 Aspen Treatment 18 18 2 N/A 42 Commercial Thin 306 263 1, 2 Skyline and Ground Y 45 Commercial Thin 10 10 2 Helicopter 46 Commercial Thin 6 6 2 Helicopter 47 Commercial Thin 4 4 2 Helicopter 48 Commercial Thin 4 4 2 Helicopter 49 Commercial Thin 19 19 2 Helicopter 50 Commercial Thin 8 8 2 Helicopter

*** Small Tree Thin (Plantations) 1,199 1,130 N/A

TOTALS 4,732 4,297 2,482 PERCENTAGES 91% 52%

P and N = Purpose and Need; Mtn. = Maintenance; N/A=Not applicable; Y=Yes. * Treatments are described in the alternative descriptions, Chapter 3, and in the Glossary. ** Purpose and Need: 1=Fuels, 2=Improve Resiliency and Provide Forest Products, 3=Fuel Reduction Research; 4=Watershed Improvements. *** There are 71 small-tree thinning plantation units. The proposed vegetation treatments are described here. They are applicable to all of the action alternatives. Site-specific treatment prescriptions for each unit will be written by a certified silviculturist, in consultation with resource specialists. Prescribed Burn – Prescribed burns are prescribed in areas that have not had previous broadcast, ecosystem, or other large scale burning done following other treatment activity. Pre-treatment, such as slashing, of ladder fuels may be needed in order to facilitate a successful burn and hold control lines. Some mortality (0 – 25%) of residual trees may occur and is an acceptable part of the burn prescription. Many thinning units have a prescribed fire entry scheduled for 6 to 10 years following treatment. Maintenance Burn – Maintenance burns are prescribed in areas that have had previous broadcast, ecosystem, or other large scale burning done following other treatment activity. Pre-treatment of ladder fuels may be needed in order to facilitate a successful burn and hold control lines. Some mortality (0 – 25%) of residual trees may occur and is an acceptable part of the burn prescription. Prescribe burn units may have a maintenance fire entry scheduled in 6 to 10 years. Commercial Thin – Commercial size and non-commercial size material, all trees greater than 3 inches in diameter, would be treated by thinning from below to a specified spacing such as 30 feet by 30 feet, 25 feet by 25 feet, and/or basal area. Material less than 3 inches in diameter would be slashed. Treatment of the activity fuel material may consist of slashing and/or removal off site, and/or lop and scatter, and/or piling and burning piles. In many proposed units, Douglas-fir trees with mistletoe would also be removed. Dead and dying trees, except as needed for snag retention, may also be removed. Various mechanized logging systems would be utilized. The intent is to bring as much of the cut material as possible to a landing through whole tree yarding so it can be utilized if economically feasible. The economic section accounts for non-commercial size small material removal to the landing as shown as "small tree removal to landing in costs." Small-Tree Thin – Small-tree thin includes the cutting of small diameter material (material less than 6.9 inches dbh) to a specified spacing and possibly the removal of incidental commercial volume. Some of the work would be in stands that had regeneration harvest or other types of commercial activity in the past and were

Alternatives

planted with trees (see small tree thinning plantations below). However these are different than small tree thin plantations since a small amount of commercial material may also be removed. This could include removing post and poles, dead, dying, or mistletoe infected trees, but all work would be done by hand (i.e. no mechanical yarding). Treatment of activity material could include lop and scatter, and/or pile and burn piles, and/or removal material off site. Small Tree Thin Plantations – This thinning would be done in past regeneration harvest areas that were planted to a desired tree species. Material would be cut by hand with chainsaws and lopped and scattered. Sanitation and/or Salvage – Sanitation treatments will remove only Douglas-fir mistletoe-infected trees. Salvage includes the removal of dead and dying trees, including fire killed and bark beetle killed trees, and treatment of slash material created. This may include piling material and burning piles and/or other options. Regeneration – Planting to a desired species. This treatment is specific to Unit 26 which burned in the Tin Cup Fire in 2007. Research – Various treatments will occur within Units 5 and 11 as designated by the Research Treatment Plan. This is more fully described in Section 2.2.7 B. The remaining areas outside of the research plots will be commercially thinned as described above. Slashing – Consists of cutting material 6.9 inches dbh or less. Slashed material may include trees and/or shrubs, and may be treated in a variety of ways including, not limited to, lop and scatter, pile and burn, and remove material off-site. Aspen Treatment – Aspen treatments would include removing conifer encroachment into aspen areas. Trees may be lopped or piled and the piles may be burned. Prescription Parameters common to all treatments include the following:

In all treatments, ponderosa pine trees will be left, to the extent possible, within treatment units. The best formed and least insect and disease-infected trees would be left on site. The spacing variance would average the prescribed distance across the unit but could vary by

approximately 25% at any one tree site. In other words, the spacing will have a varied appearance. In a 30 feet by 30 feet spacing some trees may be spaced at 37.5 feet while others would be spaced at 22.5 feet.

Recruitment trees for future down woody material would be designated prior to sale and left during operations. These recruitment trees would not be included within spacing prescription.

Snags left would include some from the largest diameter size class within that unit and all legacy snags. The proposed road activities are described below. They are applicable to all of the action alternatives. Decommissioning – A number of roads are proposed by the Interdisciplinary Team to be decommissioned for watershed purposes or because they are no longer needed for resource management purposes or administrative use by Forest Service personnel (PF-IDT-033). Decommissioning treatments vary depending upon the location of the road. Roads located higher in drainages may require full recontour of the entrance, full or partial recontour of drainages, and decompaction of the road prism. Roads located lower in drainages, with live water crossings, may require full entrance recontour, full recontour of drainages, installation of grade structures in drainages, and decompaction or partial recontour of road prism. Roads located low in drainages, with live water crossings, may receive full recontouring along their entire length. All ground-disturbing treatments would be seeded with a native seed mixture, fertilized with an organic fertilizer, and mulched with weed-free straw to aid in germination and plant survival. Decisions regarding treatments will be reviewed by resource specialists; treatments will vary depending on physical and ecological factors, and project objectives.


Alternatives

The roads proposed to be decommissioned are: 1327A, 62409, 62865, 62893, 62894, 62905, 62906, 62909, 62910, 62977, and 74973. A total of 7.4 miles of roads would be decommissioned. Two of the roads are currently open yearlong to motorized vehicles with no restrictions; seven are closed seasonally (10/15-6/15), and the remaining two roads are closed yearlong to full sized vehicles with no restrictions on OHVs. Temporary Road Construction – Temporary roads are proposed by the Interdisciplinary Team to be constructed to provide access to proposed timber harvest units for hauling purposes. All roads would be constructed to and maintained according to current Best Management Practices (Refer to Appendix A – Best Management Practices). All temporary roads would be rehabilitated following use as part of the timber sale or stewardship contract. Rehabilitation activities would include recontouring, slashing, and seeding to restore soil productivity. A total of 2.7 miles of roads would be constructed. Road Restrictions – A number of roads are proposed by the IDT to be closed to all motorized vehicles (road vehicles, all-terrain vehicles, two wheel motorized bikes, and snowmobiles) seasonally from October 15 to June 15 or yearlong, in order to reduce disturbance to elk (PF-IDT-033). The following roads are proposed to be closed seasonally: 62412, 62865, 62866, 74972, and 13276. A total of 3.6 miles of roads would be closed seasonally. The following roads are proposed to be closed yearlong: 13264, 13273, 13274, and 13278. A total of 3.4 miles of roads would be closed yearlong. For additional information concerning the roads to be decommissioned or closed, refer to Table 2-8.


^

23

11

5

4215

8

26

19

27

33

14

13

32

17

9

22

3

7

2

28

10

20

18

24

38

34

30

39a

39

25

49

41

35

45

50

464847

36

21

40

125

159

114

126128

111

155

136

101

160

109

169

131

171

146

143

123124

107

144

166

149

168

105

148

110

163

135

164

112

118120

119

137

132

167

104

150

158

147

129

140

142

103102

165161

117

138

121

127

139

130134 133

145

162

122

141

116

106

113

156

115

154

172

157

151 152

170

MONTANA STATE

Chaffin Cr

Tin Cup Cr

McCoy Cr

Trapper Cr

Bunkhouse Cr

Spoon Cr

Bitterro

ot R

Little Tin Cup Cr

Fern Cr

Bitterroot R, W Fk

Chaffin

Cr, S F

k

Little T

rapper

Cr

Trapper Cr, N Fk

Bitterro

ot R

Bitterroot R

Bitterroot R, E Fk

7

6

7

3

98

2

8 9

5

1

14

19

18

30

4

31

19

18

11

22

32

21

12

14

13

12

10

27

34

22

35

21

24

17

20

33

16

1517

28

36

29

16

13

20

26

1315

10

25

24

36

23

7

12

23

14

3

30

11

24

6

25

56

25

28

2

2723

14

26

11

27

1

35

26

18

29

26

2

23

29

14

Darby

Figure 2 - 1: Map of Vegetation Treatments in Alternative 2 - Final EISTrapper-Bunkhouse ProjectBitterroot National Forest

Darby Ranger District

¹Note: All mapping is approximate, pending ground confirmation.1:50,00011/13/20070 0.75 1.5 2.25 30.375

Miles

LegendTreatment

Aspen TreatmentsCommercial ThinMaintenance BurnPrescribed BurnResearch (Mixed Treatments)Salvage/Regen. + ThinningSanitation and/or SalvageSlashingSmall Tree ThinSmall Tree Thinning (Plantation)Sects. of Rd. 374 to be UpgradedState LandProject AreaWildernessPrivate LandRoadlessWildland-Urban InterfaceFS-maintained RoadsNon-FS maintained RoadsHwy. 93

Alternatives

Figure 2- 2: Haul Routes and Helicopter Landings Alternative 2


Alternatives

2.2.5 ALTERNATIVE 3 ~ DEVELOPMENT AND DESCRIPTION A. Vegetation Management (Fuels, Timber, and Research) During the IDT’s field review of the Proposed Action some members noted that there were timber stands within the WUI that were not in the proposed action; however, these stands would benefit from thinning to improve stand health and reduce susceptibility to stand-replacing fires and insects and disease. Some of the stands could produce commercial value to provide revenue that could be used to accomplish other work identified. It was decided to look at the area again for opportunities assessing where treatments could be strategically placed so the benefits to changing fire behavior was the greatest. The process taken to develop this alternative was first a modeling (PF-RES-019) and office exercise and then on-the-ground reviews. Specialists and researchers used the Mean Travel Time (MTT) and Treatment Optimization Model (TOM) models to display where the highest priority treatments would be for modifying fire spread and reducing fire intensities within the WUI (PF-RES-002). The Simulating Patterns and Processes at Landscape Scales (SIMPPLLE) model was then used to display where the highest probability of crown fires (stand-replacing fires) existed (PF-RES-021). Refer to the Fire and Fuels Section 3.2.1.B for more information on modeling. The results were plotted and overlaps between the two models were highlighted. The resulting map displayed far more acres of potential treatment than the ID Team felt could realistically be treated. These results, called the TOM acres and the SIMPPLE acres, were then used in an optimization modeling system known as MAGIS (PF-RES-020). The MAGIS model was used to identify which stands, already identified as high priority for fuel reduction treatment using the TOM and SIMPPLLE models, would be the most feasible to treat from an economic standpoint. MAGIS is an optimization model; which means it will maximize or minimize one type of thing, but will do so under any constraints placed in the model. For this project MAGIS was programmed to find the best value (considering costs and revenues) while having the constraints of only treating those areas already identified as high priority for fuel reduction treatment by the fire behavior models, a treatment prescription of thinning or ecosystem burning, and limiting the number of acres to approximately 3,000. In other words, the model was asked to find the treatments that would result in the best benefit for the investment. The MAGIS model results displayed some of the same areas that are proposed for treatment in the proposed action. Where this occurred those proposed action units are included in Alternative 3. Where the proposed action units were not shown by the models to be a priority for treatment, they were not included in Alternative 3. The small-tree or pre-commercial thinning units were not included in Alternative 3 unless they showed up as a priority for fuel treatment in the modeling. With this information, the Fire/Fuels and Timber specialists and the Silviculturist, based on their knowledge of the area and aerial photos, delineated approximately nine general locations within the Trapper Bunkhouse area which were not included in the proposed action and that they believed warranted looking at further in the field to assess the feasibility/benefits of treating them. After field reviews were completed by the IDT during the summer of 2006, final adjustments were made to the vegetative treatments proposed in Alternative 3. In comments on the DEIS one individual was concerned that “This timber sale proposal has the usual problem of commercial exploitation built into it.” They expressed concern that using the MAGIS model to help prioritize areas for Alternative 3 where revenue for other resource work, including non-commercial fuel reduction work, might also be generated “… means logging big, economically valuable trees was prioritized above ecological values.” This is not the case. As explained above, only acres already identified as high priority for fuel reduction treatment were part of the selection pool from which the MAGIS model identified acres that would be most cost effective. Also, the prescriptions for treatment are thinning from below to a specified spacing. Douglas-fir with mistletoe and dead and dying may also be removed within the spacing while retaining snags for retention. These are not prescriptions that maximize the harvest of big trees.


Alternatives

See Table 2-3 for details of unit treatments, Figure 2-3 for a map of treatment units, and Figure 2-4 for the haul routes and helicopter landing locations, and Table 2-7 for the watershed work. Larger-scale maps are contained in the Project File. Table 2-11 in Section 2.6.1 shows a comparison of all activities by alternative. See Table 2-12 in Section 2.6.2 for how Alternative 3 meets the purpose and need, compared to the other alternatives. Table 2-13 in Section 2.6.3 shows how Alternative 3 responds to the issues raised through public scoping, compared to the other alternatives.



in WUI


Future Mtn. Burn

2 Prescribed Burn 30 30 1 N/A Y Research Control 10 10 3 N/A Research Small Tree Thin 20 20 1, 2, 3 N/A Research Commercial Thin 30 30 1, 2, 3 Skyline and Ground

5

Commercial Thin 114 114 1, 2 Skyline and Ground Y 8 Maintenance Burn 136 136 1 N/A Y 9 Commercial Thin 45 45 1, 2 Ground Y


11

Commercial Thin 301 301 1, 2 Skyline and Ground Y 13 Commercial Thin 121 7 2 Skyline and Ground Y 14 Maintenance Burn 122 11 1 N/A Y 15 Maintenance Burn 304 296 1 N/A Y 17 Commercial Thin 91 1 2 Skyline 18 Commercial Thin 39 39 1, 2 Skyline Y 19 Commercial Thin 146 146 1, 2 Skyline Y 21 Commercial Thin 3 3 1, 2 Helicopter Y 23 Prescribed Burn 473 473 1 N/A Y 24 Commercial Thin 27 27 1, 2 Ground Y 25 Maintenance Burn 22 22 1 N/A Y 27 Commercial Thin 144 144 1, 2 Skyline and Ground 28 Small Tree Thin 55 55 1, 2 N/A 38 Commercial Thin 35 35 1, 2 Skyline and Ground 39 Commercial Thin 27 27 2 Ground 39a Sanitation and/or Salvage 41 41 2 Helicopter 42 Commercial Thin 306 263 1, 2 Skyline and Ground Y 45 Commercial Thin 10 10 2 Helicopter 46 Commercial Thin 6 6 2 Helicopter 70 Commercial Thin 26 26 1, 2 Helicopter Y 72 Commercial Thin 55 55 1, 2 Skyline and Ground Y 73 Prescribed Burn 57 57 1 N/A Y 74 Commercial Thin 170 170 1, 2 Skyline Y 75 Slashing 211 211 1 N/A Y


Alternatives



in WUI


Future Mtn. Burn

76 Small Tree Thin 113 113 1, 2 N/A 77 Prescribed Burn 150 150 1 N/A Y 78 Commercial Thin 105 105 1, 2 Skyline Y 79 Commercial Thin 52 52 1, 2 Skyline & Ground Y 80 Commercial Thin 135 135 1, 2 Skyline & Ground Y 81 Commercial Thin 156 156 1, 2 Ground Y

TOTAL 3,948 3,582 3,306 PERCENTAGES 91% 84%

P and N = Purpose and Need; Mtn. = Maintenance; N/A=Not applicable; Y=Yes. * Treatments are described in the Alternative 2 description, Chapter 3 and in the Glossary. ** Purpose and Need: 1=Fuels, 2=Improve Resiliency and Provide Forest Products, 3=Fuel Reduction Research; 4=Watershed Improvements The proposed road activities are the same as those described for Alternative 2, with the exception that 0.7 miles of temporary road would be constructed with Alternative 3.

^

23

11

5

4215

8

75

74

19

81

77

27

80

14

13

76

78

17

9

273

72

28

79

18

24

38

39a

39

70

25

45

46

21

MONTANA STATE

Chaffin Cr

Tin Cup Cr

McCoy Cr

Trapper Cr

Bunkhouse Cr

Spoon Cr

Bitterro

ot R

Little Tin Cup Cr

Fern Cr

Bitterroot R, W Fk

Chaffin

Cr, S F

k

Little Trapper Cr

Trapper Cr, N Fk

Bitterro

ot R

Bitterroot R

Bitterroot R, E Fk

7

6

7

3

98

2

89

5

1

14

19

18

30

4

31

19

18

11

22

32

21

12

14

13

12

10

27

34

22

35

21

24

17

20

33

16

1517

28

36

29

16

13

20

26

1315

10

25

24

36

23

7

12

23

14

3

30

11

24

6

25

56

25

28

2

2723

14

26

11

27

1

35

26

18

29

26

2

23

29

14

Darby



¹Note: All mapping is approximate, pending ground confirmation.1:50,00011/13/2007

LegendTreatment

Commercial ThinMaintenance BurnPrescribed BurnResearch (Mixed Treatments)Sanitation and/or SalvageSlashingSmall Tree ThinSects. of Rd. 374 to be UpgradedState LandProject Areastreams_rte route.strtWildernessPrivate LandRoadlessWildland-Urban InterfaceFS-maintained RoadsNon-FS maintained RoadsHwy. 93

0 0.75 1.5 2.25 30.375Miles

Alternatives

Figure 2- 4: Haul Routes, Temporary Roads and Helicopter Landings Alternative 3


Alternatives


2.2.6 ALTERNATIVE 4 ~ PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE5 ~ DEVELOPMENT AND DESCRIPTION A. Vegetation Management (Fuels, Timber, and Research) In the DEIS two action alternatives were analyzed. Comments received on the DEIS led to the consideration and analysis of a fourth alternative (Alternative 4) in this FEIS. Commentors asked why only 4,761 acres or 20% of the Project Area was being treated when more acres could, and should, be treated (PF-DEISCOMM-006, p.1). It was also pointed out that there was very little difference between the two action alternatives in effects, including the benefit of fuel reduction or timber volume (PF-DEISCOMM-004, p.8 of 23). We also received comments requesting we generate more revenue to cover all (or more) of the costs of the non-commercial work needed in the area (PF-DEISCOMM-009, p.2, PF-DEISCOMM-010, p. 2). In addition to the public comments, the IDT’s Fire Ecologist noted that combining units from Alternative 2 with those in Alternative 3 would provide additional benefits from a fuel management perspective. Likewise, the Timber Specialist noted that, by combining units in Alternatives 2 and 3, additional thinning to enhance forest resiliency and additional forest products could be obtained. The Responsible Official asked the IDT’s Forest Ecologist, Fire/Fuels Specialist, Silviculturist, and Timber Specialist to look at each unit in Alternatives 2 and 3, and to identify the best mix of units to meet the first two objectives of the project: reduce risk from stand-replacing and uncontrollable fires, and improve resiliency and provide forest products, and develop a new action alternative for analysis. The specialists did this by looking at the results of the fire behavior modeling, considering forest health benefits and the cost of treatments and commercial value (PF-IDT-041). Two units were not included in Alternative 4 (25 and 76) because treating these units would not modify fire behavior according to the modeling, and the cost of treating them would be high with limited resource or economic benefit. All other units analyzed in Alternatives 2 and/or 3 were included in Alternative 4. See Table 2-4 for details of unit treatments, Figure 2-5 for a map of treatment units, Figure 2-6 for the haul routes and helicopter landing locations, and Table 2-7 for the watershed work.. Larger-scale maps of the alternatives are contained in the Project File. Table 2-11 in Section 2.6.1 shows a comparison of all activities by alternative. See Table 2-12 in Section 2.6.2 for how Alternative 4 meets the purpose and need compared to the other alternatives. Table 2-13 in Section 2.6.3 shows how Alternative 4 responds to the issues raised through public scoping, compared to the other alternatives.



in WUI

Which P and N**

Yarding Method Future Mtn. Burn

2 Prescribed Burn 30 30 1 N/A Y 3 Commercial Thin 40 40 2 Ground


5

Commercial Thin 114 114 1, 2 Skyline and Ground Y 7 Commercial Thin 34 34 1, 2 Skyline

5 40 CFR 1502.14 requires that an agency identify their preferred alternative(s), if one or more exists, in the final environmental impact statement.

Alternatives



in WUI

Which P and N**


8 Maintenance Burn 136 136 1 N/A Y 9 Commercial Thin 45 45 1, 2 Ground Y

10 Commercial Thin 45 45 2 Ground Research Control 10 10 3 N/A Research Small Tree Thin 20 20 1, 2, 3 N/A Research Commercial Thin 30 30 1, 2, 3 Skyline and Ground

11

Commercial Thin 301 301 1, 2 Skyline and Ground Y 13 Commercial Thin 121 7 2 Skyline and Ground Y 14 Maintenance Burn 122 11 1 N/A Y 15 Maintenance Burn 304 296 1 N/A Y 17 Commercial Thin 91 1 2 Skyline 18 Commercial Thin 39 39 1, 2 Skyline Y 19 Commercial Thin 146 146 1, 2 Skyline Y 20 Commercial Thin 41 41 1, 2 Skyline and Ground Y 21 Commercial Thin 3 3 1, 2 Helicopter Y 22 Commercial Thin 82 82 1, 2 Skyline and Ground Y 23 Prescribed Burn 473 473 1 N/A Y 24 Commercial Thin 27 27 1, 2 Ground Y 25 Maintenance Burn 22 22 1 N/A Y

26 Fire Salvage/Regeneration and Commercial Thin 189 189 1, 2 Skyline and Ground

27 Commercial Thin 144 144 1, 2 Skyline and Ground 28 Small Tree Thin 55 55 1, 2 N/A 30 Commercial Thin 42 42 1, 2 Ground 32 Commercial Thin 97 97 2 Skyline and Ground 33 Small Tree Thin 137 137 1, 2 N/A Y 34 Prescribed Burn 33 33 1 N/A Y 35 Slashing 15 15 1 N/A 36 Aspen Treatment 4 4 2 N/A 38 Commercial Thin 35 35 1, 2 Skyline and Ground 39 Commercial Thin 27 27 2 Ground 39a Sanitation and/or Salvage 41 41 2 Helicopter 40 Aspen Treatment 3 3 2 N/A 41 Aspen Treatment 18 18 2 N/A 42 Commercial Thin 306 263 1, 2 Skyline and Ground Y 45 Commercial Thin 10 10 2 Helicopter 46 Commercial Thin 6 6 2 Helicopter 47 Commercial Thin 4 4 2 Helicopter 48 Commercial Thin 4 4 2 Helicopter 49 Commercial Thin 19 19 2 Helicopter 50 Commercial Thin 8 8 2 Helicopter 70 Commercial Thin 26 26 1, 2 Helicopter Y 72 Commercial Thin 55 55 1, 2 Skyline and Ground Y 73 Prescribed Burn 57 57 1 N/A Y 74 Commercial Thin 170 170 1, 2 Skyline Y 75 Slashing 211 211 1 N/A Y

Alternatives



in WUI

Which P and N**


76 Small Tree Thin 113 113 1, 2 N/A 77 Prescribed Burn 150 150 1 N/A Y 78 Commercial Thin 105 105 1, 2 Skyline Y 79 Commercial Thin 52 52 1, 2 Skyline and Ground Y 80 Commercial Thin 135 135 1, 2 Skyline and Ground Y 81 Commercial Thin 156 156 1, 2 Ground Y *** Small Tree Thin (Plantations) 1,199 1,130 N/A

TOTALS 5,827 5,392 3,577 PERCENTAGES 93% 61%

P and N = Purpose and Need; Mtn. = Maintenance; N/A=Not applicable; Y=Yes. * Treatments are described in the alternative descriptions, Chapter 3, and in the Glossary. ** Purpose and Needs: 1=Fuels, 2=Improve Resiliency and Provide Forest Products, 3=Fuel; Reduction Research; 4=Watershed Improvements. *** There are 71 small-tree thinning plantation units. The proposed road activities are the same as those described for Alternative 2, with the exception that 2.8 miles of temporary road would be constructed with Alternative 4

^

23

11

5

4215

8

75

26

74

19

81

77

27

33

80

14

13

78

32

17

9

22

3

7

273

72

28

79

12510

20

18

159

24

38

34114

126128

111

155

136

101

160

146

109

169

30

39a

39

131

70

171

49

41

143

123

35

124

107

144

166

149

168

105

148

110

163

135

164

112

118120

45

119

137

132

167

104

150

158

147

129

140

50

142

103102

165161

117

46

138

121

127

139

130

4847

36

21 134 133

40

145

162

122

141

116

106

113

156

115

154

172

157

151 152

170

MONTANA STATE

Chaffin Cr

Tin Cup Cr

McCoy Cr

Trapper Cr

Bunkhouse Cr

Spoon Cr

Bitterro

ot R

Little Tin Cup Cr

Fern Cr

Bitterroot R, W Fk

Chaffin

Cr, S F

k

Little T

rapper

Cr

Trapper Cr, N Fk

Bitterro

ot R

Bitterroot R

Bitterroot R, E Fk

7

6

7

3

98

2

8 9

5

1

14

19

18

30

4

31

19

18

11

22

32

21

12

14

13

12

10

27

34

22

35

21

24

17

20

33

16

1517

28

36

29

16

13

20

26

1315

10

25

24

36

23

7

12

23

14

3

30

11

24

6

25

56

25

28

2

2723

14

26

11

27

1

35

26

18

29

26

2

23

29

14

Darby



¹Note: All mapping is approximate, pending ground confirmation.1:50,00011/13/20070 0.75 1.5 2.25 30.375

Miles

LegendTreatment

Aspen TreatmentsCommercial ThinMaintenance BurnPrescribed BurnResearch (Mixed Treatments)Salvage/Regen. + ThinningSanitation and/or SalvageSlashingSmall Tree ThinSmall Tree Thinning (PlantatioSects. of Rd. 374 to be UpgradedState LandProject AreaWildernessPrivate LandRoadlessWildland-Urban InterfaceFS-maintained RoadsNon-FS maintained RoadsHwy. 93

Alternatives

Figure 2- 6: Haul Routes, Temporary Roads and Helicopter Landings Alternative 4


Alternatives

2.2.7 ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES ~ DEVELOPMENT AND DESCRIPTION A. Fuels and Timber The following items are the same for all vegetation treatments in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:

Harvest would occur in Little Trapper Creek riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) (approximately 41 acres, Unit 39a) to reduce risks to riparian habitat;

No treatments in old growth habitat; No new permanent road construction; Activity fuels will be treated (except in the 1,199 acres of small tree thinning plantations included in

Alternatives 2 and 4); No construction of landings in RHCAs; Site-specific Forest Plan amendment required for thermal cover, coarse woody debris, and elk habitat

effectiveness standards B. Research An integral part of this project is the research. The research component of this project is fundamental to all action alternatives, and is the same in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Research questions to be addressed include the impacts of vegetation treatments on soil compaction and nutrient quantities and qualities; potential for weed invasion; health and vigor of the resulting overstory trees; regeneration potential; understory vegetation development; and effectiveness in reducing the probability of severe wildfire. Researchers from BEMRP sought to design a research study that would have multiple replications of fuel reduction treatment types to improve our understanding of their impacts on various ecosystem components, as well as the efficacy of these treatments to modify fire behavior. The study was designed to focus on effects in the low elevation, frequent low-intensity fire regime forests, and the study sites had to be as similar as possible in topography, geology, and vegetative structure and composition to reduce variability among the research plots. With these criteria in mind the researchers, often with other members of the IDT, searched the Trapper Bunkhouse area for the ideal sites and identified two large areas within which the research plots will be placed. Research sites in Units 5 and 11 (Table 2-2, Table 2-3, and Table 2-4) are composed of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir/ponderosa pine stands that, due to fire suppression and past logging, now contain unnaturally high components of Douglas-fir overstory and understory. In contrast to the past, potential disturbances pose a serious threat to the sustainability of these ecosystems, and include the likelihood for large-scale, stand-replacement fire, insect and disease epidemics responding to competitive stress, and invasions by weeds. All action alternatives would conduct a replicated research design within Units 5 and 11 to evaluate and compare the effects of a number of silvicultural treatments on overstory and understory vegetation structure. Research would also evaluate effects on wildfire spread and behavior and the effects of the treatments on other ecosystem components (i.e., soils and weeds). The vegetation treatments include four categories. Each treatment will be approximately five acres in size. The four categories are:

1) Control with no treatments. 2) Removal of understory ladder fuels by hand cutting.


Alternatives

3) Commercial thinning from below using whole-tree yarding that includes removal of understory ladder fuels, as well as some larger trees, resulting in a stand of the larger, healthier trees (favoring ponderosa pine) emulating historical conditions in these forests.

4) Commercial thinning using a cut-to-length yarding system with the same vegetation removal and residual stand objectives as method 3, but with possible different soil impacts.

The commercial thinning treatments include the following associated treatments: cut material is treated by (1) broadcast burn with or without pile and burn, or (2) pile and burn. These treatments are also displayed in Tables 2-5 and 2-6.

Table 2- 5: Proposed Research Treatments, Condition after Treatment, and Methods of Treatment

Units Acres treated Condition After Treatment Methods of Treatment

5 and 11 40 (2 treatments *5 ac. *4 replications=40)

Ladder fuels have been removed, and overstory remains. Surface fuels < 10 tons/acre

Understory removal – Hand cutting < 7 inches diameter. Fuels treated by broadcast burning and/or pile burning.

5 and 11 60 (3 treatments *5 ac. *4 replications= 60)

Open forest resulting in trees > 7 inches. Surface fuels < 10 tons/acre.

Thinning from below and commercial thinning with whole tree logging system– feller buncher. Fuels treated by broadcast burning and/or pile burning. Thinning from below and commercial thinning with cut-to-length logging system- forwarder. Fuels treated by broadcast burning, pile burning, and/or mechanical removal

5 and 11 20 (4 replications *5 ac.=20)

No change Control (no treatment)

Table 2- 6: Research Treatment Design: Four Levels of Vegetation Removal and Six Treatments (with associated sub-treatment descriptions)

Control – No Cutting

Understory Removal Hand Cutting

Thinning From Below and Commercial

Thinning - Whole Tree Logging – Feller

Buncher


Thinning - Cut-to-Length Logging -

Forwarder 1.Control 2. Hand cutting to < 7

inches, diameter at breast height ● broadcast burn with or without pile burn

4. Feller buncher Commercial thinning from below ● Mechanically remove or hand slash trees < 7 inches ● Broadcast burn with or without pile and burn

6. Forwarder Commercial thinning from below ● Mechanically remove or hand slash trees < 7 inches ● Pile and burn and/or broadcast burn

3. Hand cutting to < 7 inches, diameter

5. Feller buncher Commercial thinning from


Alternatives


Control – No Cutting

Understory Removal Hand Cutting


Thinning - Whole Tree Logging – Feller

Buncher


Thinning - Cut-to-Length Logging -

Forwarder at breast height ● Pile and burn

below ● Mechanically remove or hand slash trees < 7 inches ● Pile and burn

C. Watershed Improvement Opportunities The watershed improvement opportunities are consistent between Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Unless required as mitigation for commercial vegetation treatments, funding is not guaranteed (see below for further discussion). Implementation of improvements that is not required as mitigation will be completed as funds are available and are analyzed as such. The identification of improvement opportunities was accomplished through stream surveys; road maintenance inventories; culvert inventories; and a detailed roads analysis process. Culverts that intersect with fish bearing streams and are either undersized or need maintenance were identified as high priorities. Likewise, road segments that contributed sediment to fish bearing streams were also identified as high priorities. Other crossing and road segments near streams that had a risk of failure or maintenance opportunities were also identified. Additionally, the IDT looked at the entire road system through the roads analysis process and identified roads that are no longer needed for management purposes. Among the roads that are no longer needed, those that could have a substantial negative impact on the watershed are proposed for decommissioning in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. As funds are available, Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would reduce sediment and improve aquatic connectivity. The details of the watershed improvement work are found in Table 2-7. If commercial vegetation treatment occurs, six miles of watershed improvement would be completed as mitigation prior to the completion of the timber, service, or stewardship contracts (also see Mitigation and Project Design Features, Table 2-9). If the commercial vegetation treatment does not occur, this work would be completed as funds are available. As funds are available 7.4 miles of road will be decommissioned that will reduce sediment delivery at 14 wet crossings, six of which are in the watersheds of South Chaffin Creek and Little Trapper Creek. All of the road decommissioning will improve watershed conditions, and incidentally, improve elk habitat effectiveness; however, some were identified primarily because the road is no longer needed for management purposes.

Table 2- 7: Watershed Improvement Mitigation and Opportunities

Location Improvement Units Note

Rd. 374, S.F. Chaffin Cr. side*

Drainage/surface Improvements along S.F. Chaffin Cr.

1.5 miles Would occur prior to hauling

Alternatives


Location Improvement Units Note

Rd. 374, Little Trapper side*

Drainage/surface Improvements along Little Trapper Cr.

3 miles

Blading and shaping would occur as needed prior to timber hauling. Drainage improvements would occur before the end of the timber sale, service, or stewardship contract. Additional work (graveling) would occur as funding allows.

Rd. 716 and Rd. 374 (portion that parallels Chaffin Creek)*

Treat with dust palliative and change drainage structures in two locations.

1.5 miles

As needed (to avoid any appreciable loss of surface material) work would occur prior to the haul.

Rd. 374a, in SF Chaffin

Culvert Replacement. Reduce sediment and improve aquatic connectivity.

1 culvert (fish barrier)

Fish-passage structure would be installed as soon as funding allows. Work includes improved cross-drain and surfacing through site.

Rd. 374, in SF Chaffin Cr.

Culvert Replacement. Reduce sediment and improve aquatic connectivity.

1 culvert (fish barrier)

Fish-passage structure would be installed as soon as funding allows. Work includes improved cross-drain and surfacing through site.

Various (See Table 2.8)

Road Decommissioning Sediment reduction and improve aquatic connectivity.

7.4 mi. 2 culverts (fish barrier)

Includes 14 small stream crossings. (Includes 1 fish barrier culvert removal on Road 13225 at Spoon Cr. and 1 fish barrier culvert removal on Road 13272a at tributary of Trapper).

Rd. 716, Tributary to Chaffin Cr.

Improve crossing at tributary of Chaffin Cr. 0.1 mi.

Undersized culvert of fishless tributary to Chaffin Cr. needs gravel, possible cross-drain improvement.

Rd. 62865, Little Trapper Creek

Improve crossing at Little Trapper Creek 0.2 mi.

Long contributing area - Drain dip and/or improve outslope. Gravel if possible.

Trapper Peak Overlook FR 5727 (Other roads not used for hauling for this project)

Maintenance & cross-drain upgrades.

1 cross-drain, plus spot grading

Drive-through dip needed at upgrade of Little Trapper Creek crossing. Would occur as part of FR374/Little Trapper Creek segment improvements before timber hauling.

* These items are tied to commercial timber treatments. If the commercial vegetation treatments are implemented this watershed work will be completed before the end of a timber sale, service, or stewardship contract. If commercial treatments do not occur then this work would be completed as funds are available.

Alternatives

All other opportunities in this list would be accomplished as funds become available through timber revenues, appropriated money, or partnerships.

Table 2- 8: Roads to be Decommissioned or Closed Seasonally or Yearlong

Road No. Dist (mi.) Proposed Reason

13272A* 0.2 Decommission Watershed

62409* 1.1 Decommission No Longer Needed

62412** 1.6 Closed to all*** 0ct 15-June 15

Reduce disturbance to elk

62865 0.1 Closed to all 0ct 15-June 15



62866 1.0 Closed to all 0ct 15-June 15


62893* 0.3 Decommission Watershed

62894* 0.1 Decommission Watershed






74972** 0.3 Closed to all Oct 15 –June 15



13264 1.4 Closed yearlong to all*** Reduce disturbance to elk

13273** 0.5 Closed yearlong to all Reduce disturbance to elk

13274** 1.0 Closed yearlong to all Reduce disturbance to elk

13276 0.6 Closed to all Oct 15 –June Reduce disturbance


Alternatives


Road No. Dist (mi.) Proposed Reason

15 to elk

13278 0.5 Closed yearlong to all Reduce disturbance to elk

Total 14.4

* Roads will be decommissioned as funds become available ** If commercial vegetation treatments occur, the change in road restrictions on these roads that would be used as haul routes would be made by the end of the timber sale, stewardship, or service contract. If commercial vegetation treatments do not occur, changes in travel restrictions would occur when funds are available. *** Applies to road vehicles, all terrain vehicles, two wheel motorized bikes, and snowmobiles

D. Additional Resource Opportunities The following resource opportunities to improve conditions in the Project Area will be completed as funds are available. Implementation of the resource opportunities are not actions connected to the commercial vegetation treatments. This means that the projects listed in this section could occur independently of the vegetation treatments, and the vegetation treatments could occur independently of these actions, unless otherwise noted, and are analyzed as such in Chapter 3. The resource opportunities would be accomplished with the action alternatives as funds are available. Though some of these items could be accomplished through stewardship contracting, which is just one potential tool to implement the work, none of the action alternatives will generate enough revenue through the commercial component to cover the costs of all of these opportunities. For this reason additional appropriated dollars or partnerships would be required to complete all the activities in this section. See the Economics and Social Analysis, Section 3.13, Tables 3.13-5 and 3.13-6, for more information on projected project revenues and other potential funding sources. Recreation Create a designated parking area at the Trapper Peak Overlook to reduce resource damage. Wildlife Seasonally close 3.6 miles of roads and implement yearlong closure of 3.4 miles of roads to reduce elk disturbance. These road use changes were identified in the Huck Trap Decision of 1995 as mitigation but were not implemented (PF-PUBLIC-060). This was an error, and steps have been taken to assure that this does not occur again6.

6 We received a number of comments from the public concerned that these closures were identified as mitigation in a 1995 decision but were not completed. To assure this error does not occur for the Trapper Bunkhouse Project, mitigations will be entered and tracked through our Forest Service Activity Tracking System (FACTS); a system that was not available in 1995. Since the publication of the DEIS for this project five road restrictions (5628A, 13226, 1372, 1372A-closure but not decommissioning, and 74982) from the Huck Trap decision have been implemented. We will continue to work toward completion of these commitments consistent with current resource needs, conditions, and funding. In spite of the fact that these closures did not occur the resources the mitigation was intended to protect are doing fine. The number of elk the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks has observed has increased substantially since 1995. The number of hunters has continued to increase and the general hunting season has remained at five weeks.

Alternatives


Opportunities Related to Commercial Treatments The following resource opportunities are not requirements of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, but rather are opportunities that will be completed if funds are available.

Historical skid trails may be present in units that will not be used in this entry. These skid trails present opportunities to improve soil conditions degraded by past activities. Subsurface compaction (6 - 12 inches) may be remediated by shattering compacted soil layers with subsoiling apparatus. Proper application of this treatment may cause minimal disturbance to surface soil/litter layers (minimize furrowing on surface).

Obliterate skid trails one sight distance7 from existing roads or trails to minimize OHV attraction. Rehabilitation may involve recontouring landings that are not needed for vegetation management within

the next 10 years. Since funding for this work is not guaranteed, the analysis assumes recontouring will not occur. All erosion and weed prevention controls cited in Soil and Water Conservation Practices and Montana Best Management Practices would be implemented regardless of recontouring at a given landing site.

Seed the burn piles that were piled by hand if mineral soil is burned off. Pull soil removed back over skid trails where feasible to replenish the native seed source.

2.3 MITIGATION MEASURES AND PROJECT DESIGN The IDT reviewed all potential treatment units, and developed mitigation and design features that eliminate, avoid, or reduce potential impacts associated with the commercial vegetation treatments proposed in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. The measures and features are listed in Table 2-9. These will be carried out during implementation and before a timber sale, service or stewardship contract is completed if commercial vegetation treatments, as described in this document, occur. Funding for this work could be through timber receipts, or through appropriated dollars. Mitigation and design features are objective based. This means that the desired condition (or the condition to be avoided) will be described. Ways that this objective can be met will be described but another method, determined to be equally or more effective in meeting the mitigation objective by the appropriate resource specialist and approved by a line officer, could also be used.

Table 2- 9: Mitigation and Project Design Features

Mitigation or Design Objective Mitigation or Project Design* Alt(s). Units

Soils Maintain soil productivity by reducing soil compaction in skid trails

Subsurface compaction (6 - 12 inches subsurface) will be remediated by shattering compacted soil layers with subsoiling apparatus. Proper application of this treatment will cause minimal disturbance to surface soil/litter layers (minimal furrowing on surface).

2, 3, 4 All ground based units8 and skyline units where tractor swing is required

7 A sight distance, as used here, is the distance that a casual observer would see from the road. 8 Winter ground based yarding is not required for this project because this area typically has not had the frozen soil or snow pack conditions necessary for safe winter operations. If a contractor chooses to yard during the winter they would be required to comply with winter standard operating procedures and mitigation measures to assure the appropriate combination of snow depth and frozen soil conditions under the wheels or tracks/treads of equipment are met at all times.

Alternatives



Subsoiling will be completed on all compacted skid trails (includes reused historic skid trails and new skid trails) used for yarding in the proposed summer ground based units and skyline units with tractor swing.

Maintain soil productivity when a feller buncher is used

Pilot demonstration in Units 22 and 78 will be monitored closely by the Soil Scientist to determine the actual effects on soils. The feller/buncher operations will cease immediately if soil effects exceed R1 soil quality guidelines. It is anticipated that through careful sale administration the feller/buncher operations would result in detrimental soil disturbance (DSD) of 3% or less on the BNF. If DSD exceeds this amount on Units 22 and 78, this practice will not be completed on skyline units with existing DSD levels that have the potential to exceed R1 soil quality guidelines (Units 19 and 27). Conventional felling and skyline yarding would be completed on these units.

2, 3, 4 Units 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 22, 27, 32, 42, and 78

Maintain soil productivity when yarding on moderate- to-high severity burn areas

Any areas where mineral soils are exposed by tractor yarding operations on the moderate and high severity burn sites will be mulched. Mulching will be completed using either fine wood fiber or straw mulch at a rate of 1 ton/acre. The Soil Scientist, in coordination with the Timber Sale Administrator, will monitor the on-going harvest to determine which areas will require mulching following yarding activities.

2, 4 Unit 26

Maintain soil productivity and wildlife habitat while meeting fuel reduction purpose and needs

Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) (material greater than 3 inches in diameter) left on site will include leave trees both standing and down, and broken limbs and tops that will result from harvest. Amounts will be within the ranges identified in the table below. The silvicultural prescriptions will be designed to account for future large CWD (>17 inches diameter) recruitment that will meet acceptable levels in stands where CWD is less than minimum levels before treatment. CWD will be left in these stands to the extent feasible to meet minimum requirements that do not pose a fuels hazard. High amounts of small CWD (3-17 inches diameter) may present wildfire risks. CWD will generally be evenly distributed on each acre, unless otherwise agreed to by the Contracting Officer or their designee. Prescribed burning operations need to account for areas where existing amounts of CWD are less than the minimum required levels. The burning should attempt to maintain CWD levels in these cases and

2, 3, 4 All units

Alternatives



attempt to increase future CWD recruitment potential where possible. Fire Groups are described in Chapter 3, Section 3.3.3 C.

Fire Group(s)

Coarse Woody Debris

2 5, 4 -10 tons/acre 6 1 0-20 tons/acre 7 8, 8, 9 -24 tons/acre

Wood larger than 15 inches in diameter will not be intentionally ignited during hand lighting. It is understood that once the fire is lit by hand crews, the fire may burn into large CWD and combust various pieces. Cut material down to 2 ft in height. No piling or burning piles. (EXCEPTION: To mitigate fire hazard slash may be piled and burned ½ chain, or 33 feet from the edge of FR 374, which is a primary recreation road, in Units 110, 118, and 125. This equates to approximately 4 acres of treatment. )

2, 3, 4 All small-tree thin (plantation) units EXCEPTION: 33 feet along roads Units 110, 118, 125

Allow for nutrient recycling (from cut material) for long term soil site productivity

Slash in maintenance and prescribed burn units will be left through one winter after cutting

2, 3, 4 All maintenance and prescribed burn units

Minimize soil disturbance and reduce soil compaction

Skid trails will be designated, and historic skid trails will be utilized to the extent feasible in the ground-based units. Ground based yarding will be completed during dry soil conditions (soil moisture is near or below the permanent wilting point).

2, 3, 4 All ground based units

Reduce soil sterilization The Soil Scientist will be consulted prior to burning to ensure soil conditions are acceptable for burning. Upon completion of maintenance burning or other prescribed fire activities, at least 70 percent ground cover is necessary to prevent detrimental accelerated erosion and loss in soil productivity. In those cases where ground cover is less than 70% prior to burning, consumption and loss of ground cover should not exceed 15 percent of the burn unit. Ground cover includes duff, organic soil horizons, basal area of vegetation, fine woody debris, coarse woody debris, and surface coarse fragments. Prescribed fire prescriptions will be designed to meet these soil protection requirements. Seeding will occur if duff and organic surface horizons are burned off, exposing mineral soil.

2, 3, 4 All maintenance and prescribed burn units and units with hand piles

Alternatives



Pile sizes will be limited so localized areas of soil disturbances will be less than about 50 square feet in size (average pile size would be 6-8 feet in diameter). Burning of piles should occur during wet conditions when the duff is moist. The entire duff profile should be moist to the touch in the pile locations. Where feasible, pile and burn slash where detrimental soil disturbance already exists, such as on old log landings, skid trails, and roads associated with the past harvest units. By piling and burning thinning slash in areas where soil disturbance currently exists, no new areas of detrimental soil disturbance would result from proposed actions.

Heritage Protect cultural resources

Culturally sensitive areas in or near burning or ground disturbing activity units will be protected during operations by “area of avoidance” designation on contract maps, by modification of unit boundaries, or by elimination of the unit.

2, 3, 4 As needed

Sensitive Plants and Noxious Weeds Minimize impacts to Sensitive Plants

If new landings, tracked line machine pads, or temporary road locations are identified then botanist must survey prior to construction.


Minimize impacts to known Lemhi penstemon (sensitive plant) population

Assure fire line does not go through plant locations. 2, 3, 4 Prescribed burn Unit 15

Minimize impacts to known Dwarf Onion populations (sensitive plant)

No skyline corridors going through area of plant. No piling and burning in area of plant.

2, 3, 4 Units 18 and 33

Reduce impacts to native plant re-establishment and soil productivity

Individual hand piles will generally not exceed 50 ft2 (pile size approximately 6 to 8 ft in diameter).

2, 3, 4 Units with hand piles

Reduce impacts to soil productivity and native plant reestablishment

Disturbed sites (including skid trails and landings) will be evaluated and the timber sale administrator and /or resource specialists will determine erosion control and revegetation needs. Topography, presence and condition of adjacent vegetation, and amount of disturbance will be used to determine need and treatment. Appropriate erosion control may include contouring, seeding, fertilizing, planting of shrubs, mulch and/or scattering of slash.

2, 3, 4

Vegetation Reduce impacts to Mt. Mahogany (species of special concern for

No intentional lighting at base of shrubs. 2, 3, 4 As appropriate

Alternatives



FWP) Reduce attraction of ips beetles (associated with logging slash), that can stress and kill ponderosa pine

Where ponderosa pine greater than 3” in diameter is removed work would occur between July 1 and Jan 1.

2, 3, 4 As appropriate

Reduce the risk of annosus root disease spread

Treat ponderosa pine stumps greater than 12” in diameter with Sporax®.

2, 3, 4 As appropriate

Wildlife Provide snag habitat for wildlife

Stand level prescriptions by a certified silviculturist and wildlife biologist will provide unit-specific snag retention requirements including spatial distribution, species, and snag sizes. Prescriptions will meet the proposed snag standards including the following number of snags retained by Fire Groups if they exist in the unit prior to treatment. Fire Groups are described in Chapter 3, Sec. 3.3.3 C.

Fire Group(s)

Snags (average trees per acre)

2, 4 2-5 6 4-12 7, 8, 9 10-15

Irregular distribution and small clumps are desirable. Snags retained will include some from the largest diameter size class available within that unit.

2, 3, 4 All Units

Ensure adequate protection of nesting goshawks and their young from disturbance during the critical incubation, nesting, and post-fledging periods

1) No adverse management activities will occur within known or newly discovered nest stands (approximately 30 acres). Adverse management activities are defined as activities that could adversely modify goshawk behavior, reproductive effort, or habitat, including reducing the overstory canopy or disturbing active nests during the nesting season (April 15 through August 15). Thinning understory trees with non-uniform spacing using prescribed fire and/or hand-operated tools may occur within the nest areas outside of the nesting season. Thinning CAN NOT reduce the overstory canopy. 2) Management activities within a 420-acre post-fledging area (PFA) around known or newly discovered goshawk nests will be limited to August 16 through April 14 (i.e., restricted from April 15 through August 15) in any year when a nest within the PFA is active unless otherwise recommended by a wildlife biologist in writing after consideration of the activities and their potential to disturb goshawks and approved by a line officer.

2, 3, 4 PFA Units 5, 13, 14, 15, 17, 23, 30, 32, 39, 42, 45, 46, 78, 138, 140, 148, 149, 150, 155

Alternatives



Reduce disturbance to elk on their winter range and calving area

Modify travel restriction to “closed to all motorized use” from Oct 15 – June 15 on the following haul roads: 62412 and 74972, and non-haul roads: 13276 and 62866 after treatments. Modify travel restriction to “closed yearlong to all” on the following roads: 13264, 13273, 13274, and 132784 after treatments.

2, 3, 4 N/A

Fisheries & Watershed Preserve and protect fisheries habitat

No trees will be harvested within INFISH RHCAs except Unit 39a. The Fisheries Biologist or Hydrologist will assist in the layout and harvest of this unit. All treatment units, except Unit 39a, will have no harvest within: 300 feet of fish-bearing streams; 150 feet of permanently flowing, non-fish bearing streams; 100 feet of seasonally flowing or intermittent streams; 150 feet of ponds, lakes or wetlands >1 ac.; within 100 feet of ponds, lakes or wetland <1 ac.; within 100 feet of landslide prone areas.

2, 3, 4 All units

Reduce sediment to high priority streams (Little Trapper and S. Fk. Chaffin)

Blade, shape and improve 6 cross-drains on 3.0 miles of FR 374 – Little Trapper section. Grade, gravel and install dips on 1.5 miles of FR 374 – South Fork Chaffin section before the haul.

2, 3, 4 N/A

Avoid any appreciable loss of surface material on Rd. 716 and lower portion of Rd. 374 that parallels Chaffin Creek

Treat approximately 1.5 miles of Road 716 and 374 with dust palliative and change drainage structures in two locations prior to the haul.

2, 3, 4 N/A

Recreation Reduce attraction for illegal motorized use.

Place slash from landings onto skid trails when they are visible from roads, to effectively close trails to motorized use.


Visuals Minimize visual impacts Leave grand fir on down hill slope of FR 639. 2, 3, 4 Units 45, 46,

48, and 49. Does not include plantation thinning.

Minimize visual impacts of commercial harvest from primary recreation access roads

Maximum stump height within 60 feet of the primary recreation access roads will be 12 inches dbh.

2, 3, 4 Unit 39a

Air Quality Meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards. In particular, 24-hour maximum downwind

Limited to 50 acres/day if burned under typical spring conditions; wetter duff conditions (>100%) will allow more acreage/day

2, 3, 4 77

Alternatives



concentrations of PM 2.5 are less than 35 ug/m3

*Another method, determined to be equally or more effective in meeting the mitigation objective by the appropriate resource specialist and approved by a line officer, could be used. Standard Operating Procedures and Soil and Water Conservation Practices will be implemented through standard timber sale contract requirements. Examples of such standard procedures include, but are not limited to, using old skid trails as much as possible to reduce soil disturbance; washing vehicles that leave roads to reduce weed spread; and ripping, obliterating and revegetating landings and temporary roads. Montana Best Management Practices to be implemented are addressed in Appendix A. 2.4 MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT After the Record of Decision for this project is signed, and before any ground disturbing or vegetation removal activities occur, the IDT members will meet with the Forest Service individuals involved in and responsible for the implementation of the selected action. The IDT members will review the rationale and objectives for the decision(s) that were made, the mitigation measures associated with project implementation, the responsibilities of implementing specific criteria, and the types and intensities of monitoring scheduled with project implementation. This process will create the bridge between planning efforts and project implementation efforts to achieve the desired results on the ground. Representatives of the IDT will review project layout and the draft contract prior to offering a timber sale, service, or stewardship contract. Also, review may occur periodically during the life of the contract, and after the contract to see that the project complied with the intent and requirements of the planning effort. Routine implementation monitoring is a standard operating procedure; it is part of the administration of all project contracts. It assesses whether the project was implemented as designed and whether or not it complies with the Forest Plan. Planning for routine implementation monitoring began with the preliminary design of the Trapper Bunkhouse project. Performance is monitored relative to contract requirements. Input by resource staff specialists, such as fisheries biologists, soil scientists, hydrologists, and engineers, is regularly requested during this implementation monitoring process. These specialists provide technical advice when questions arise during project implementation. Monitoring is designed wherever possible to catch and assess problems before or when they occur so corrective measures can be taken. As such, it is also a quality control/quality assurance plan. By its nature, implementation monitoring, to be effective, requires an adaptive approach to management. That means when undesirable or unexpected results or conditions are identified through monitoring, the project will be assessed, and when possible, altered as needed to meet the intent of the mitigation or proposed activity. This is explicitly described in some activities (i.e., if new heritage sites or sensitive plants are identified, unit boundaries or treatment types may be modified as necessary to protect the resource) but it is also implicit for the project as a whole. If or when these situations arise, project adjustments will be made on the basis of the desired and predicted outcomes discussed on the Record of Decision and the FEIS. The Bitterroot National Forest staff annually conducts a review of Best Management Practices implementation and effectiveness. This does not necessarily occur on every project. The results of this and other monitoring are summarized annually in a Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Report. This report provides information about how well the management direction of the Forest is being carried out, and measures the accomplishment of outputs, activities, and effects. The Forest Service Activity Tracking System (FACTS) will also be used to assure mitigations are completed.

Alternatives

2.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED Through project development and comments on the DEIS, five alternatives were considered but dismissed from detailed analysis. These alternatives, and the rationale for dismissing them, are described below. 2.5.1 400 METERS AROUND STRUCTURE FUEL REDUCTION AND WILDLAND FIRE USE ALTERNATIVE The Friends of the Bitterroot offered an alternative to consider in their Scoping Comments. The basis for this alternative, as described in their proposal (PF-SCOPE-011, p. 6 of 11), includes:

Improve the protection of homes and communities from wildland fire.

Allow the healthy succession of forest ecosystems, recognizing the positive role of forest insects and tree disease.

Allow fire to play its natural role in the forest ecosystem, and

Use contracting and funding flexibility to maximize benefit to sustainable local economy.

There are a number of reasons why, upon preliminary analysis and consideration, the IDT recommended to the Responsible Official that this alternative not be analyzed any further (PF-IDT-031). These reasons are summarized in Table 2-10:

Table 2- 10: Why the 400 Meters around Structure Alternative Was Not Analyzed in Detail

Basic Element of Alternative Reasons Not Considered In Detail Improve the protection of homes and communities from wildland fire by thinning from below and hand pruning within 400 meters of structures.

This alternative would not meet the fuel reduction purpose and need for this project because it would: 1) not treat MTT TOM priority areas (Chapter 2, p. 16); 2) not significantly change the crown fire probability; and 3) some of the areas that fall within the 400 meter area around a structure have already been treated or are scheduled for treatment (PF-ALT-007).

Allow the healthy succession of forest ecosystems, recognizing the positive role of forest insects and tree disease.

It was determined that allowing all insects and disease-infested trees to follow natural succession would not meet the purpose and need of providing economic revenues for the community and other resource work by capturing the value of dead and dying trees and thinning to increase resiliency. The Trapper Bunkhouse project is within the 27% of the Forest where active timber management is allowed and appropriate. The 1.3 million acre Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness is immediately west of the project area and there forest insects and disease are not actively managed.


Alternatives


Basic Element of Alternative Reasons Not Considered In Detail Allow fire to play its natural role in the forest ecosystem. The Forest Service is required to suppress all wildfires

within the wildland urban interface (70% of the project area). Wildland fire use is already considered a management strategy for roadless areas, and the wilderness to the west of the project area. The proposed action may facilitate more options for fire use in the wilderness, whereas reducing fuels only within 400 meters of structures would not.

Use contracting and funding flexibility to maximize benefit to sustainable local economy.

This is an integral part of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4; therefore a separate alternative to analyze this is not required.

2.5.2 BURNT RIDGE HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION OHV ALTERNATIVE AND OTHER OHV ALTERNATIVES9 The Trapper Bunkhouse project scoping letter mailed to the public in September 2005 included a fifth purpose and need item related to managing off-highway vehicle recreation opportunities in the Project Area. However, as the Bitterroot National Forest was involved in a comprehensive travel management analysis which would evaluate wheeled motorized access across the entire forest, the Responsible Official decided to drop the travel management portion of the Trapper Bunkhouse project. Additionally, members of the public requested that travel management be “tabled” and removed from the Trapper Bunkhouse project on several occasions. Notes from a meeting facilitated by Dr. Jim Burchfield stated “Several local residents expressed concern that the Trapper Bunkhouse decision on motorized use is premature, and it will unnecessarily attract more motorized users than if the designation had occurred as part of a larger, Forest-wide designation package” (PF-PUBLIC-051, p.12). As pointed out in comments on the DEIS, this request for tabling was incorrectly attributed to the Burnt Ridge Homeowners’ Association. In light of the decision to drop off-highway vehicle (OHV) management from the proposed action, there is no detailed analysis of any OHV alternative. This included the proposal the Burnt Ridge Homeowners’’ Association submitted in their comments on the Trapper Bunkhouse scoping document dated 5/15/06 (PF-SCOPE-031). Initial consideration of that proposal occurred but was not completed given the decision to remove OHV management from the proposed action (PF-ALT-006). Also not considered in detail was a proposal, voiced during meetings facilitated by Jim Burchfield on OHV management, to open all existing Forest Service roads (PF-PUBLIC-051). Under this proposal, drainages that currently meet the elk habitat effectiveness standard would no longer meet the standard, and other drainages would move further away from the standard. The proposal would also move away from desired conditions for stream sedimentation. Therefore this alternative was not considered in detail. 2.5.3 ALTERNATIVE THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE A FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT Commenters on the DEIS expressed concern that “Without an action alternative that doesn't include amendments, the DEIS does not demonstrate that the proposed Forest Plan Amendments are needed, that the purposes of the project cannot be met without them” (DEISCOMM-010, p.14). For this reason an alternative that

9 Correspondence from this group uses both the name Burnt Ridge Neighborhood Association and the Burnt Ridge Homeowners’ Association.

Alternatives

does not require a Forest Plan amendment was considered; however, it was eliminated from detailed analysis for the reasons described below. The existing condition for thermal cover (trees greater than 40 feet tall and greater than 70 percent crown canopy closure) is well short of the Bitterroot Forest Plan Record of Decision (1987) requirement for maintaining thermal cover on at least 25 percent of big game winter range. This existing condition is analyzed in Alternative 1 (No Action). It is unlikely that the historical condition of forests within the Project Area met this standard due to the high frequency, low-to-mixed severity fire regimes that maintained generally open, park-like characteristics of low elevation ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir forests. Many publications describe historic vegetation in lower elevations of the northern Rocky Mountains as being much more open than it currently is as a result of frequent fires (Gruel 1983, Arno 1976, Gallant et al. 2003). Many lower elevation areas that are now forested were grasslands, shrublands, or open conifer savannas in historic times (Leiburg 1899, Gruell 1983, Habeck 1994, Gallant et al. 2003). Since none of these vegetative conditions provide thermal cover as defined in USDA (1978), we can infer that thermal cover in winter range was uncommon historically. Conifer cover (including thermal cover) has increased dramatically with the advent of fire suppression. Gruell (1983) states that the most striking change in vegetation resulting from fire suppression has been the widespread increase in distribution and density of conifers, including the widespread proliferation of Douglas-fir on sites that were formerly maintained in ponderosa pine. An alternative that would meet the thermal cover standard would require extensive planting, fertilizing, and decades (20 – 60 years) of growth to reach thermal cover conditions. The interim condition would be a dense vegetative condition composed of ladder fuels ranging in size from seedlings to poles. This condition is not consistent with the historical vegetative structure, and is the reason that this project is proposed, to reduce the risk of wildfire risks within the wildland-urban interface. For these reasons an alternative that meets the thermal cover requirement was not analyzed further. The Responsible Official considered an alternative that would meet the Forest Plan standard for coarse woody debris. This alternative would leave 25 tons/acre of coarse woody debris in all treatment units in Management Area 2 (USDA 1987, p. III-13). Management Area 2 is big-game winter range primarily occurring below 6,200 feet elevation on the lower forested or grassy foothills (USDA 1987, p. III-9). These sites make up roughly 25% of the analysis area and are adjacent to private property. In this type of habitat (warm, dry, ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir habitat) Brown (et al 2003) showed that 25 tons per acre is well outside of the range of historical coarse woody debris levels (FIRE-033). Retaining this amount of coarse woody debris within the WUI, where the project’s purpose and need includes the reduction of risk from stand-replacing and uncontrollable fires, is not desirable; therefore, this alternative was not analyzed further. The Responsible Official considered an alternative that would meet the Forest Plan standard for elk habitat effectiveness (EHE) (PF-ALT-017). The standard is to maintain 50 percent or higher EHE in currently roaded drainages (those where more than 25% of the potential road system was in place in 1987), and 60 percent or higher EHE in drainages where less than 25% of the roads had been built (USDA 1987, p. II-21). The existing condition for EHE does not meet this standard in five of the eight third order drainages, wholly or partially, within the Project Area. Meeting the standard would result in substantial reductions in the public’s ability to access and enjoy portions of the Forest. Access routes open to public motorized travel would largely be limited to the existing main roads. Motorized access to several major recreation destinations - Baker Lake Trailhead (Trail 234), the Trapper Creek Trailhead (Trail 598), and the Trapper Peak Observation Point - would be closed. Restrictions on motorized use of existing roads would limit the public’s ability to reach areas traditionally used for hunting, camping, firewood gathering, and other recreational pursuits. The number of elk observed during post-season aerial trend surveys exceeded the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks’ population objectives from the 1992 Elk Management Plan for Hunting District (HD) 250 in 8 of 9 surveys conducted between 1994 and 2003 (HD 250 comprises part of the Trapper Bunkhouse project area). The number of elk observed in HD 250 during these surveys in 2003 was 51% over the 1992 objective (FWP 2005). The FWP objective for HD 250 was increased from about 1,085 elk to 1,400 elk in the draft 2004


Alternatives

Elk Management Plan, and increased again to 2,000 elk (plus or minus 20%) in the final Plan after a request from the Bitterroot Elk Management Working Group (FWP 2005). Observed elk numbers in HD 250 have yet to meet this recent higher objective, although they were within the population range the State set as a goal in 2003, 2004, and 2005. There seems to be little biological need to decrease open road densities (and thus increase EHE) to benefit elk in this area because elk populations have approximately tripled since 1983, despite open road densities that do not meet Forest Plan standards for EHE in some third order drainages. For these reasons, an alternative to meet the Forest Plan standard for EHE within the Trapper Bunkhouse Project Area was not considered in detail. 2.5.4 ALTERNATIVE THAT WOULD GENERATE ENOUGH REVENUE FOR ALL FUEL REDUCTION AND RESOURCE OPPORTUNITIES Commenters on the DEIS requested an alternative that would cover all the costs of the non-commercial fuel reduction and resource opportunities identified in the DEIS; or in other words, a 'break-even' alternative (DEISCOMM-9, p.2, DEISCOMM-10, p. 2). Such an alternative was considered (PF-ALT-008). A scenario was modeled, using MAGIS, that harvested every available additional acre with commercially valuable saw timber, based on R1 VMap data. With this scenario there were not enough acres available to generate sufficient revenues to cover the identified non-commercial fuel reduction work and resource opportunities. For this reason this alternative was not analyzed further. The DEIS disclosed that other funding sources would be needed to accomplish all of the non-commercial fuel reduction and resources opportunities identified, and in this FEIS we have added what these potential sources are in Table 3.13-6 in the Economics and Social Analysis section. 2.5.5 ALTERNATIVE WITH RESEARCH PLOTS ONLY Commenters on the DEIS requested that an alternative be considered which only included the research plots. (DEISCOMM-010, p. 14) Conducting research to evaluate our ability to influence fire spread rates and severity with vegetation management and the effects of management on the ecosystem components such as soil productivity and weed invasion is one of four project objectives. The research plots will total approximately 120 acres, including 20 acres of control plots where no new actions will occur. Reducing fuel and thinning on only 100 acres, in five acre plots, within a 23,140 acre project area would not meet the other three objectives of this project. The effects of this on the remaining 23,040 acres would be substantially the same as for the no action alternative, which is analyzed. Since this alternative would not meet three of four project objectives, and because the effects of the alternative were largely analyzed in Alternative 1, (No Action), it was not analyzed in detail. 2.6 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES This section summarizes and compares the alternatives analyzed in detail in terms of activities, how they meet the project’s Purpose and Need, and how they respond to the issues. For more detail, refer to Chapter 3.


Alternatives

2.6.1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES BY ACTIVITY A summary of the vegetation treatments and related activities, and connected actions (i.e. mitigation), for the four alternatives is displayed in Table 2-11.

Table 2- 11: Comparison of Activities Connected to Vegetation Treatments for All Alternatives

Activity Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

Total Number of Treatment Units 0 112 34 121 Acres of Treatments in Wildland Urban Interface (% of total acres treated) 0 4,297

(91%) 3,582 (91%)

5,392 (93%)

Proposed Treatments in acres (% of total acres treated)

Aspen Treatments 0 25 (1%)

0 (0%)

25 (<1%)

Commercial Thin 0 1,891 (40%)

2,174 (55%)

2,590 (44%)

Salvage/Regeneration and Commercial Thin 0 189

(4%) 0

(0%) 189

(3%)

Maintenance Burn 0 584 (12%)

584 (15%)

562 (10%)

Prescribed Burn 0 536 (11%)

710 (18%)

743 (13%)

Small Tree Thin 0 232 (5%)

208 (5%)

232 (4%)

Small Tree Thin (Plantations) 0 1,199 (25%)

0 (0%)

1,199 (21%)

Slashing 0 15 (<1%)

211 (5%)

226 (3%)

Sanitation and/or Salvage 0 41 (1%)

41 (1%)

41 (1%)

Research Control 0 20* (<1%)

20* (1%)

20* (<1%)

Total Acres Treated 4,732 3,948 5,827 Yarding Systems (acres)

Skyline 0 1,203 (57%)

1,345 (61%)

1,576 (56%)

Tractor 0 802 (38%)

784 (35%)

1,102 (39%)

Helicopter 0 116 (5%)

86 (4%)

142 (5%)

Total Commercial Treatments 0 2,121 (45%)

2,215 (56%)

2,820 (48%)

Total Non-Commercial Treatments 0 2,611 (55%)

1,733 (44%)

3,007 (52%)

Helicopter Landings Constructed (and existing landings used) 0 4** 4** 4**

Temporary Road Construction (miles) 0 2.7 0.7 2.8 Watershed Mitigation (miles road work) 0 6.0*** 6.0*** 6.0*** Roads to be Decommissioned (miles) 0 7.4 7.4 7.4


Alternatives


Activity Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

Road restrictions for elk disturbance (miles of roads): Seasonal Closure (10/15- 6/15) Yearlong Closure

0

0

3.6

3.4

3.6

3.4

3.6

3.4 Maintenance Burns in 6 -10 years (when fuel conditions are right) after initial treatments. 0 2,482 3,306 3,577

Estimated Timber Harvest Volume (thousands of board feet, MBF) 0 3,800 3,900 5,200

* Approximately 120 acres will be used in the research; of that 20 acres = control. The rest is accounted for in other treatment categories; 40 acres small tree thin; 60 acre =commercial thin; 415 acres remaining outside research plots=commercial thin. **Four Helicopter Landings analyzed. Only three are likely to be used. *** Tied to commercial timber treatments. If the commercial vegetation treatments are implemented this watershed work and road restriction changes will be made. If commercial treatments are not implemented this work will be completed as funds are available.

2.6.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES IN MEETING THE PURPOSE AND NEED Table 2-12 uses the measures of success to compare how well the alternatives meet the purpose and needs of the project.

Table 2- 12: Comparison of Meeting the Purpose and Need for All Alternatives

Purpose and Need Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT Reduced Risk from Stand Replacing and Uncontrollable Fires Net Acres with Reduced Fireline Intensity 0 1,023 2,442 2,022 Net Acres with a Lowered Crowning Potential 0 256 470 368

Mean Reduction in Travel Time (Hours)* Wilderness Ignition – South wind 0 -1 +3 +1 Wilderness Ignition – West wind 0 0 +1 0 WUI Ignition – South wind 0 0 +2 0 WUI Ignition – West wind 0 -1 +3 -1 Provide Economic Opportunity to Community; Provide Revenue for other Resource WorkTotal Employment 0 126 126 178 Total Labor Income ($000’s) 0 $3,136 $3,070 $4,497 Revenue available for other resource work (after mitigations) 0 $99,086 $108,982 $191,271

Improve Resiliency to Insects and Disease Acres of Reduced Stocking 0 2,416 1,979 3,192 Research Fuel Reduction Research Conducted No Yes Yes Yes

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

Alternatives


Purpose and Need Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

Reduced Sediment to S. Fk. Chaffin and Little Trapper; Improved Aquatic Connectivity Long-term decrease in Existing Human Caused Sedimentation in Little Trapper Creek and Chaffin Creek (all opportunities implemented) 0%

2 tons/year decrease (19% reduction; Range 13-30%)



Miles of Riparian Road Treated with BMP Upgrades 0 6.0 6.0 6.0

Miles of Road Decommissioned

0

7.4 (0.8 riparian road in L. Trapper and S. Fk. Chaffin)



Number of High Priority Crossings Eliminated or Improved

0

14 removed (6 in L. Trapper and S. Fk. Chaffin); 4 improved in L. Trapper and S. Fk. Chaffin

14 removed (6 in L. Trapper and S. Fk. Chaffin); 4 improved in L. Trapper and S. Fk. Chaffin

14 removed (6 in L. Trapper and S. Fk. Chaffin); 4 improved in L. Trapper and S. Fk.

Numbers of Fish Barriers Fixed or Removed 0 3 3 3

* (+) Indicates that fire travel time has increased; (-) indicates that fire travel time has decreased. Increased time is more desirable. 2.6.3 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES BY EFFECTS Chapter 3 analyzes the effects of the alternatives on the issues raised through public scoping, listed in Table 2-1. A summary and comparison, by alternative, of this analysis is presented in Table 2-13. The IDT also analyzed potential effects of the proposed activities on other resources and that analysis is also found in Chapter 3.

Table 2- 13: Comparison of the Alternatives by Issues

Issue Alternative 1 (An open circle (o) indicates mid- to

long-term cumulative effects

with wildfires.)

Alternative 2 (An open circle (o)

indicates mid- to long-term cumulative effects

with wildfires.)

Alternative 3 (An open circle (o) indicates mid- to


with wildfires.)


long-term cumulative effects with wildfires.)

FISHERIES Sediment:

• No net benefit or impact

Water Temp: • No effect on

Sediment: • Mitigation offsets

project-related sediment.

Water Temp and Large

Alternatives




with wildfires.)



with wildfires.)



with wildfires.)



shade and therefore temperature.

Large Wood: • No net benefit or

impact. Aquatic Connectivity: • No benefit or

impact

Wood: • Slight short term

benefit by reducing the probability of fire reaching and passing through the crowns of large, ecologically valuable, riparian trees

Aquatic Connectivity: • Three fish barriers

removed (2 culverts replaced, 1 removed.)

Same Effects as Alternative 2


WATERSHED Sediment:

• No change to current road sedimentation input

Water Yield: • No change;

present stand density and moisture stress retained

Channel Condition: • No change

Road/Stream Interaction: • No change

~~~~~~ o Maintain the

current risk of watershed damage from high-intensity wildfire, and increase it over time.

Sediment: • Short term –

Immeasurable. Mitigation effectively cancels out log hauling effects.

• Long term – Immeasurable change from total existing sediment. Moderate decrease (Total of 19% for both S.F. Chaffin and Little Trapper; Range of 13 – 30%) in human-caused sediment from current levels due to crossing & riparian road projects if all opportunities completed.

Water Yield: • Negligible increase

in streamflow, better soil moisture conditions where thinned or prescribe burned

Channel Condition: • Short term – Range

from no effect to

Same Effects as Alternative 2 Same Effects as

Same Effects as Alternative 2 Same Effects as

Alternatives




with wildfires.)



with wildfires.)



with wildfires.)



minor degradation – sediment from hauling in reaches adjacent to roads. Similar to present condition until end of hauling.

• Long term – Immeasurable (less than 1%) decrease from existing total sediment. Approximate 19% decrease in human-caused sediment from crossing & riparian road projects.

Road/Stream Interaction: • Short term –

Immeasurable effects from log haul on sediment production – mitigation effectively reduces project road effects.

• Long term – Approximate 19% decrease in human-caused sediment from crossing & riparian road projects. 6 crossings would be decommissioned in these subwatersheds.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2

SOIL PRODUCTIVITY Soil Productivity

• No change to current erosion and mass wasting regimes

• No change to organic matter and woody debris;

Soil Productivity • Risk of landslide

initiation as a result of forest thinning and burning is low.

• Ground cover reduced on estimated 5-10% on ground based and skyline

Soil Productivity Same Effects as Alternative 2 Soil Disturbance • Zero acres of

cumulative detrimental soil disturbance greater than 15%

Soil Productivity Same Effects as Alternative 2 Soil Disturbance • Zero acres of

cumulative detrimental soil disturbance greater than 15%

Alternatives




with wildfires.)



with wildfires.)



with wildfires.)



• No change in nutrient cycling.

Soil Disturbance: • Zero acres of

cumulative detrimental soil disturbance greater than 15% of an activity area. ~~~~~~

o If future fires are within the historic range of variability, long-term effects of erosion and mass movement are likely to be relatively small. Fire severity exceeding the historic range of variability could have detrimental effects on erosion and mass movement through the alteration of soil hydrology and loss of soil organic matter and tree roots.

units. Groundcover recovery would be achieved with needle cast and vegetation re-growth.

• Sufficient coarse woody debris left for soil productivity if available prior to treatment.

• Nutrient cycling and availability unaltered at stand scale. Localized losses may occur under burn piles, at landings, or where severe fire occurs.

Soil Disturbance • Zero acres of

cumulative detrimental soil disturbance greater than 15% of an activity area.

• 172 acres of soil disturbed by ground and skyline yarding.

of an activity area.


of an activity area.


WILDLIFE – Old Growth Old growth habitat

• No treatment in old growth habitat

• No effect to existing old growth habitat percentages or conditions.

• Slower progression of immature stands toward old growth than in

• No treatment in old growth habitat

• No affect to existing old growth habitat percentages or conditions.

• Helps move treated stands towards old growth conditions in the long term by reducing high stocking densities making stands more

Similar Effects as Alternative 2 though fewer acres with fuel reduction treatments, therefore slightly less influence on fire behavior and fewer stands treated to move towards old growth conditions. (3,948 acres treated rather than 4,732)

Similar Effects as Alternative 2 though more acres with fuel reduction treatments, therefore slightly more influence on fire behavior and more stands treated to move towards old growth conditions. (5,827 acres treated rather than 4,732)

Alternatives




with wildfires.)



with wildfires.)



with wildfires.)



thinned stands. ~~~~~~ o Risk of loss of

additional old growth habitat. Increasing tree densities and fuel loadings would increase the probability of a large, intense fire. A large fire would likely result in a high degree of mortality in most of the existing old growth stands it burns through given existing and future fuel loadings.

resilient to insects, disease and fire.

~~~~~~ o Old growth habitat

itself would still be vulnerable to stand replacing fires and insects and disease.

WILDLIFE – Species Species the public often “associate” with old growth.

• No change to existing habitat quality for marten, pileated woodpecker, flammulated owl, goshawk, or fisher.

• Short term habitat quality will likely continue to improve for marten, pileated woodpecker, fisher, and some goshawk habitats as tree densities increase.

• Short term habitat quality will likely continue to

• Minor decrease in habitat suitability index for marten (38% to 33%) and pileated woodpecker (27% to 26%).

• Some loss of potential goshawk nesting habitat would occur, but all of the area would still be suitable habitat for foraging.

• Some loss of potential fisher habitat would occur.

• No change in the amount of flammulated owl habitat; improvement in habitat structure.

• Excess habitat to maintain viable populations exists Forest and area wide




• No change in the amount of flammulated owl habitat;




• No change in the amount of flammulated owl habitat; improvement in

Alternatives




with wildfires.)



with wildfires.)



with wildfires.)



decline for flammulated owls and some goshawk habitats as tree densities increase.

~~~~~~ o A large fire

could create unsuitable habitat for marten, pileated woodpeckers, flammulated owls, goshawks, and marten in areas that burned with moderate or high intensities. Edge of the fire could provide feeding habitat (goshawk).

for marten, pileated woodpecker, flammulated owl, goshawk, and fisher so the project would not likely influence population or species viability.

~~~~~~ o Reduces the risk of

losing remaining marten, pileated woodpecker, flammulated owl, goshawk, and fisher habitat to severe fire or insect outbreaks by reducing stocking densities and fuel loadings on 4,732 acres.

improvement in habitat structure.

• Excess habitat to maintain viable populations exists Forest and area wide for marten, pileated woodpecker, flammulated owl, goshawk, and fisher so the project would not likely influence population or species viability.

~~~~~~ Reduces the risk of losing remaining marten, pileated woodpecker, flammulated owl, goshawk, and fisher habitat to severe fire or insect outbreaks by reducing stocking densities and fuel loadings on 3,948 acres.

habitat structure. • Excess habitat to

maintain viable populations exists Forest and area wide for marten, pileated woodpecker, flammulated owl, goshawk, and fisher so the project would not likely influence population or species viability.

~~~~~~ Reduces the risk of losing remaining marten, pileated woodpecker, flammulated owl, goshawk, and fisher habitat to severe fire or insect outbreaks by reducing stocking densities and fuel loadings on 5,827 acres.

RECREATION AND ROADLESS • No impact to

recreation opportunities.

• No change to inventoried roadless areas or unroaded areas.

• Impacts on wheeled motorized travel opportunities due to seasonal and yearlong road closures and road decommissioning.

• No change to inventoried roadless areas or unroaded areas.

• Could increase cross-country travel.

Minor temporary effects



Alternatives




with wildfires.)



with wildfires.)



with wildfires.)



to individuals in or near the area could occur during treatment activities including: road closures, increased traffic, smoke and noise.

VISUALS • Forest Plan

visual quality objectives would be met

• Through project design and mitigations, Forest Plan visual quality objectives would be met.

• Visual impact of several old clear cuts reduced by feathering edges.



• Visual impact of several old clear cuts reduced by feathering edges.

NOXIOUS WEEDS • No direct

change to individual plants or spread of weeds.

• Current trend of noxious weed spread continues at a low-to-moderate rate.

o High intensity fire more conducive to spotted knapweed spread.

• Potential for weed spread minimized through mitigation, continues at a low to moderate rate.

• Decommissioning of 7.4 miles of roads, which are weed-spread corridors.



ECONOMICS Financial efficiency and revenue available for other resource activities

• No effect • Financial efficiency results indicate a timber sale is a financially viable investment (i.e. discounted revenue is greater than discounted cost including required

• Financial efficiency results indicate a timber sale is a financially viable investment (i.e. discounted revenue is greater than discounted

• Financial efficiency results indicate a timber sale is a financially viable investment (i.e. discounted revenue is greater than discounted

Alternatives




with wildfires.)



with wildfires.)



with wildfires.)



mitigation; PNV = $220,800).

• Revenue available after required mitigation costs is approximately $99,086. These funds available for other resource activities such as non-commercial fuel reduction and watershed improvements; they will not cover all identified opportunities.

• Investment in all restoration and improvement projects; PNV= -$1,464,500

cost including required mitigation; PNV = $234,900).

• Revenue available after required mitigation costs is approximately $108,982. These funds available for other resource work such as non-commercial fuel reduction and watershed improvements; they will not cover all identified opportunities.


cost including required mitigation; PNV = $351,600).

• Revenue available after required mitigation costs is approximately $191,271. These funds available for other resource activities such as non-commercial fuel reduction and watershed improvements; they will not cover all identified opportunities.


2.7 CHANGES TO CHAPTER 2 BETWEEN THE DRAFT EIS AND FINAL EIS

Updated numbers and made editorial edits.

Added description of road activities to Alternative 2.

Added description and summaries of Alternative 4.

Based on public comment, clarified how the MAGIS model was used in the development of Alternative 3.

Provided Project File references for computer models used in the development of Alternative 3.

Based on public comment, corrected statement concerning implementation of mitigation in the Huck

Trap Decision.

Removed proposed road closures that were decided in the Huck Trap Decision of 1995 and implemented in 2007.

Alternatives


Combined Tables 2-8 and 2-9 into one table.

Based on public comment, added consideration of an alternative that did not require a Forest Plan amendment, an alternative that only conducted research, and an alternative that would cover all costs of resource opportunity activities through timber revenue.

Clarified that stewardship contracting is just one potential implementation tool.

Added the elk habitat effectiveness element to the site-specific Forest Plan amendment.

chapter 2.0 alternativesa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2009. 12. 8. · a...

Documents