iller whiskey complex fire salvage...

DRAFT DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

TILLER WHISKEY COMPLEX FIRE SALVAGE PROJECT

U.S. FOREST SERVICE

UMPQUA NATIONAL FOREST

TILLER RANGER DISTRICT

DOUGLAS COUNTY, OR

LOCATION

The Tiller Whiskey Complex Fire Salvage Project (Whiskey Complex) is located on the Tiller District of the Umpqua National Forest, approximately ten road miles south of Tiller, Oregon for the Whiskey Fire; and approximately 17 road miles northeast of Tiller for the Buckeye Fire. The legal description includes all or portions of Township 31 South, Range 1 East, Sections 4-9; and Township 31 South, Range 1 West, Sections 1,2 & 11-13; Township 30 South, Range 1 East Sections 16-21 & 28-33; Township 30 South, Range 1 West, Sections 22-28 & 34-36; Township 29 South, Range 1 East, Sections 9-11, 17, 19, 20, 29 & 30; Willamette Meridian, Douglas County, Oregon.

BACKGROUND

On July 26, 2013, a lightning storm ignited the Smith Ridge, Buckeye, Big Brother and Whiskey fires on the Tiller Ranger District of the Umpqua National Forest, forming the Whiskey Complex. These fires were fought throughout the summer with Smith Ridge Fire contained on September 7, 2013 at 23 acres, the Buckeye Fire contained on October 1, 2013 at 1,683 acres, and the Whiskey and Big Brother Fires, which grew together, contained on October 1, 2013 at 16,185 acres, for a total of 17,891 acres burned in the complex.

The Whiskey and Buckeye Fires burned in a mosaic of intensity from very low to high with mixed degrees of mortality. Within the fire perimeter 1,286 acres (7%) experienced high canopy loss, 633 acres (3%) moderate canopy loss and 16,266 acres (90%) at low canopy loss or unburned. As a result, there are areas where tree mortality is 100 percent while other areas still support a green tree component. Landscapes affected by the fire include old growth mixed conifer stands, old growth ponderosa pine stands, young conifer plantations, oak woodlands, meadows, hardwood stands, and riparian areas. The areas experiencing highest burn intensity include the northwest flank of Coffin Butte and in Pipestone Creek, both within the Beaver Creek watershed.

The Tiller Ranger District proposes to conduct roadside danger tree removal along 6.25 miles of road within the Whiskey (6.0 mi.) and Buckeye (0.25 mi.) fires, totaling approximately 188 acres, salvage dead and dying trees on 35 acres of severely burned plantations and 65 acres of severely burned mature forest, create and maintain approximately 960 acres of shaded fuel breaks along 31 miles of major/strategic road systems, and conduct maintenance burning on approximately 1,135 acres to reestablish an appropriate fire frequency on the landscape and reduce large fire potential (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Land designations and the landscape itself limit the areas in which treatment can be proposed. Land designations within the Whiskey Complex Fire perimeter include: Matrix, Category 4 Late

DRAFT Tiller Whiskey Complex Salvage Decision Notice and FONSI

2

Successional Reserves, Riparian Reserves, big game winter range, developed recreational sites, dispersed recreation sites, trails, unique habitats, northern spotted owl (NSO)critical habitat, Oregon Coast coho salmon critical habitat; therefore limiting the total amount of acres included for treatment in the Tiller Whiskey Complex Fire Salvage Project .

Figure 1 Tiller Whiskey Complex Fire Salvage Project Activities—Whiskey Fire


3

Figure 2 Tiller Whiskey Complex Fire Salvage Project Activities – Buckeye Fire


4

DECISION

Based on the analysis in the Tiller Whiskey Complex Fire Salvage Project Final Environmental Assessment (Final EA) and the associated planning record, I have decided to implement Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) as fully described in the Final EA (Final EA, pages 6-13, 20-25) and shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 above.

The total activities included in this decision are:

Felling and removal of roadside danger trees along 6.25 miles of road within the Whiskey (6.0 mi.) and Buckeye (0.25 mi.) fires, totaling approximately 188 acres

Create and maintain approximately 960 acres of shaded fuel breaks along 31 miles of major/strategic road systems

Conduct maintenance burning on approximately 1,135 acres to reestablish an appropriate fire frequency on the landscape and reduce large fire potential

Salvage dead trees and dying trees larger than 10” in diameter on 35 acres of severely burned plantations

Salvage dead trees and dying trees on 65 acres of severely burned mature forest

Connected actions including log haul, culvert replacement and forty-four miles of road maintenance

Detailed descriptions of the activities follow.

Remove Roadside Fire-killed and/or Fire-injured Danger Trees

Fire-killed and/or fire-injured danger trees will be felled and removed along 6.25 miles of road within the Whiskey (6 mi.) and Buckeye (0.25 mi.) fires, with units totaling approximately 188 acres. Roadside Units are designated as either commercial or firewood. For commercial harvest units all fire-killed trees that meet the criteria of “likely” or “imminent” failure potential according to the “Field Guide for Danger Tree Identification and Response” (Toupin et al., 2008), or fire-injured trees with a probability of mortality of 50% or greater, as determined by the Smith and Cluck guidelines, will be removed when the potential failure zone includes any portion of a maintenance level 2 or higher road. Fire-killed trees will be topped at a 6” diameter and tops left for down woody debris. Fire-killed trees that do not meet the above criteria that must be felled for safety, or that are incidentally knocked over by logging operations will be left in place. The outer-boundary of firewood units will be flagged based on the above danger tree criteria. Within the firewood unit boundary, any standing dead tree <20” dbh may be harvested within Units 4, 8, 14, 15, 16, 23, 24, 33, 34 & 37, and any standing dead tree < 16” dbh may be harvested within Units 35 & 36 and slash will be lopped and scattered. Commercial roadside units that have small (dbh <16”) fire-killed trees left after harvest will be available for firewood, if they are considered to be danger trees due to proximity to the road.

For roadside danger tree removal (188 acres) mechanized equipment will be used to remove trees on the road. A lead line and winch will be utilized to remove the remaining trees. Approximately fifty-one landings within the road prism will be used to deck trees.


5

Roadside danger trees will be felled within 34 acres of riparian reserves to protect the safety of forest users. All felled trees will be left in place unless the log would threaten to plug a culvert, or the log lands in the road prism. Any log that threatens a culvert will be bucked and as much left in place as possible. Any log that lands in the road prism greater than 16” dbh will be moved to the downhill side of the road and left as coarse wood, material small than 16” will be removed to avoid concentrations of fuels. Refer to the Final EA for design criteria (Final EA, pages 26-40).

Recover Economic Value of Fire-killed Timber

Salvage all dead and dying trees with a probability of mortality greater than 60%, following the methodology of Smith & Cluck 2011 greater than 9.9” diameter at breast height (dbh) on approximately 100 acres (35 acres plantation; 65 acres natural stands). Fire-killed trees will be topped at a 6” diameter and tops left for down woody debris. Any trees or snags occurring within designated “Leave Patches” will not be harvested. Within harvest areas 5-6 large snags per acre will be retained on average. Snags that appear to have been present prior to the fire will be retained and do not count towards the 5-6 trees per acre retention goal. Criteria for snags to be retained will be a combination of:

1. Size: Trees should come from the largest diameter classes. 2. Species: Ponderosa pine, incense cedar, and sugar pine are preferred due to lower value. Douglas-fir may be included if it meets wildlife criteria below. 3. Wildlife Suitability: Trees with hollow boles, large horizontal limbs, and/or broken tops.

Mechanized equipment will be utilized on slopes under 35% (34 acres) and skyline systems for slopes greater than 35% (66 acres) for timber removal. Approximately twenty-four landings for skyline units and five landings for ground-based units will be used for the project, ranging in size 0.05 acres to 0.12 acres. Refer to the Final EA for design criteria (Final EA, pages 26-40).

Create a System of Shaded Fuel Breaks

Create and maintain 960 acres of shaded fuel breaks along 31 miles of the following major/strategic road systems: 1) FS Road 3114 from FS 31 to FS 2925; 2) FS 2925 from FS 29 to FS 6620; 3) FS 3114-600; 4) FS 27 from FS 28 to FS 27-900; 5) FS 27-900; and 6) FS 27-918. This treatment will consist of thinning material on 797 acres of matrix lands using a variable spacing of 8” dbh and smaller trees for 150’ either side of the road (excluding east side of FS 2925 from FS 2925-440 to forest boundary to avoid Late Successional Reserves). Roadside edges (approximately 20’) may utilize mastication, keeping equipment on existing roadways. Activity generated fuels outside of riparian reserves will be cut/piled and disposed of by burning, firewood or biomass/char opportunities. Maintenance will take place on a 7-10 year interval. Approximately 229 acres of riparian reserves will be treated as part of the shaded fuelbreak. No treatment will occur within primary shade zones (15 to 85 feet depending on tree height; see Final EA Table 4. Primary Shade Zone Distances, page 37) of perennial streams or within 10’ of intermittent streams. Treatment within riparian reserves outside these buffered areas will be limited to pruning branches and lopping and scattering of the trimmings to minimize the impact to riparian reserve vegetation, while providing some increased effectiveness for using the road as a fuelbreak during future wildfires. Riparian reserves along Class 1 anadromous streams, South Umpqua (FS 27 and FS 28 junction), Beaver Creek (lower FS Road 3114) and Jackson Creek (FS Road 29 and FS Road 2925 junction)


6

will be excluded from treatment. Refer to Figures 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 in the Final EA illustrating these activities (Final EA, pages 8-10, 12 & 13).

Maintenance Burning

Conduct maintenance burning within four blocks totaling 1,135 acres. Prescribed burns will be conducted starting in 2017 with Bunchgrass Meadows, and will subsequently be implemented on a 7-10 year interval. Burning will be conducted primarily in the fall, but may also be conducted as spring burning. The burn block near the FS Road 3114-2925 junction, which overlaps part of the Whiskey Creek Category 4 LSR, will only be burned during a fall window. Refer to Figures 4, 5 and 7 in the Final EA illustrating these activities (Final EA, pages 9, 10 & 12).

Road Construction

No new system roads or temporary spur roads will be constructed for the project.

Road Maintenance

Road maintenance work for the project on portions of approximately 44 miles of existing roads will include dust abatement and ditch maintenance as needed; grading, shaping, and rocking of road surfaces; constructing, removing, and replacing water bars and rolling dips; adding a 4”- 6” gravel lift, as needed, to roadside landings; replacing one 18” cross drain on FS Road 3114-300; opening, use and reclosing of FS-3114-260 (≈700’), and 3114-261 (≈1,000’); one non-system road connecting to FS-3114-260 will be subsoiled and removed after use (approximately 300’); roadside brushing; use of Coffin Butte quarry as an aggregate source and/or use of stockpiles of crushed aggregate at Three Cabin quarry and use of 3-4 existing disposal areas for material cleaned from ditches, road surfaces, and excess excavation.

Connected Actions

Connected actions will include repairing a 5’ deep head-cut in an inboard ditch along FS Road 3114, haul of timber, replacement of the culvert on Soup Creek (FS Road 3114), and removal of gates on FS Road 3114 (2 gates), FS Road 3114-600 (1 gate), and FS Road 2980-800 (1 gate).

DECISION RATIONALE

In reaching my decision, I have considered the purpose and need for action, resource specific issues, range of alternatives, environmental consequences, public comments and concerns (described below in the public involvement section), and the best available science. This project has evolved over five months, attempting to bring together various opinions and suggestions. The Tiller Ranger District provided field trips for interested parties and comment periods to find a balanced decision. This decision includes activities necessary for public and forest worker safety, recovery of timber value, future fire management needs, reduction of fuel loadings, and benefits the local community as well as the public at large. The Tiller Whiskey Complex Fire Salvage project considered the no-action (Alternative 1),


7

proposed action (Alternative 2), and two alternatives eliminated from detailed study (Final EA, pages 19-20).

I have also considered the 1990 Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), and its amendments to date, including the 1994 Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (NWFP FSEIS ROD), documents incorporated by reference, including resource specialist reports and public comments submitted in regards to the Tiller Whiskey Complex Fire Salvage Project Final EA and proposed action. The Tiller Whiskey Complex Fire Salvage Project Final EA and specialist reports document the environmental analysis and conclusions upon which this decision is based.

I have decided to implement Alternative 2 because the selected alternative: 1) responds to the purpose and need; 2) provides a comprehensive, rigorous, and thorough set of project design criteria, and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Final EA, pages 26-40) that are specifically designed to minimize adverse environmental effects; and 3) best responds to the public comments received.

Purpose and Need

Public and Forest Worker Safety

As a result of the fire, many trees along National Forest System (NFS) roads were damaged and could fall into the roadway, posing a safety and access danger to area residents and landowners, Forest Service personnel and contractors, special use permit holders, and the visiting public. It is not uncommon for high, gusty winds associated with winter or summer storms to suddenly blow down many dangerous trees at one time, posing an unacceptable risk to area residents, forest workers, and visitors. It is important to remove these dangerous trees in a timely, efficient, and cost-effective manner so that safe access to affected areas can be restored and normal National Forest operations can be resumed. The Forest Service is required to maintain roads for access and safety, and the agency routinely removes danger trees as part of road maintenance (23 CFR 500.108; 36 CFR 212.4; FSM 7700; FSH 6709.11 27.62d; “Field Guide for Danger Tree Identification and Response” Toupin et al., 2008). Roadside danger trees will be abated along 6.25 miles of road on 188 acres of NFS land among high burn severity. Roads treated for roadside danger trees will provide safe access for Forest Service personnel, contractors, special use permit holders, and visitors to the NFS and private lands.

Reduce Fuel Loading During suppression efforts on the Whiskey Complex, fire behavior dictated managers use indirect attack methods along existing roadways within and surrounding the fire. Roadways were utilized because they offered existing surface fuel breaks, however, to effectively utilized they had to be “prepped” in order for crews to be able to burn out from the roads and control the fire. “Prepping” essentially is a hastily created 30’ to 50’ shaded fuel break using crews and/or equipment to remove small vegetation, down wood concentrations, canopy density and ladder fuels that would contribute to undesired fire behavior that could be difficult to contain. Since previous infrastructure (shaded fuel breaks) did not exist in the fire area, managers were forced to identify a large enough area to allow enough time for crews to adequately prepare containment lines. By creating and maintaining a system of shaded fuel breaks along identified roads throughout the planning area, future fire managers will be given more flexibility to safely and effectively manage fire on the landscape.


8

Maintenance burning will also help reduce fuel loading and improve ecological function. The typical fire frequency within the planning area is high (0-35 years), resulting in low severity fires. Fire suppression has led to over stocked stands and encroached meadow areas with high fuel loading of both live and dead material. Maintenance burning will help restore the natural fire regime by creating areas that are resilient to fire that will most likely not exhibit high intensity fire behavior if maintained on a historic interval. This will allow future fire fighters to use these areas to manage fire on the landscape.

Obtain Maximum Economic Commodity Value

The Forest Service plays a role in providing a wood supply to satisfy National needs and benefit local economies (Umpqua LRMP, Chapter IV page 42). The Umpqua LRMP (Chapter IV, page 42), as amended, directs the Forest to harvest dead or dying trees to produce wood products as consistent with Forest goals.

Salvage timber harvest will be implemented on approximately 100 acres including ground-based and skyline logging systems, and within moderately high and high vegetation burn severity. The estimated sawlog volume is 3.4 million board feet valued, with gross benefits of approximately $1.6 million. Alternative 2 will allow for 29 potential direct and indirect jobs and an associated potential employee income of $1.3 million (Final EA, pages 51-53).

Best Management Practices (BMPs), Project Design Features (PDFs) and Monitoring

Implementation of this project will adhere to standards and guidelines to protect important natural and cultural resources, ensuring that any disturbance is eliminated or minimized and mitigated. These measures have been demonstrated to be effective in mitigating potential effects of the proposed activities. The selected alternative and the project design criteria, and BMPs reflect a cooperative effort by the Forest Service, other public agencies, and interested members of the public as to the appropriate actions to be taken in order to meet the need for action. Design criteria and BMPs are incorporated into Alternative 2 to minimize potential adverse effects caused by this project (Final EA, Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action, Best Management Practices and Project Design Features, pages 26-41). The Best Management Practices, Project Design Features, and Monitoring requirements contained within Chapter 2 of the Final EA display design criteria for the proposed action and include criteria for actions such as roadside danger tree removal, salvage timber harvest activities, Riparian Reserves, timber haul, shaded fuel breaks, prescribed burning, and road maintenance.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

As part of the public involvement process, the agency held 3 field trips with various local user groups, and announced one community field trip and open house, in the News-Review, to capture public concerns prior to the start of project planning. The user group field trips to the Tiller Whiskey Complex Fire area were held in the fall of 2013 and included local environmental groups, local landowners, local non-profits, community advocacy groups, and local timber industry representatives. The Community field trip and open house was held in Tiller, Oregon in November 2013. Strategies, questions, and suggestions received through public comments and field trips included: no new road building, snag retention designs, expediting the planning process to implement before deterioration rates increase, conducting fuels treatment, firewood collection opportunities, and implementation restrictions. The


9

proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions in April 2014 and was updated periodically during the analysis. The proposal was put on the Forest Service website and provided to the public and other agencies for comment during scoping in January and February of 2014. The Tiller Ranger District received twelve scoping comment letters from individuals, organizations, and interested parties. Using the scoping comments from the public, the interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues to address. A summary of the scoping comments and a summary of the issues analysis is located in the project record at Tiller Ranger District in Tiller, OR (also see Final EA, pages 14-20).

After completing the analysis of impacts, a draft EA was distributed to the public and the comment period began on April 12, 2014 with a legal notice in the News-Review. A total of six written comment letters on the draft EA were received during the comment period. All comments received and the responses to these comments are contained in Appendix A of the Final EA. Some comments were incorporated into alternatives eliminated from detailed study in Chapter 2 of the final EA.

The Tribal governments (Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians, Confederated Tribe of the Grand Ronde Indians, and the Confederated Tribe of the Siletz Indians) are routinely sent the SOPA each quarter and were sent notices for the scoping period and the comment period specific to this project as well.

How Comments Were Considered

Concerns that were raised by the public during the scoping and public comment period include black-backed and white-headed woodpeckers; NSO critical habitat and the revised NSO Recovery Plan; snag retention; fuel loadings; road building; loss of ecological function; riparian reserve treatment; scale of the treatment area and winter haul. A summary of scoping comments is contained within the project record and the response to these comments is located in Chapters 1 and 2 of the Final EA (Issues and Concerns pages 14-18; Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed Study pages 19 and 20).

Comments received during the scoping process were reviewed, and the concerns raised were resolved by: clarifying the purpose and need of the project; refining the proposed action; developing project design features (PDFs) and emphasizing Best Management Practices (BMPs); identifying monitoring activities; considering alternatives to the proposed action; and/or disclosing effects in Chapter 3. Concerns were resolved as described below, and an issue that would drive the development of an alternative to the proposed action was not identified. The following summarizes the manner in which comments were addressed, as well as an explanation as to why Alternative 1 was not selected, and a description of other alternatives considered but eliminated from further study.

Concerns addressed by clarification or refinement of the Proposed Action in Chapter 1

Concern was expressed regarding creating a shaded fuel break within riparian reserves. Further refinement modified treatment to the pruning of trees < 8” dbh with lop and scatter of activity generated fuels. Shaded fuel break treatments will not be conducted within the primary shade zone or within riparian reserves containing fish bearing streams.

Concern was expressed that harvest would occur within riparian reserves. The scoping letter clearly defined that harvest would not occur within riparian reserves. Further refinement of the Proposed Action resulted in clarification of activities which include: 1) felling of danger trees along roads and retention of all trees greater than 16” dbh; 2) removal of any danger trees less than 16” dbh which land on the road during implementation to avoid fuels buildup; and 3) removal of any trees or parts of trees that pose a threat to culvert inlets or outlets.


10

Concern was expressed regarding how far from the road edge trees would be taken, with a suggestion that a tree is not a danger if it is more than ¾ tree height from a road. Forest Service policy (FSM 7733.3) requires that danger trees within 1 ½ x tree height plus slide or rollout area be treated. Concern was expressed that “large diameter” pines were not defined in the scoping letter. Refinement of the Proposed Action resulted in a PDF retaining five to six of the largest trees per acre. Concern was expressed that the project development process was “flawed” and that the Purpose and Need of the Project was unclear, and the commenter submitted and an alternate version of the Purpose and Need. Project development and scoping followed FSH 1909.15 (Chapter 11) and 36 CFR 220.4(e)(2), with a scoping notice mailed out to 180 interest parties, including the commenter, on January 16, 2014 with the comment period ending on February 18, 2014. Further review of the Purpose and Need proposed by the commenter revealed a difference in scale rather than in the Purpose. As such, this comment was considered as an alternative, and is addressed in Chapter 2 under Alternatives Considered, But Eliminated From Detailed Study. Concern was expressed that the Proposed Action arbitrarily limits the scope of timber salvage. At the start of the project approximately 710 acres were identified for inclusion into area harvest units. Most of the areas were either eliminated due to: 1) low volume/value per acre of the trees as field reconnaissance was completed; 2) access problems; 3) wildlife issues; and 4) logging feasibility issues. The Forest Service is charged with managing for multiple uses and objectives as directed by policy, regulations and laws. As such, limits to the amount of salvage within the Proposed Action are not arbitrary, but rather take into account other requirements the Forest Service must meet. Concerns addressed by PDFs, BMPs, and Monitoring Activities in Chapter 2

Concern was expressed that there is not enough flexibility in the use of ground based equipment to allow for economic recovery of timber removal under the Proposed Action. Project Design Features and Best Management Practices were developed for the project, based upon site specific conditions and taking into account the severely burned soils present within harvest units and Umpqua NF LRMP Standards & Guidelines.

Concern was expressed that not having a logging plan early in the process and having units with retention trees, might lead to unit design that would be difficult to harvest. This concern was addressed as a part of the Interdisciplinary Team process by including a logging systems specialist.

Concern was expressed that the use of cable logging (skyline) may result in increased mortality of live trees within the treatment area. Project Design Features were developed that minimizes the placement of skyline corridors where live trees are present.

Concern was expressed about the retention of large snags within treatment areas. Project Design Features were developed that retain five to six largest snags per treated acre. Concerns addressed by the analyses in Chapter 3 of the EA

Concern was expressed regarding dying trees, snag distribution on the landscape, snag size distribution, “snag gaps” and down wood, the effects to which are disclosed in the Wildlife section, which concludes that adequate levels of snags and coarse wood will be retained by the proposed action to provide for wildlife habitat.


11

Concern was expressed that the proposed shaded fuel breaks should focus on managed stands and plantations rather than mature natural stands with high canopies and cool-moist understories. Shaded fuel breaks will focus on material <8” dbh that will act as ladder fuel to the overstory canopy. This topic is analyzed in the Fire and Fuels section of Chapter 3. Concern was expressed regarding effects to roadless and wilderness areas. This topic is analyzed in the Inventoried Roadless Areas and Potential Wilderness Areas (PWA) section of Chapter 3 and concludes that the Proposed Action would not impact any IRA(s) or PWA(s). Concern was expressed regarding the cumulative effects of the Proposed Action in relation to the Beaver Timber Sale and tree planting within the Whiskey Fire which are disclosed in Table 6 and Table 7 in Chapter 3, with cumulative effects analyzed throughout Chapter 3. Concern was expressed that the Proposed Action does not meet the Recovery Actions of 2011 Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) and that salvage logging within NSO critical habitat is not allowed. The effects of the proposed action on NSO critical habitat and the Revised Recovery Plan are analyzed in the Wildlife Section of Chapter 3. Concern was expressed regarding potential impacts of the Proposed Action and the effects of salvage or lack thereof, have on the human environment. Analysis for this comment is located in the Social Environment section of Chapter 3 for both the action and no action alternatives. This analysis concludes that the proposed action would potentially result in approximately $2.96 million of additional industrial output to Douglas County and provide 29 jobs. Comments were received that the effects of salvage logging be analyzed over the entire landscape and that that the acreage of severely burned landscape not being proposed for salvage be disclosed. The effects of the Proposed Action are analyzed at multiple scales, including the landscape level, throughout Chapter 3.

Other Alternatives Considered

Alternative 1

Under Alternative 1, no roadside danger tree removal, shaded fuel break creation, maintenance burning, timber production, activity fuel treatments, road work, or other connected actions would take place. No ground-disturbing activities would take place and no timber would be offered for sale. Ongoing and future activities, such as routine road maintenance, recreation use, and noxious weed control would be expected to occur.

Alternatives considered but eliminated from further study

According to Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 Chapter 10, 14.4, the range of alternatives considered by the responsible official includes all reasonable alternatives to the proposed action that are analyzed in the document, as well as other alternatives eliminated from detailed study.

Comments were received suggesting that an alternative be considered which does not include area salvage units. An alternative was considered in response, but eliminated from detailed study because the alternative does not meet the Purpose and Need Element 3: Obtaining the maximum economic commodity value from burned timber by offering a sale while the wood is still marketable. Further, foregoing area harvest is incorporated within the No Action alternative.


12

Comment was received suggesting an alternative be considered where timber is removed from areas other than the 107 acres of natural stands that burned within the Whiskey Complex. An alternative was considered, but eliminated from detailed study because the alternative would be outside of the Project Area and does not meet the Purpose and Need Element 3: Obtaining the maximum economic commodity value from burned timber by offering a sale while the wood is still marketable.

Comments were received suggesting that an alternative be considered that maximizes the amount of timber salvaged from moderate to severely burned matrix lands within the project area. An alternative was considered in response, but eliminated from detailed study because the current Proposed Action treats approximately 22% (288 acres) of the 1,286 acres identified as severely burned (defined as ≥ 50% canopy cover mortality). Approximately 710 acres were identified for inclusion into area harvest units, however most areas were eliminated due to: 1) low volume/value per acre of the trees as field reconnaissance was completed; 2) access problems; 3) wildlife issues; and 4) logging feasibility issues. For areas that were moderately burned (<50% canopy cover mortality) adequate habitat remains such that multi season surveys for Survey and Manage species identified under the 2001 ROD would be required.

Comments were received suggesting that an alternative be considered that provides for winter haul within the project area. An alternative was considered in response, but eliminated from detailed study because the proposed action occurs primarily within Management Area 11 (Big Game Winter Range) under the Umpqua National Forest LRMP, and alternative does not meet the standard and guidelines restricting haul between December 1 and April 30 within MA 11. Further, analysis by the transportation engineer indicates that bring roads up to standards for winter haul would make the project economically unviable at an estimated cost of over $40,000 per mile.

Comment was received suggesting an alternative be considered where dead end spur roads be excluded from roadside danger tree removal and the road be closed to the public. An alternative was considered in response, but eliminated from detailed study because the ID Team identified several dead-end spur roads that were eliminated from the project prior to Scoping, the remaining roads were identified as needing to remain open (Final EA, pages 217-218).

Comment was received suggesting that additional roads be built to remove additional burned trees and material from the fire. An alternative was considered in response, but eliminated from detailed study because the cost of building temporary roads in steeper ground required to get to these areas is prohibitive, and road building was not endorsed by any user groups on field trips.

Conclusion

I recognize there is controversy surrounding salvage logging in burned forests, particularly on the effects to wildlife habitat and watersheds. The Tiller Whiskey Complex Fire Salvage Project planning process was rigorous, thorough, and took a hard look at the proposed activities and the associated effects. The need to reach a decision for the Tiller Whiskey Complex Fire Salvage Project before deterioration rates increase is critical to the overall success of the project. The Umpqua LRMP, as amended by the 1994 NWFP FSEIS ROD guides the Tiller Whiskey Complex Fire Salvage Project with standards and guidelines, desired conditions specific to land allocations, and overall salvage direction. The Forest Plan is the Umpqua National Forest’s current management direction. Firewood collection opportunities will be available throughout the project area and will become available to the public once the timber sales are closed. Based upon public comments, there is a spectrum of comment on the project, ranging from those wanting to see more tree harvest, to those who would like to see less, to several commenters who fully support the project. The selected alternative (Alt. 2) addresses these concerns by incorporating appropriate project design features and BMPs that minimize effects to resources, while still meeting the


13

purpose and need of the project. Within the entire Tiller Whiskey Complex Fire area on the Umpqua National Forest only 100 acres will receive salvage treatment (0.55% of total area; 7.8% of areas with high canopy loss), of which 35 acres occur within plantations. In addition, danger trees removed from 6.25 miles of roadways (188 acres).

My decision carefully considers both the benefits of the project activities and any potential negative resource impacts. As described in the Final EA and specialist reports, the long term benefits of safety, economic recovery, and re-establishing fire frequency on the landscape outweigh the short term impacts of this project.

My conclusions are based on a thorough review of the best available science, consideration of responsible opposing views, and the acknowledgement of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk. I have determined that this project achieves an appropriate balance between safety, benefits to the local economy, maintaining appropriate snag densities, and protection of forest resources. This environmental analysis process was conducted in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the direction provided in the Forest Service Manual. This decision is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Umpqua LRMP, as amended.

CONSISTENCY WITH LAW, REGULATION, AND POLICY

This decision is consistent with all current and applicable law, regulation, and policy, as described below:

LRMP Standards and Guidelines

This decision tiers to the 1990 Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (Forest Plan), as amended. I have ensured that the decision is consistent with the Forest Plan goals, objectives, and standards. All applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines are listed and discussed throughout Chapter 3 of the EA (coarse woody debris; soils; management indicator species; noxious weeds; water quality; stream flows; riparian reserves; stream channels; mass wasting; surface erosion; fluvial erosion; recreation; and visual quality). Alternative 2 is fully consistent with all applicable standards and guidelines.

LRMP Management Indicator Species (MIS)

The Umpqua LRMP (USDA 1990) designated seven species, and one group of species (cavity nesters) as Management Indicator Species (MIS, EA pages 156-167, Table 33). Consistent with the LRMP, the effects determinations for each of these species are analyzed, as applicable, in Chapter 3 of the EA.

NWFP Survey and Manage Species

The Tiller Whiskey Complex Fire Salvage Project applies a 2006 Exemption from a stipulation entered by the court in litigation regarding Survey and Manage species and the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. Previously, in 2006, the District Court (Judge Pechman) invalidated the agencies’ 2004 RODs eliminating Survey and Manage due to NEPA violations. Following the District Court’s 2006 ruling, parties to the litigation entered into a stipulation exempting certain categories of activities from the Survey and Manage standards and guidelines, including both pre-disturbance surveys and known site management. Also known as the Pechman Exemptions, the Court’s Order from October 11, 2006 directs:

“Defendants shall not authorize, allow, or permit to continue any logging or other ground-disturbing activities on projects to which the 2004 ROD applied unless such activities are in compliance with the


14

2001 ROD (as the 2001 ROD was amended or modified as of March 21, 2004), except that this order will not apply to:

a. Thinning projects in stands younger than 80 years old:

b. Replacing culverts on roads that are in use and part of the road system, and removing

culverts if the road is temporary or to be decommissioned;

c. Riparian and stream improvement projects where the riparian work is riparian planting, obtaining material for placing in-stream, and road or trail decommissioning; and where the stream improvement work is the placement large wood, channel and floodplain reconstruction, or removal of channel diversions; and

d. The portions of project involving hazardous fuel treatments where prescribed fire is applied. Any portion of a hazardous fuel treatment project involving commercial logging will remain subject to the survey and management requirements except for thinning of stands younger than 80 years old under subparagraph a. of this paragraph.”

Per the 2011 Settlement Agreement, the 2006 Pechman Exemptions remain in force:

“The provisions stipulated to by the parties and ordered by the court in Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, No. 04-844-MJP (W.D. Wash. Oct. 10, 2006), shall remain in force. None of the following terms or conditions in this Settlement Agreement modifies in any way the October 2006 provisions stipulated to by the parties and ordered by the court in Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, No. 04844-MJP (W.D. Wash. Oct. 10, 2006).”

The shaded fuel break, maintenance burning and road work in the Tiller Whiskey Complex Fire Salvage Project meet Exemptions (b) and (d) because it involves non-commercial hazardous fuel treatments where prescribed fire is applied, and the road work is consistent with exemption (b). Surveys were conducted on the remaining project activities, including roadside danger tree treatment and area salvage, as documented in the Final EA (pages 153-156). Two Survey and Manage mollusks species were found within treatment unit boundaries and the primary habitat features were buffered out from treatment following Management Recommendations for Survey and Manage Species -- Terrestrial Mollusks.

NWFP Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS)

Based on the project level evaluation of the environmental effects documented in the EA, I find that the project is consistent with and does not prevent attainment of the nine objectives of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) as described in the 1994 Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. The activities within the Riparian Reserve land allocation comply with Riparian Reserve Standards and Guidelines as discussed in the EA (pages 64-77 & 90).

National Marine Fisheries Service Consultation

On May 5th, 2014 a Biological Assessment for OC coho salmon was submitted to, and accepted by, the National Marine Fisheries Service for informal consultation on Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Concurrence Letter and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Response for the Whiskey Salvage Complex, Tiller Ranger District, Umpqua National Forest, Jackson Creek watershed (fifth-field HUC: 1710030202), Middle South Umpqua River – Dumont Creek watershed (fifth-field HUC: 1710030203), Upper South Umpqua River watershed (fifth-field HUC: 1710030201), and Elk Creek-South Umpqua watershed (fifth-field HUC: 1710030204), Douglas County,


15

Oregon. Based on analysis of the BA, NMFS concurred with the Forest Service that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect OC coho salmon and designated critical habitat, and that the action would not adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), issuing a Letter of Concurrence on June 6, 2014 for the project (Reference # WCR-2014-882).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Consultation

On June 5, 2014 a Biological Assessment for the Northern Spotted Owl was submitted to, and accepted by, the US Fish and Wildlife Service for Formal Consultation on The Tiller Whiskey Fire Projects, with a determination by the Forest Service of “may affect and is likely to adversely affect” the northern spotted owl, and “may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect” 2012 critical habitat.

Watershed Analysis and Roads Analysis

I have considered the Jackson Creek Watershed Analysis, including the 2012 iteration, and the Umpqua National Forest Forest-Scale Roads Analysis, which provided a foundation for the development of the proposed action. Alternative 2 complies with recommendations from the watershed analysis.

National Forest Management Act [16 USC 1604(g)(3)]

I find this decision to be consistent with the 2005 National Forest Management Act implementing regulations at 219.12(b)(2), specifically:

A) This project complies with and considers the economic and environmental aspects of resource management (EA Chapter 3);

B) This project implements the 1990 Umpqua LRMP, as amended and as such, provides for a diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the land allocation;

C) This project contains monitoring to ensure that management activities will not produce substantial and permanent impairment of the productivity of the land;

D) The 188 acres of roadside danger tree removal and 100 acres of area salvage authorized by this decision produces approximately 3.4 million board feet of timber, and contributes to the Umpqua National Forest’s timber program of about 45 million board feet; this level of timber harvest is less than what was estimated in the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan. As such, this project complies with this subsection by not exceeding the current level of timber offered for sale on the Umpqua.

E) This project only harvests timber from National Forest System lands on lands that: (i) will not be irreversibly damaged; (ii) can be adequately restocked; (iii) protect streams and water bodies from damage and adverse impacts; and (iv) the harvest systems were not selected primarily because they give the greatest return or output of timber.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)

The significance of environmental impacts must be considered in terms of context and intensity. This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human and national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies with the setting of the proposed action. In the case of a site-specific action, significance usually depends upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Intensity refers to the severity or degree of impact (40 CFR 1508.27). After considering the environmental effects described in the Final EA, I have determined that these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human


16

environment considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR 1508.27). Thus, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. I base my finding on the following:

CONTEXT

The local context of this action is limited to the Tiller Whiskey Complex Fire Salvage Project area, on the Tiller Ranger District, Umpqua National Forest (Figures 1 & 2). Project activities focus on removing roadside dangers; removing salvage timber; fuel treatments; prescribed burning; shaded fuel break constructions; constructing and reconstructing temporary landings and skids trails; and connected actions within the project area (described in Final EA, pages 6-13, 20-25). The extent of ground disturbance will be limited to 288 acres of roadside danger and salvage timber removal; 960 acres of shaded fuel break construction, treating trees <8” dbh, including 229 acres of riparian reserves; 1,135 acres of maintenance burning, including 128 acres of riparian reserves (Final EA, Table 3). The total area impacted within the Tiller Whiskey Complex Fire perimeter is 13% percent, which consists of 1% roadside danger tree treatment, 0.55% area salvage and 11.5% shaded fuel breaks and maintenance burning. When considering the context of the activities expected to take place within the Tiller Whiskey Complex Fire perimeter, there are no significant effects.

INTENSITY

Based on the documentation in the Tiller Whiskey Complex Fire Salvage Project EA and the Analysis File, I have determined the following with regards to the intensity of this project:

1. The Environmental Assessment provides sufficient information to determine that this project will not have a significant impact (either adverse or beneficial) on the land and its natural resources, including air quality, or water quality. My finding of no significant environmental effects is not biased by the beneficial effects of the action (Final EA, Chapter 3). Project benefits include providing: safe access for Forest Service personnel, contractors, and visitors to the NFS (Final EA, pages 44-48); economic value of fire-killed trees, contributing to potentially 29 jobs and $1.3 million in employee income (Final EA, page 53); and fuel loading reduction on the landscape. No significant adverse direct or indirect effects to the environment from this project were identified during the environmental effects analysis. No significant irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources, such as loss of soil productivity, water quality, or recreational opportunities, will result from this project. Project design features, and BMPs will mitigate adverse effects (Final EA, pages 26-41).

The Tiller Whiskey Complex Fire Salvage Project will have no significant effect to economic or social environments because the wood provided to local manufacturers will be sustained for 1-2 years, which is predictable for a project of this nature (Final EA, pages 48-49). The project will have no significant effects because roadside danger tree treatment and salvage timber harvest activities will not alter vegetation types (Final EA Pages 103-111) within these areas.

2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. Considering the remote nature of the project in relation to local and regional population centers and the measures taken to ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the use of BMP checklists during implementation, the likelihood of the project affecting the public's health and safety is low. The project involves routine work that has occurred and continues to occur within and near the project area on NFS lands. Signs will be used to warn public users of project activities such as vehicles using roads, vegetation cutting, and equipment usage


17

(required in contract provisions and clauses). Roadside danger and salvage timber harvest will involve cutting trees, skidding, loading, and hauling with mechanical equipment and logging trucks.

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. There are no park lands, prime farmlands, Inventoried Roadless Area, Potential Wilderness Areas or Wild and Scenic Rivers within the project area (Final EA pages 216, 218-221). Unique characteristics of the area include small wetlands, riparian reserves, Category 4 Late Successional Reserves, and historic and cultural resources. By using Best Management Practices and Project Design Features (Final EA pages 26-41), the project provides protection to these resources.

4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. There is always controversy surrounding salvage logging in burned forests, particularly on the effects to wildlife habitat and watersheds. Six comment letters were received during the 30-day comment period. Many of the comments received consisted of opinions or were related to, snags, coarse woody debris, riparian reserve treatments, small scale of treatment and NSO critical habitat. Timber salvage activities within the project are limited in scale (0.55% of the fire perimeter) and review of the project record shows the Post-Fire Principles of the 1995 Beschta Report have been taken into account. Based on my review and consideration of these comments, documentation of our answers in Appendix A, and personal discussions I have had with members of the public, I find that there is no scientific controversy with the project.

5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The Forest Service has considerable experience with actions like the one proposed. The analysis shows the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risk. The possible effects of implementing Alternative 2 are neither highly uncertain nor will they present unique or unknown risks. The consequences of these actions are known, as described in specialist reports (project record and summarized in the Final EA, Chapter 3).

6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects, or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. The roadside danger tree treatment, area salvage, shaded fuel break construction and maintenance burning activities are well established practices on the Umpqua National Forest and on the Tiller Ranger District, and do not establish a precedent for future actions. No significant effects have been identified for the project (Final EA, Chapter 3).

7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. There are no known significant cumulative effects between this project and other ongoing or planned projects in or adjacent to this project. The effects of other foreseeable future actions as well as past actions and ongoing actions including other ongoing and foreseeable future activities within the Whiskey Complex Fire perimeter, were included in the specialists’ analyses (EA, pages 42-47, 53, 60, 61, 64, 67, 73, 75, 77, 79, 90, 109, 110, 120, 138, 140-153, 159, 167, 170, 172, 177, 179-181, 185, 198, 208 and 216). Within the entire Whiskey Fire area, only 13 percent of the total lands will receive treatment, of which 11.5% will be maintenance burning or shaded fuel breaks.


18

8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. The action will have no significant adverse effect on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, nor will it cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources (Final EA pages 218-219) because cultural resources surveys have been completed and areas containing these resources have been excluded from treatment. A small potential exists for unidentified heritage resources to be within treatment areas. A mitigation measure is included under Alternative 2 that will protect any prehistoric or important historic cultural sites that may be found during implementation (Final EA page 40). No direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to cultural resources are expected to occur.

9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The project will not likely to adversely affect OC coho salmon and designated critical habitat, and will not adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Final EA pages 92, 223, 224). Determination of the project effect by the Forest Service on Northern Spotted Owl is “may affect and is likely to adversely affect” and “may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect” 2012 critical habitat (Final EA pages 138, 139, and 224) and on June 5, 2014 a Biological Assessment for the Northern Spotted Owl was submitted to, and accepted by, the US Fish and Wildlife Service for Formal Consultation on The Tiller Whiskey Fire Projects. Consultation will be completed prior to signing of this Decision Notice.

10. Whether the action threatens to violate Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. From the documentation provided in Chapter 3 of the Tiller Whiskey Complex Fire Salvage Project EA, I find that the project activities do not threaten a violation of Federal, State, or local law imposed for the protection of the environment. Applicable laws and regulations were considered in the Final and the action is consistent with the 1990 Umpqua National Forest LRMP), as amended.

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW (OBJECTION) OPPORTUNITIES

This proposed decision is subject to objection pursuant to 36 CFR 218, Subparts A and B. Objections will only be accepted from those who submitted project-specific written comments during scoping or other designated comment period. Issues raised in objections must be based on previously submitted comments unless based on new information arising after the designated comment period(s).

Objections must be submitted within 45 days following the publication of this legal notice. The date of this legal notice is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection. Those wishing to object should not rely upon dates or timeframes provided by any other source. It is the objector’s responsibility to ensure evidence of timely receipt (36 CFR 218.9).

Objections must be submitted to the reviewing officer: Alice Carlton, Forest Supervisor, Umpqua National Forest; Attn: Whiskey Salvage; 2900 NW Stewart Parkway, Roseburg, OR 97471. Objections may be submitted via mail, FAX (541-957-3495), or delivered during business hours (M-F 8:00am to 4:30pm). Electronic objections, in common (.doc, .pdf, .rtf, .txt) formats, may be submitted to: [email protected] with Subject: Whiskey Salvage.


19

Objections must include (36 CFR 218.8(d)): 1) name, address and telephone; 2) signature or other verification of authorship; 3) identify a single lead objector when applicable; 4) project name, Responsible Official name and title, and name of affected National Forest(s) and/or Ranger District(s); 5) reasons for, and suggested remedies to resolve, your objections; and, 6) description of the connection between your objections and your prior comments. Incorporate documents by reference only as provided for at 36 CFR 218.8(b).

IMPLEMENTATION DATE

Project implementation cannot begin until the Responsible Official has complied with the Reviewing Officials instructions and the public has been notified of the decision

CONTACT

The Tiller Whiskey Complex Fire Project Final EA and supporting documents are available for public review at the Umpqua National Forest, Tiller Ranger District, 27812 Tiller-Trail Highway, Tiller, OR 97484, (541) 825-3100, and online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=43558. It is also possible to navigate to the project website via the Umpqua National Forest webpage (www.fs.fed.us/r6/umpqua). Select the “Land and Resources Management” tab, then select “Browse through the Forest Projects,” and then find the project name. For additional information concerning this decision, contact: Calib Baldwin ([email protected]), Tiller Whiskey Complex Fire Project Interdisciplinary Team Leader, at 541-825-3133.

Donna L. Owens Date Tiller District Ranger Umpqua National Forest

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=43558

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/umpqua

mailto:[email protected]