Russell Ridge consolidated - a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.… · III.1 Series/Type within the Russell Ridge project area III-2

Russell Ridge Vegetation and Fuels Management Project

Naches Ranger District Okanogan - Wenatchee National Forest

April 2009

Russell Ridge Vegetation and Fuels Management Project Table of Contents

List of Tables and Figures

TABLE OF CONTENTS Russell Ridge Vegetation and Fuels Management Project

Page Chapter I

Proposed Action, Purpose and Need

Location I-1

Project Area Description I-2

Vegetation Condition I-5

Invasive Species I-6

Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) I-6

Fire Risk and Fire Occurrence Trends I-6

Travel and Access Management I-6

Desired Future Condition I-8

Management Direction I-9

Guidance I-10

Purpose and Need for Action I-11

The Proposed Action I-13

Decisions to be Made Based on this Analysis I-14

Scoping Summary and Public Involvement I-14

Unresolved Conflicts I-15

Resource Concerns Identified During Scoping I-15

Chapter II

Alternatives Considered

Introduction II-1

Alternative Formulation II-1

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis II-2

Vegetation Treatments II-3

Fuels Treatments II-8

Recreation Residence, Club Site, and Resort Area Treatments II-8



Chapter II

Logging Systems II-9

Road Management II-10

Invasive Species Management II-12

Connected Action Directly Associated with Proposed Commercial Timber Harvest and Fuels Treatment Activities

II-13

Monitoring II-14

Adaptive Management II-16

Design Criteria, Standards, and Best Management Practices II-18

Vegetation Resources II-18

Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Special Status Plants II-19

Invasive Plant Management II-19

Standards II-19

Best Management Practices II-21

Design Criteria II-22

Prescribed Burning/Air Resources II-23

Recreation/Scenic Quality II-24

General II-24

Forest Roads II-24

Dispersed Campsites/Trailheads II-25

System Trails and Outfitter Guide Trails II-26

Special Uses – Permitted Events and Recreation Residence Areas

II-27

Wildlife Resources II-27

Soil, Water, and Aquatic/Riparian Resources II-29

Range II-35

Heritage Properties II-35

Comparison of Alternatives II-38



Chapter III

Affected Environment Environmental Consequences

VEGETATION AND FUELS III-2

Affected Environment III-2

Environmental Consequences - Vegetation III-6

Environmental Consequences - Fuels III-11

AIR QUALITY III-16


Environmental Consequences III-17

INVASIVE SPECIES III-23



VISUAL RESOURCES III-35



WILDLIFE III-39

Species Addressed III-39

Management Indicator Species (MIS) III-40

Wenatchee National Forest Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for Wildlife Snags

III-42

Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines III-43

DecAID Tool III-43



ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK/DEER III-59



BEAVER AND RUFFED GROUSE III-62





Chapter III

FEDERALLY PROPOSED, ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND SENSITIVE (PETS) SPECIES

GRAY WOLF AND CALIFORNIA WOLVERINE III-64



NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL and NORTHERN GOSHAWK (Species Associated with Late Successional Forest Habitats)

III-67



AMERICAN BALD EAGLE III-70



OTHER SPECIES OF CONCERN III-71

MIGRATORY LANDBIRDS III-71



SOIL AND WATERSHED RESOURCES III-75



FISHERIES HABITAT and WATER QUALITY III-93



AQUATIC CONSERVATION STRATEGY III-109

RECREATION III-121



RANGE OPERATIONS and MANAGEMENT III-129



HERITAGE RESOURCES III-133




Chapter III


INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREAS/PROPOSED WILDERNESS AREAS

III-135



TRAVEL AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT III-137



ECONOMICS III-142

OTHER REQUIRED DISCLOSURES III-146

Social Groups, Civil Rights and Environmental Justice III-146

Chapter IV

Organizations, Agencies, and Persons Consulted IV-1

Chapter V

References Cited V-1

Appendix A

Public Involvement Summary A-1

Appendix B

Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

Glossary of Terms B-1

Acronyms B-18



List of Tables and Figures Russell Ridge Vegetation and Fuels Management Project

List of Tables Table Subject Page

I.1 NWFP land allocations within the Russell Ridge project area I-2

II.1 Vegetation Treatments II-5

II.2 Fuels Treatments II-8

II.3 Roads recommended for closure II-10

II.4 Roads recommended for decommissioning II-10

II.5 Monitoring Items II-14

II.6 Comparison of Projected Future Condition to the Revised Proposed Action

II-38

III.1 Series/Type within the Russell Ridge project area III-2

III.2 Successional Stages within the Russell Ridge project area III-2

III.3 Crown Closure within the Russell Ridge project area III-3

III.4 FCCS Potentials, where 9 represents the greatest potential (i.e., threat) III-5

III.5 Silvicultural treatment by canopy closure group III-8

III.6 Principles of fire resistance for dry forests III-12

III.7 Relative ability of proposed treatments to meet principles of fire resistance for dry forests

III-12

III.8 Airsheds of concern and proximity to the Russell Ridge project area III-17

III.9 Summary of the Toxic Chemical Agents Identified I nWoodsmoke III-18

III.10 Emissions in the Dry Forest Type for a 100 acres prescribed fire III-19

III.11 Emissions in the Mesic Forest Type for a 100 acre prescribed fire III-19

III.12 Biomass available and emissions potentially not released into the airshed because of biomass utilization

III-20

III.13 Pounds of PM10 Made Airborne per Mile Driven III-20

III.14 Pounds of PM2.5 Made Airborne per Mile Driven III-20

III.15 Emissions in the Dry Forest Type III-22

III.16 Emissions in the Mesic Forest Type III-22



Table Subject Page

III.17 State noxious weed occurrences within the Russell Ridge project area III-25

III.18 Indicators potentially contributing to noxious weed spread III-27

III.19 Breakdown of wildlife habitat types in the Tieton Watershed III-44

III.20 Comparison of existing and historic percent of the landscape in each snag distribution for Ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir (PPDF) snags >10” dbh

III-45

III.21 Comparison of existing and historic percent of the landscape in each snag distribution for Ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir (PPDF) snags >20” dbh

III-46

III.22 Comparison of existing and historic percent of the landscape in each snag distribution for Eastside Mixed Conifer Forest N Cascades/Rocky Mtns. Snags >10” dbh

III-47

III.23 Comparison of existing and historic percent of the landscape in each snag distribution for Eastside Mixed Conifer Forest N Cascades/Rocky Mtns. Snags >20” dbh

III-48

III.24 Comparison of existing and historic snag distribution for Montane Mixed Conifer (MMC) snags >10” dbh

III-50

III.25 Comparison of existing and historic snap distribution for Montane Mixed Conifer (MMC) snags >20” dbh

III-50

III.26 Snag densities for wildlife species at 30, 50, and 80 percent tolerance level for snags >10” dbh and >20” dbh DecAID Table…

III-52

III.27 Acres of Ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir (PPDF) & Eastside Mixed Conifer wildlife habitat within the analysis area providing snag densities within four different tolerance intervals…

III-53

III.28 Changes to snag densities after vegetation treatments III-55

III.29 NRF habitat degraded by spotted owl activity centers III-68

III.30 Changes to northern spotted owl habitat by Northwest Forest Plan allocation and critical habitat unit

III-69

III.31 Priority habitat for landbird conservation in the Russell Ridge Project Area, with representative focal species and key habitat features

III-73

III.32 Summary of Soil Characteristics for Soil Mapping Units III-77

III.33 Soil Disturbance Summary III-83

III.34 Evaluation Summary – Soil and Watershed Resources III-89

III.35 Yakima River Adult Summer Steelhead Returns (1990-2007) III-95

III.36 Instream LWD/Mile (most recent survey data by reach) III-98



Table Subject Page

III.37 Unstable Streambanks and Streambank Ground Cover by Reach III-98

III.38 Pool Frequencies in the Project Area III-99

III.39 Recreation Activities Occurring within the Russell Ridge Project Area III-121

III.40 Road use for allotment management in the Russell Ridge project area III-131

III.41 Existing road miles and densities within the project area III-138

III.42 Russell Ridge Vegetation and Fuels Management Project system road status

III-138

III.43 Suppression cost by fire size III-143

III.44 Cost Analysis III-145

List of Figures Figure Subject Page

I.1 Russell Ridge Vegetation and Fuels Management Project; Vicinity Map

I-1

I.2 Russell Ridge Vegetation and Fuels Management Project; Base Map I-3

I.3 Russell Ridge Vegetation and Fuels Management Project; Roadless Areas and Proposed Wilderness Areas Within and Adjacent to the Project Area

I-4

I.4 Russell Ridge Vegetation and Fuels Management Project; Wenatchee and Northwest Forest Plan Land Allocations

I-7

II.1 Proposed harvest treatment and temp road construction locations II-3

II.2 Recommended road closures and decommissioning II-11

II.3 Adaptive Management; Fuels reduction alternatives II-17

II.4 Adaptive Management; commercial harvest alternatives II-17

II.5 Adaptive Management; biomass utilization alternatives II-17

II.6 Adaptive Management; reestablishment of western larch II-18

III.1 Existing Crown Closure III-3

III.2 Post Treatment Crown closure III-8

III.3 Invasive species treatment areas III-24

III.4 Comparison of existing and historic percentage of the landscape in each snag distribution for Ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir (PPDF) snags

III-45



Figure Subject Page

>10” dbh

III.5 Comparison of existing and historic percentage of the landscape in each snag distribution for Ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir (PPDF) snags >20” dbh

III-46

III.6 Comparison of existing and historic percent of the landscape in each snag distribution for Eastside Mixed Conifer Forest N Cascades/Rocky Mtns. Snags >10”

III-47

III.7 Comparison of existing and historic percent of the landscape in each snag distribution for Eastside Mixed Conifer Forest N Cascades/Rocky Mtns. Snags >20”

III-48


III-49


III-50

III.10 Amount of Landscape that Provides Habitat for Species Based on Existing Data from GNN

III-53

III.11 Amount of Landscape that Provides Habitat for Species Based on Existing Data from GNN

III-54

Russell Ridge Vegetation and Fuels Management Project Proposed Action and Purpose and Need

I-1

CHAPTER I

Proposed Action, and Purpose and Need This chapter describes the proposed actions for the Russell Ridge Vegetation and Fuels Management Project along with a description of the project area and the Purpose and Need for the proposed action. An outline is included of legislative requirements and environmental documents. This environmental analysis finds its basis in the Wenatchee National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990) and its amendments. The decisions to be made, based on this analysis, are also reviewed. A summary of scoping and public involvement for this project is presented. This Environmental Assessment (EA) will describe effects associated with the proposed action with indicators. Location The Russell Ridge Project Area, which encompasses 7,979 acres, is located in the Russell Ridge area, north of Rimrock Lake. It is west of Naches, Washington in Township 13 North, Range 13 East, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6; Township 14 North, Range 13 East, Sections 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36; and Township 14 North, Range 14 East, Sections 30 and 31. It spans from the boundary of the William O. Douglas Wilderness in the north to Rimrock Lake in the south. The west border is defined by Andy Creek to Forest Road 1308 to Highway 12 and includes the Bootjack and Indian Creek Summer Home groups. The east border is defined by Soup Creek to Forest Road 1306 to the Tieton River at approximately ¾ mile east of Rimrock Dam. Landmarks within the project area include Russell Ridge, Westfall Rocks and The Devil’s Postpile, Thunder Lake, Lightning Lake, Westfall Seed Orchard, Camp Jubilee, and the following summer home tracts, resorts, and club sites; Andy Creek, Bootjack, Chelminar, Hart Creek, Horseshoe Cove, Indian Creek, Russell Creek, The Cove, Snug Harbor, Silver Beach, and Indian Creek Corral.

Figure 1.1: Russell Ridge Vegetation and Fuels Management Project; Vicinity Map


I-2

Project Area Description Land ownership within the Russell Ridge project area is entirely Forest Service Administered. Table I.1: NWFP Land Allocations within the Russell Ridge Project Area Acres % of project area Late-Successional Reserve

820 10 Managed Late-Successional Area

6,256 78 Matrix

904 12

See Figure 1.4 Biological and social concerns about the persistence of species associated with old forests of the U. S. Pacific Northwest helped to create a regional forest reserve network in 1994 (USDA and USDI 1994). These reserves – called late successional reserves (LSR) – are located on federal land throughout the range of the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) in Washington, Oregon, and California. One LSR objective is to protect late successional forest from large-scale fire, insect and disease epidemics, and major human impacts (USDA and USDI 1994). In the Russell Ridge project area, a combined 88% is included in LSR (10%) and MLSA (78%) land allocations (GIS 2008). The goals of the MLSA allocation are similar to that of Late-Successional Reserves but are identified for certain owl locations in the drier provinces where regular and frequent fire is a natural part of the ecosystem. Certain silvicultural and fire hazard reduction treatments are allowed to help prevent complete stand destruction from large catastrophic events such as high intensity, high severity fire, or insect epidemics (ROD for NWFP, Standards and Guidelines, page A-4). Standards and Guidelines for the Matrix land allocation specify, “most timber harvest and other silvicultural activities would be conducted in that portion of the matrix with suitable forest lands. Most scheduled timber harvest (that contributing to the Probable Sale Quantity [PSQ] not taking place in Adaptive Management Areas) takes place in the matrix.” (ROD for NWFP, Standards and Guidelines, page C-39). Timber harvest and silvicultural activities are allowable within the Standards and Guidelines. There is an Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA), as shown in Appendix C of the original Wenatchee Forest Plan, located in the northwest portion of the project area, bordering the William O. Douglas Wilderness (Figure I.4). This project does not propose the cutting, selling or removing timber, or construction or reconstruction of roads within the Roadless Area, but does propose prescribed burning of natural fuels in the IRA.


I-3

Figure I.2. Russell Ridge Vegetation and Fuels Management Project; Base Map


I-4

Figure I.3. Russell Ridge Vegetation and Fuels Management Project; Roadless Areas and Proposed Wilderness Areas Within and Adjacent to the Project Area


I-5

Vegetation Condition Over the past century, fire suppression, logging, and an increase in forest pathogens have changed the Russell Ridge project area dramatically, leading to increases in the abundances of grand fir, and accumulations of dead ground and aerial fuels. While a variety of factors (e.g., climate, topography, soils, and fire) regulated the distribution of grand fir on the pre-European settlement landscape, stem densities in many areas are now higher compared with the pre-European conditions. Another result of changes in the disturbance regimes has been substantial accumulations of fuels, which under typical summer climatic conditions may pose a serious threat to local communities. Of the 7,979 acres in the Russell Ridge project area, approximately 7,066 acres (86%) are forested. Approximately 5,680 of these acres are within the dry vegetation type. Historically, these dry forests were relatively open and composed primarily of fire resistant tree species (ponderosa pine [Pinus ponderosa], Douglas-fir [Pseudotsuga menzeisii], and western larch [Larix occidentalis]) distributed in a patchy mosaic across the landscape (Agee 1993). Individual patches showed variation with respect to age and successional class distribution. Frequent low intensity fires maintained the species composition and structure of these dry forest communities. As a consequence of fire suppression and past timber harvest methods, tree species composition and forest structure in this dry forest community have changed dramatically. District records do not document large fire occurring from 1970 until present day, and ocular estimates do not indicate large scale fire occurring after the first ⅓ of the 20th century. This can be attributed as a direct result of fire suppression policies. Further, these policies have indirectly resulted in species composition changes from fire resistant species such as ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and western larch to a landscape proliferated with grand fir and other less fire resistant species. It is likely that the current dense forest conditions have also resulted in an overall reduction in the understory component associated with these communities (Agee 1993; Host 1998; McConnell and Smith 1970; Naumburg and DeWald 1999). Fire exclusion and past selective timber harvest have contributed to an increase in forest crown closure with an apparent corresponding reduction in understory productivity and species diversity due to shading. It is also reasonable to assume that long-term grazing has contributed to a reduction in the abundance and distribution of grasses and forbs associated with these forest communities (Shiflet 1994; Miller et. al. 1996; Franklin and Dyrness 1973). Changes in species composition have been accompanied by structural changes in the amount and distribution of foliage and of dead or dying trees because of above-endemic levels of insects and disease in the Russell Ridge project area. Higher biomass of late successional trees like grand fir and more canopy layers increase forest susceptibility to outbreaks of insects such as the western spruce budworm (Choristoneura occidentalis) (Hessburg et al. 1994, Swetnam and Lynch 1993, Swetnam et al. 1995). Other pathogens causing atypical changes in structure within the Russell Ridge project area are Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium douglasii), ponderosa pine dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium campylopodum), larch dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium larcis), bark beetles, and annosus root and butt rot (Heterobasidion annosum).


I-6

Invasive Species Further changes in species composition have resulted from establishment and spread of invasive and undesirable species. Populations of invasive species have been documented to occur within the areas proposed for vegetation and fuel treatments. Proposed treatments (commercial thinning, pre-commercial thinning and prescribed fire) have the potential to exacerbate the current invasive species situation by creating suitable seed beds and by relocating propagative materials to areas of disturbed soil. Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Within the Russell Ridge project area, there are 221 individual summer home or recreation residence lots. In addition, there are six privately run businesses within or immediately adjacent to the project area. Along with these residences and businesses are corresponding infrastructures, such as power and telephone lines, roads, water, septic, propane tanks, and entertainment (satellite dish, antennae). U.S. Census Bureau (2000) data indicates a median value of $123,200 for all owner occupied housing units within the Census Block that covers this portion of Yakima County, giving an estimated taxable value of $27,227,200 for housing units within the Russell Ridge project area. All properties are located on the lower ⅓ of the slope and within ½ mile of U.S. Highway 12. All are within Fire Regimes I and III. Though located on the hottest and driest part of the project area, the slope position of these high-value properties can be used to firefighters tactical advantage if vegetation structure and fuel arrangement and continuity can be manipulated and maintained at a level that would minimize fire intensity. Fire Risk and Fire Occurrence Trends Recent fire occurrence and intensity is well documented. Since 1970, 38 human caused and one lightning caused fires have occurred within the project boundary. Analysis considered a larger area of fire starts that could affect the Russell Ridge project area. This included fires within two miles of the project area boundary, north of U. S. Highway 12. This added an additional 22 human caused and 13 additional lightning caused fires. As would be expected, the vast majority of human caused fires occurs at low elevations, centered near summer homes and other recreation sites, while lightning caused fires tended to occur at higher elevations, near ridgetops. Twenty-one of the human caused fires within the project boundary occurred at the west side, within the LSR, on the lower ⅓ of the slope. The natural up-slope spread puts the LSR and CHU at high risk of loss to wildland fire, with human caused fire being the most common threat. Travel and Access Management Within this project area, there are 44.2 miles of National Forest System Roads, including 8.4 miles of closed roads (although some have been breached or re-opened by the public). The remaining 35.8 miles of open road result in a relatively high open road density of 2.9 miles per square mile. In addition to the National Forest System Roads, another 8.5 miles (approximately) of non-system road (constructed logging spur roads) exist within the project area. The majority of the roads have been barricaded or blocked, and have some stage of vegetation recovery occurring on the roadbed. State and Private roads (U.S. Highway 12) total an additional 7.9 miles.


I-7

The open road system in the project area is in generally good condition. However, there are isolated instances where redundant or inadequately maintained roads are resulting in resource degradation or habitat security concerns.

Figure I.4. Russell Ridge Vegetation and Fuels Management Project; Wenatchee and Northwest Forest Plan Land Allocations


I-8

Desired Future Condition The desired future condition of the Russell Ridge project area was derived from the Tieton Watershed Assessment (USDA Forest Service 1996a), Upper Tieton Watershed Assessment (USDA Forest Service 1998), Wenatchee National Forest Late Successional Reserve Assessments (USDA Forest Service 1997), and Wenatchee Forest Plan as amended (USDA Forest Service 1990). The desired future condition is one in which:

Forest composition, structure, function, and pattern are appropriate to the

physiognomic type (life form) and within the inherent range of variability. o Forest over- and understory (shrubs, herbs, and grasses) composition is

consistent with that which would be characteristic of the specific plant association group. Invasive species occur in low concentrations or are not present.

o The dry forest is a mosaic of variable size patches and gaps with large diameter (pre-1900 cohort) ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir at the core of these patches. Open canopy structures make up the vast majority of the stands.

o Endemic levels of pathogens provide for the structural needs of dry forest dependant wildlife.

o Fuel loadings are such that fire can function as a natural process on the landscape at intensities that are within the inherent range of variability.

o The dry/mesic transition zone is one in which characteristics of both forest types blend.

Forest structure is one in which patches are larger, and gaps are smaller than would be found in the dry forest type.

Closed canopy structured stands are frequent. Western larch and western white pine become a more frequently

dominant sere. o The mesic forest functions as it currently is, and provides for habitat needs

of mesic dependant wildlife, such as the northern spotted owl. The canopy would be largely continuous with varying structure at

the stand level but heavily favoring old forest, single and multistory.

Fire functions as an infrequent, commonly stand replacing, event during midseason with active torching and crowning being common.

Early and late season fires would typically smolder and creep, with occasional mid-day runs with passive and active torching.

Protection of life, property, critical infrastructure, and resources can be achieved

within normal risk inherent to wildland firefighting. o Continuous fuel loadings and forest structure that lead to extreme fire

behavior in the WUI are eliminated.

Scenic integrity is maintained or improved at the present level of visual wholeness or intactness.


I-9

o Human caused alterations (to form, line, color, and texture) blend into the landscape with the existing character so the landscape appears natural.

Forest roads are not redundant, not causing resource damage, and are not excess

to the needs of management of the National Forest System.

The forest continues to provide: o Clean water o Clean air o Wildlife habitat o Recreation opportunities o Commodities

Management Direction The 1990 Wenatchee National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), as amended by the 1994 Record of Decision for the Amendments to the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (Northwest Forest Plan or NWFP), as amended by the 2007 Record of Decision To Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines from Forest Service Land and Resource management Plans within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA Forest Service 2007a), and the Record of Decision for R6 Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program – Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants (USDA Forest Service 2005a) provide this direction. Hereafter, we refer to the combination of these plans in this document as the amended Wenatchee National Forest Plan (WFP). The Wenatchee Forest Plan allocated the majority of this project area to Scenic Travel 1 and 2 which require the retention and enhancement of viewing and recreation experiences, and provide a near natural appearing foreground and middle ground, respectively. Activities in these areas are required to meet visual quality objectives of retention (ST-1: not visually evident) and partial retention (ST-2: visually evident but subordinate to the characteristic landscape). Areas around summer homes are managed as developed recreation sites (RE-1) with a visual quality object of retention. The Northwest Forest Plan allocations of late successional reserve (LSR), managed late successional area (MLSA) and riparian reserve overlay the original Forest Plan direction. Late successional reserves and managed late successional areas are managed to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems. Treatments in MLSAs are permitted to help prevent complete stand destruction from large catastrophic events such as fires, insects, and diseases. In 1997 the Wenatchee National Forest completed an assessment of the LSR/MLSA network (USDA Forest Service 1997) concluding that several of the reserves, including the Tieton LSR and Russell Ridge MLSA, that were composed of dry forests were at high risk of loss of late-successional forest habitat from fires and insects. They recommended that treatments occur within LSRs and MLSAs to reduce the risk of large-scale habitat loss to fire and to restore dry forests to more sustainable conditions. Additional scientific reviews of spotted owl recovery have also recommended restoration treatments to reduce the loss of


I-10

spotted owl habitat to uncharacteristic high-severity wildfires in dry forests (Courtney et al. 2004, Courtney et al. 2008). The final version of the northern spotted owl recovery plan (USDI 2008) calls for the strategic placement of restoration treatments to reduce the risk of habitat loss from fire in fire-prone forests of eastern Washington and Oregon. Riparian Reserves overlay all other management allocations where streams, ponds, and wetlands are present and treatments within them are designed to meet and not retard attainment of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) and the WFP soil standards and guidelines set forth objectives relative to the maintenance and restoration of sediment regimes, in-stream flows, and site productivity. Proposed activities must maintain the existing condition or lead to improved conditions in the long-term. The Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2005) provides a framework for preventing invasive plant introduction, establishment and spread, protecting ecosystems and human health, and collaborating with our partners and the public. This ROD describes desired future conditions for invasive species within the Region as:

Healthy native plant communities remain diverse and resilient, and damaged ecosystems are being restored. High quality habitat is provided for native organisms. Invasive plants do not jeopardize the ability of the forest to provide goods and services communities expect. The need for invasive plant treatment is reduced due to the effectiveness of prevention actions.

Guidance Additional guidance for this project can be found in the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests Dry Site Strategy (2000). The dry site strategy was designed to focus vegetation treatments in areas which historically experienced frequent ground fire, such as the Two Lakes area, most of which is classified in the Dry Site Strategy as dense, dry forest. According to the Dry Site Strategy:

Research has shown that stand structure and composition across the dry forests of the Wenatchee and Okanogan National Forests are vastly different today from pre-settlement conditions (Everett et al. 1997, 1995, 1996). Currently, dry forests on the Wenatchee and Okanogan National Forests support significantly greater numbers of trees than in the past…Additionally, species composition has shifted from predominantly ponderosa pine to Douglas-fir or grand fir as the dominant species. The shift to dense forests with higher percentages of small trees, and a species composition higher in Douglas-fir and grand fir, has significantly increased the risk of lethal stand replacement fires where, prior to settlement by Euro-Americans, low intensity non-lethal fires occurred

The Dry Site Strategy identifies eight management objectives for protecting, maintaining or enhancing forest health on dry forests:

Reduce stand density (number of trees per acre)


I-11

Alter species composition Reduce fuel loads to conditions consistent with pre-settlement fire regimes Maintain tree density consistent with pre-settlement fire regimes Reforest created openings Maintain desired fuel levels consistent with inherent fire regimes Maintain native grass and shrub communities Reduce susceptibility to insects/disease occurrence outside of endemic levels

The Watershed Analyses for the Tieton (USDA Forest Service 1996a) and Upper Tieton (USDA Forest Service 1998) are landscape-level assessments, developed under the direction of the amended WFP. Review of these analyses helped develop the purpose and need for the Russell Ridge Vegetation and Fuels Management Project. The objectives in the Tieton and Upper Tieton Watershed Analyses include increasing ecosystem sustainability by restoring historic tree stocking levels, species compositions, and successional stages across the landscape. Additional objectives noted in these documents are to reduce fuel loadings to levels within the historic range and to reestablish the natural role of fire in the landscape. In reference to wildlife, the Tieton and Upper Tieton Watershed Analyses recommends maintaining travel ways, dispersal corridors, and riparian corridors as well as assuring that road systems provide a level of access that is compatible with big game habitat effectiveness. The White Pass Scenic Byway Management Strategy was written as a collaborative effort by the Gifford Pinchot and Wenatchee National Forests and the Washington State Department of Transportation (draft, March 2004), this plan notes the importance of Rimrock Lake and recommends the following:

1. Maintain and enhance the landscape character of the Ponderosa pines and Douglas-fir along the foreground corridor.

2. Maintain the forested natural appearing landscape character in the middle-ground. 3. Provide viewing turnouts, attractive conifer, and hardwood vegetation throughout

the roadside. 4. Enhance fall colors, blend structures into the naturally established landscape. 5. Maintain vegetative screening of summer homes and structures.

A community wildfire protection plan is a community-based forest planning document that allows the public to clarify and refine its priorities for the protection of life, property, and critical infrastructure in the wildland-urban interface (WUI). Section 7 of the Highways 410 and 12 Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) (2005) is the Mitigation Action Plan, and lists those projects that the citizens of the local community have determined to be priorities for protection of their area. Among the projects listed, the citizens identified Russell Ridge as among the three highest priority areas on Forest Service administered land in need of fuels reduction treatment. Purpose and Need for Action This purpose and need is based on a comparison of the existing and desired conditions described above. This comparison leads to a purpose and need of the Russell Ridge Vegetation and Fuels Management Project to:


I-12

Reduce the potential severity of a large, wildland fire

Reduce the risk to life, property, and resources in the event of a large wildland

fire

Improve overall forest health and sustainability

Protect and maintain the integrity of the Indian Creek Late Successional Reserve (LSR), the associated Critical Habitat Unit (CHU), and other late-successional habitat within, adjacent to, and upland of the project area from fire, insect and disease spread

Reduce potential for introduction or spread of invasive species.

Improve the perceived visual quality of the fore- and middleground viewing

distance.

Reduce road density within the project area.

Reduce impacts and maintenance costs for the road system. In order to accomplish the objectives mentioned above, there is a need to:

Restore conditions to those in which tree stand vulnerability to high intensity

wildfire would be within the normal range of variability (normal departure from the natural fire regime).

• Reduce fuel loading by altering the structure of the vegetation (live and dead forest fuels), reduce ladder fuels and create breaks and opening in tree canopies in the dry forest and in key, selected locations in the mixed severity fire regime.

• Restore structure and pattern to allow natural processes (fire, insects, disease) to function at a normal (historic) range of variability.

Reduce possible fire intensity and allow firefighters a greater probability of

success in protecting summer home tracts, club sites, and resorts within the project area.

Utilize the above-mentioned strategies to create an area of reduced fire intensity

between the Wildland/Urban Interface (WUI) and the William O. Douglas Wilderness to allow for lower risk implementation of Wildland Fire Use.

Restore forest structure, composition, and function to the landscape.

• Reduce tree canopy cover to stimulate understory vegetation growth and improve the vigor and productivity of native shrubs, grasses, and forbs.

• Create a landscape pattern defined by clumps and openings.


I-13

• Reduce or eliminate invasive and undesirable species and reestablish native vegetation.

Utilize the above-mentioned strategies to create an area of reduced fire intensity

between the WUI and the Indian Creek LSR and the associated CHU.

Analyze and make recommendations for possible closure and/or decommissioning of any roads that may be redundant, are causing resource damage, or are excess to the needs of management of the National Forest System.

The Proposed Action The Naches Ranger District, in a scoping letter to the public and interested agencies dated 12/17/2007; proposed management activities on National Forest System lands in the Russell Ridge Project area (see Figure I.1). The proposed action for considered under the Russell Ridge Vegetation and Fuels Management Project as originally proposed in the scoping letter included:

Thinning and/or regeneration harvest of small, pole, and medium diameter size trees by means of commercial (timber sale, woody biomass utilization) and non-commercial methods

Prescribed burning of management activity created slash and naturally occurring

fuels (forest fuels not created by management activities)

Chipping, grinding, and handpiling/burning of activity created slash

Implementation of Firewise treatments (see Appendix B, Glossary) by permit holders near summer homes, club sites, and/or resorts

Integrated invasive species management (prevention and control)

Reduce road densities where roads may be redundant, are causing resource

damage, or are excess to the needs of management of the National Forest System

Make excess woody material (woody debris such as logging or thinning slash, non-commercial sawlogs, etc.) available as biomass for energy production

Connected actions

• Construction of 2.46 miles of temporary roads • Reopening of 6.47 miles of unclassified roads • Installation of erosion control structures • Planting of up to 43 acres of site appropriate tree species in regeneration

harvest areas • Ripping, sub-soiling, scarifying and/or planting of compacted soil on up to

74 miles (108 acres) of tractor skid roads, 9 miles (13 acres) of constructed


I-14

or reopened roads, and 27 acres of tractor landings in proposed timber harvest areas

• Dust abatement (water only) on approximately 11 miles of system forest roads used in product removal

Decisions to be Made Based on this Analysis Based on the information contained in this environmental assessment, the Forest Supervisor for the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forest, will make the following decisions:

Is active management an appropriate and effective way to progress the vegetation in the Russell Ridge Project area toward a future condition that reduces the potential severity of a large, wildland fire; reduces the risk to life, property, and resources in the event of a large wildland fire; and improves overall forest health and sustainability?

If so, what type of treatments would be most successful? Are treatments such

as commercial thinning (timber harvest), pre-commercial thinning and biomass removal, and prescribed fire the appropriate tools to move the vegetation toward a desired condition?

If timber harvest were appropriate: what treatment areas would be harvested;

when would harvest take place; what harvest methods would be used; what, if any, temporary road construction would be required; what are the necessary fuel hazard treatments; what post harvest activities such as tree planting, precommercial thinning, and pruning may be needed?

Will actions that implement integrated invasive plant species management be

included?

What design criteria, mitigation measures, and monitoring will best meet existing direction for protection and enhancement of resources such as late successional habitat, riparian habitat, visual quality, recreation use, and various resource needs, objectives, and desired future conditions within the project area?

What, if any, roads or road segments will be closed and/or decommissioned?

Scoping Summary and Public Involvement Distribution of the project initiation letter to the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) members occurred on September 12, 2007. The IDT consisted of specialists in plant ecology, hydrology, soils, silviculture, fire and fuels planning, wildlife, fisheries, engineering and transportation systems, recreation, heritage resources and timber sale administration. Reviewing watershed analyses and existing condition statements submitted by the IDT members using the Decision Protocol Process, initiated the scoping process.


I-15

A government-to-government consultation letter was mailed to Ralph Samson, Chairman, Yakama Nation on December 21, 2007. A mailing of approximately 900 scoping letters went out to the public on January 10, 2008. A presentation of the Russell Ridge project was made to the Tapash Collaborative on March 7, 2008. This collaborative consists of representatives from The Nature Conservancy, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Yakama Nation, and the U.S. Forest Service. Public meetings were held to further outreach to interested groups. Meetings were held with the Highways 410 & 12 Community Wildfire Protection Group on March 20, 2008, with the Trails and Wilderness Interest Group (TWIG) on April 1, 2008, and with the White Pass Summer Home Owners Association on April 5, 2008. A public open house was held at the Naches Ranger Station on April 1, 2008, which included a display regarding the Russell Ridge project and made Forest Service personnel available to answer questions regarding the project.

Uunresolved Conflicts Unresolved conflicts with the proposed action influence the development of alternatives or have a bearing on the decision to be made. Because design of the Proposed Action met WFP and NWFP standards and guidelines, and Best Management Practices for LSR, MLSA, ST-1, and ST-2 land allocations, no unresolved conflicts were identified. The resource concerns displayed below, identified during project scoping, were resolved by development of design criteria, best management practices, or mitigation measures that minimize or eliminate the potential for adverse effects. Resource Concerns Identified During Scoping Management activities associated with the proposed action could have detrimental effects on the visual quality of the area, particularly within those land allocations that emphasize full retention of visual quality (ST-1) or partial retention of visual quality (ST-2), and the White Pass Scenic Byway corridor. No action could result in a lowered perceived visual quality of the fore- and middleground resulting from a variety of unchecked pest infestations. The National Scenic Byways Program and the State of Washington Department of Transportation have designated U.S. Highway 12 as the White Pass Scenic Byway. The segment of highway adjacent to Rimrock Lake is identified as a contributing feature of the byway, that is, a regionally important feature that would be part of a planned itinerary as a “should see” thing to do for those spending time in the corridor. The portion of the byway that occurs within the southern boundary of the project area is noted for the ponderosa pine forest lining the highway and for its scenic vistas over Rimrock Lake with long distance views of dramatic geologic features (Kloochman rock, Divide Ridge, Frenchman’s Ridge, and Pinegrass Ridge) patterned with striking vegetative diversity. The Corridor Management Plan identifies outstanding scenic vistas as an important intrinsic resource of the byway, and notes that the Forest Service is committed to maintaining and enhancing the scenic and recreational character of the byway.


I-16

The Wenatchee Forest Plan defines scenic integrity as the present condition of level of visual wholeness or intactness of landscapes considering the amount of human caused deviation in form, line, color, and texture of that landscape. Scenic integrity serves as a baseline upon which potential changes can be measured in relative terms. The Tieton and Upper Tieton Watershed Analyses (1996a and 1998, respectively) describes the scenic integrity of the Highway 12 corridor as natural appearing along the valley floor and slightly altered to natural appearing in the middleground. The remainder of the project area ranges from natural appearing to slightly altered to altered in places in the foreground and middleground. Although the powerline corridor as seen from Highway 12 is visible in several locations, it is visually subordinate to most of the established landscape in most of the project area. The interaction between the visual resource and the proposed vegetation treatments is associated with the potential for adverse impacts to the scenic integrity as defined by form, line, and texture of the landscape. Proposed treatments vary in the degree of effect with skyline logging more visible than tractor, and regeneration harvest more visible than pre-commercial or commercial thinning. Skyline corridors and regeneration treatments visible from the highway would be the most noticeable and have the greatest effect on the visual resource. Additionally, travelers may notice a change in the vegetation along the highway resulting from treatments around the recreation residence tracts. Pest infestations, like those that are occurring in the Russell Ridge project area, also produce a wide variety of visual effects depending on the forest type, the specific pest, and many other factors. Most serious pests ultimately cause the death of multiple trees or even whole stands, and can affect large swathes of landscape in severe outbreaks, such as have occurred on the south aspect of Russell Ridge. In most cases, the foliage of individual conifer trees or stands turn from a relatively bright “healthy” green to various colors of yellow, brown, or red, before foliage is lost altogether; the remaining gray, white, or brown boles provide the predominant visual effect until green-up/succession occurs, which can often take 20-30 years (British Columbia Ministry of Forests, 1994). In a report by Daniel et al. (1993) respondents to a study on the Chugach National Forest indicated that the loss of scenic beauty and the perceived increase in fire risk were the most important impacts of a beetle infestation. Results show that respondents preferred sequences representing treatment actions over and above the no treatment scenario. Within the Russell Ridge project area, the strategic placement of the treatment areas in relation to Highway 12 and specific project design criteria identified in the proposed action, would minimize overall adverse impacts as well as the period of time that these impacts may be noticeable. The ecosystem restoration emphasis of the Russell Ridge proposal is intended to result in the reduction of fuels and overall improved health of the vegetation. With respect to the visual resource, long-term effects would be expected to be positive because of the associated improvement in the scenic appearance of the project area. Analysis by the IDT specialist concluded that project design will mitigate probable effects, and visual quality conflicts had been resolved.


I-17

The Russell Ridge Vegetation and Fuels Management Project and lands adjacent include areas of suitable Northern spotted owl habitat, large blocks of Late Successional Reserve and Managed Late Successional Area land allocations, and a designated Critical Habitat Unit. Management activities have the potential to degrade or downgrade suitable habitat. Risk of loss of the habitat is high from wildfire and unchecked pest infestations. The Purpose and Need for the Russell Ridge project includes restoration of old forest structures and enhancement of the sustainability of the LSR/MLSA and old forest habitat. Management actions within nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF) habitat for the northern spotted owl were designed to reduce the risk of habitat loss from high severity wildfires that would remove the forest canopy and to reduce the landscape level risk of high-severity wildfire that could result is substantial loss of old-forest habitats. Locations of the treatments were located strategically to reduce the spread of wildfire in the remaining portions of the LSR/MLSA. With respect to the potential for this project to degrade or downgrade suitable habitat, the implementation of the project would: 1) be consistent with the WNFLSRA (USFS 1997) and would implement the types of projects that are recommended to enhance the sustainability of old forest habitat within the LSR/MLSA; 2) degrade some NRF habitat, retainine important owl habitat functions while enhancing habitat sustainability and reducing the risk of habitat loss to high-severity wildfire; 3) mitigate effects to primary prey species by not removing NRF habitat, restoring large tree structure, and managing towards the snag and downed wood goals identified for dry and mesic forests in the Wenatchee National Forest Late Successional Reserve Assessment (USDA Forest Service 1997); and 4) time activities that may disturb spotted owls to occur outside of the nesting period when within ¼ mile of an active nest. Further, with regard to the potential for this project to adversely affect constituent elements of spotted owl critical habitat, implementation of this project would result in: 1) restoration of large tree structure and reduced risk of stand and landscape level loss of habitat to high severity wildfire; 2) nesting, roosting and foraging habitat would be degraded but not removed; 3) dispersal habitat would be degraded but not removed; 4) treatments would not preclude the future development of nesting, roosting and foraging habitat, and dispersal habitat; and 4) the CHU would continue to function for the reasons it was originally designated (for the above stated reasons) and because the portion of the CHU in the Russell Ridge project area is not in an important location for connectivity to other CHUs. Finally, the nature of the stand structure, distribution of fuels, and gentle slopes resulted in all team members having a high degree of confidence that the fuels and habitat objectives could be met. Analysis by the Forest Wildlife Biologist concluded that this project design will mitigate probable effects and that northern spotted owl conflicts had been resolved.

Russell Ridge Vegetation and Fuels Management Project Alternatives Considered

II-1

CHAPTER II

Alternatives Considered

Introduction This chapter is intended to describe the alternatives and how they were formulated. This chapter is the heart of the document and provides readers and the line officer with an executive summary of the entire project, displaying the alternatives, mitigation, monitoring requirements and a comparison of effects of the alternatives. Alternatives considered, but eliminated from detailed study are also included. Alternative Formulation Normally issues identified during scoping are used to generate alternatives. However, because this project is being prepared under the most current Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act regulations, and there are no unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources, no alternatives to the proposed action are required [36 CFR Part 220, Section 220.7 (b) (2) (i)]. Instead, the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) considered all of the comments made during scoping (see scoping letters and potential unresolved conflict tracking chart in the project file), and where feasible adjusted the original proposed action to resolve those concerns the agency considered important. In some cases, this was addressed by adding project design criteria or mitigations to the project and in other cases the design of the project was modified. The Refined Proposed Action (RPA) is a result of specific site knowledge gained through thorough field reconnaissance by IDT specialists. As knowledge of the project area increased, specific proposed treatments, prescriptions, and locations could be detailed at a much more exacting scale than was possible in the initial Proposed Action. In all cases, the actual area of feasible commercial harvest or mechanical treatment was much smaller than originally proposed. That is not to say that many of these areas are not in need of treatment, but limitations of equipment and/or economic feasibility (e.g. lack of commercial volume) dictated other methods. The areas that were designated for harvest in the Proposed Action, but not in the Refined Proposed Action, were converted to treatment by prescribed underburn in most cases. A brief description of modifications and incremental design features developed through the analysis process to develop the alternatives considered follows:

A purpose and need for action was identified in the general Russell Ridge area A project area boundary was developed by the IDT Leaders based on the purpose

and need, collaborative input (Highway 410 and 12 Community Wildfire Protection Plan), Naches Ranger District strategy for fuels and vegetation treatment, similar vegetation types, and terrain.

Areas of potential treatment were mapped by the IDT leaders through general field reconnaissance and utilizing vegetation and topographic mapping, and aerial photographs

Limitations, (e.g. suitable spotted owl habitat and roadless areas), narrowed potential treatment areas.

Logging feasibility, (e.g. volume availability, and terrain) eliminated some potential treatment areas.


II-2

Discussion between the District Silviculturist and Fuels Planner identified those areas that are not suitable for commercial harvest, but were still are in need of treatment to meet the Purpose and Need for action, and could be treated through prescribed underburning or other fuels treatments.

A Proposed Action was developed from the initial treatment areas identified with restrictions and modifications included.

Potential unresolved conflicts were explored by the full IDT, including those resulting from public comment in response to scoping of the Proposed Action, to determine what/if additional alternatives need be developed. All conflicts with the proposed action were resolved through project design or mitigation, therefore no additional alternatives needed to be developed.

Delays in the completion of the environmental analysis allowed for additional time for the refinement of treatment locations and prescriptions

Changes in Forest Service policy and regulation regarding National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) application allowed for an Environmental Assessment to analyze a single alternative where no unresolved conflicts remain.

Because of the improved accuracy of current information from the initial Proposed Action which would have overestimated effects, the mitigation of resource conflicts that may have defined another alternative, and that the refined units are within and smaller than those defined in the Proposed Action, the Responsible Official has only fully developed the Refined Proposed Action.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis Under the new Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act regulations, evaluation of a no-action alternative may be considered through the effects analysis by contrasting the impacts of the proposed action in an EA with the current condition and expected future condition if the proposed action were not implemented [36 CFR Part 220, Section 220.7 (b) (2) (ii)]. As opposed to developing an independent No Action alternative, the vegetation, fuels and other resource sections in Chapter III incorporate a discussion of the expected effects to vegetation and fuels should current conditions continue, as well as, the resulting risks involved to give the reader and the deciding official enough information to understand the need for the project. Rather than formulating a new alternative, the proposed action was adjusted, to respond to concerns raised during scoping and collaboration, primarily through mitigation and by modifying the types, design, or location of certain treatments. Unit boundaries were specifically identified and marked on the ground that were equal to or, in most cases smaller than, those in the Proposed Action. Unit layout incorporated mitigations for visual quality, and key habitat concerns related to the northern spotted owl. Further, the Refined Proposed Action seeks to integrate Adaptive Management Strategies as it can help management to adapt to uncertainty and changes in environmental conditions, economic markets, scientific and experiential knowledge, technologies, and social values (see page II-12). The initial proposed action was dropped. Vegetation Treatments Figure II.1. Proposed harvest treatment and temp road construction locations


II-3

Commercial timber harvest and its associated activities would occur on approximately 1,159 acres. Of these commercial harvest acres, approximately 1,116 acres would be commercial thinning and 43 acres would be a mix of regeneration harvest and


II-4

commercial thinning. Approximately seven to eight million board feet would be removed from the project area. Commercial thinning would occur primarily on sites that support dense, dry forest vegetation. Commercial thinning activities would remove merchantable size material (greater than 7 inches in diameter) while retaining larger diameter dominant and co-dominant tree species that are fire resilient, drought tolerant and disease and insect resistant (specifically, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and Western larch) on dry sites. Most trees 21 to 25 inches or greater in DBH would be retained in the thinning units. In units where the average DBH is greater than 25 inches, the larger size class would be retained and trees in the 21 to 25 inch diameter class would be removed. The prescriptions would be designed to maintain and enhance the natural variability on the landscape. The desired result would be restoration of structure and pattern that would allow natural processes to function inside the dry forest within a patchy mosaic of clumps, openings, and variable spacing. Up to 5% of the commercial thinning acreage may contain small openings of shelterwood harvest where cleaning (see Glossary) for natural regeneration is necessary. Regeneration harvest pockets would occur on sites with high proportions of grand fir and excessive amounts of spruce budworm defoliation, dwarf mistletoe, and/or root rot, where thinning would not be an effective method of treating the insect and disease problems. Regeneration harvests may be in the form of shelterwood or seedtree harvests. Shelterwood harvest would retain 10-17 trees per acre. Seedtree would retain 6-10 trees per acre. Approximately 10% of the area in designated seed tree units would be left as untreated islands of at least ½ acre in size. In regeneration harvest areas fire resilient, drought tolerant, insect and disease resistant species (ponderosa pine and Western larch) would be re-established, either through natural stocking or planting if natural stocking did not adequately stock the unit.. The commercial thinning and regeneration harvest mix would take place in areas supporting intermixed patches of very dense timber and heavily diseased and/or infested trees. Approximately 35%-50% of this acreage would be regeneration harvested. The remainder of the acres would be thinned. Precommercial thinning would take place on up to approximately 2,035 acres. This total includes approximately 1,159 acres within commercial harvest areas, 271 acres in recreational residence treatment areas, and 605 acres outside of commercial harvest units. Precommercial thinning would remove the smaller, non-merchantable material (less than or equal to 7 inches in diameter at 4.5 feet above ground level [DBH]). It would also remove diseased and damaged trees between 7 inches and 10 inches DBH. Areas within the dry forest type would be thinned to 90-109 trees per acre. Live trees greater than 10 inches DBH that are heavily infected with dwarf mistletoe would be girdled and left standing to serve as snags for wildlife habitat needs where they do not pose a hazard to residents/residences, open roads, system trailheads, system trails, permitted outfitter guide trails, or inventoried dispersed campsites. Within precommercial thinning areas some small untreated patches would be left to provide for visual hiding cover and structural diversity. Within precommercial thinning areas, some individual tree pruning would occur to remove infected limbs (infected with dwarf mistletoe, white pine blister rust, etc.) or in areas where ladder fuels can effectively be reduced. For trees over 20 feet high needing


II-5

pruning, all limbs within 10 feet of the ground would be trimmed. Trees between 12 and 20 feet in height would be pruned to approximately ½ the tree height. There would be no pruning to trees less than 12 feet in height. Debris from pruning would be treated in the same manner as the precommercial tree thinning slash. The precommercial or commercial thinning slash may be taken off site and used in biomass energy production. A slash bundler may be used at landings to prepare this material for hauling. In some cases, this ground based equipment may enter the stand to bundle and remove the material. The slash bundler would create and travel over a slash mat when moving throughout the stand, in order to reduce ground disturbance. The same riparian buffers would apply to this equipment as apply to other logging equipment. In other areas, slash may be chipped, handpiled with pile burning, or underburned. Table II.1: Vegetation Treatments Unit

# Acres Harvest Prescription1 Logging

System2 Fuels Treatment3

1 8 Commercial Thin, LTM Tractor Whole Tree Yard or Yard Tops Attached to Last Log, Biomass Removal, or Prescribed Underburn


3 Unit #3 removed from consideration for harvest


5 11 Commercial Thin, ITM Tractor Whole Tree Yard or Yard Tops Attached to Last Log, Biomass Removal, or Prescribed Underburn



8 Unit #8 removed from consideration for harvest











II-6

Unit #

Acres Harvest Prescription1 Logging System2

Fuels Treatment3






23 16 Regeneration Harvest, ITM

Tractor Whole Tree Yard or Yard Tops Attached to Last Log, Biomass Removal, Prescribed Underburn, or

Grapple Pile and Burn

24 20 Commercial Thin, LTM Skyline Whole Tree Yard or Yard Tops Attached to Last Log, Biomass Removal, or Prescribed Underburn

25 12 Regeneration Harvest, LTM



26 15 Regeneration Harvest, LTM



27 21 Commercial Thin, ITM Skyline Whole Tree Yard or Yard Tops Attached to Last Log, Biomass Removal, or Prescribed Underburn










37 15 Commercial Thin, ITM, Winter Logging Required

Tractor Whole Tree Yard or Yard Tops Attached to Last Log, Biomass Removal, or Prescribed Underburn




40 46 Commercial Thin, LTM, Winter Logging Required



II-7

Unit #

Acres Harvest Prescription1 Logging System2

Fuels Treatment3





















1LTM = Leave Tree Marked. ITM = Individual Tree Marked 2Under the Adaptive Management Strategy, Skyline units may be dropped in response to market conditions 3Under the Adaptive Management Strategy, the first option is for slash to be utilized. If market conditions do not allow for utilization, the slash may be burned, or piled and burned. Fuels Treatments Refer to Figure II.1 for proposed fuel treatment locations. In the Refined Proposed Action, approximately 6,846 acres of fuels treatment would occur in the project area. Fuels treatment within the proposed commercial timber harvest areas (approximately 1,159 acres) would include yarding tree tops (either whole tree


II-8

yarding or tops attached to last log), stand cleaning treatments, underburning, biomass removal, and/or piling and burning. See Table II.2 for fuels treatment acres by activity type. Fuels treatment of precommercial thinning slash within harvest units would be treated congruently with slash resulting from timber harvest. Table II.2: Fuels treatments Acres Fuels treatment of timber sale generated slash 1,159 Fuels treatment of precommercial thinning generated slash within timber harvest units

1,159

Fuels treatment of precommercial thinning generated slash outside of timber harvest units

876

Natural fuels treatment (no mechanical treatment prior to fuels treatment)

4,811

The natural fuels treatment areas outside of both commercial timber harvest areas and precommercial thinning areas (approximately 4,811 acres) would be underburned and/or have noncommercial mechanical fuels treatment. Recreational Residence, Club Site, and Resort Area Treatments Refer to Figure II.1 for location of proposed Recreation Residence, Club Site, and Resort Area treatments. Approximately 271 acres within the project area were classified as recreational residences, club sites or resort areas, which includes areas under permit plus a 200 foot buffer surrounding the group. The Forest Service will implement treatments in these areas which may include precommercial thinning, commercial thinning, danger tree removal, and/or prescribed burning, depending on the specific site needs. The Forest Service will allow recreation residence owners, without the authorization process required in the Term Special Use Permit, to reduce fuels within 50 feet of their cabins in the following ways:

Cutting of trees up to 7 inches in diameter (at ground level) Pruning of conifer trees up to a height of 10 feet from the ground Cutting of any brush under 5 feet in height, or grass Maintaining a clearing of 10 feet from the opening of a chimney through pruning

• This allowance does not permit the falling of trees greater than 7 inches in diameter (at ground level)

Clearing of all surface fuels within three feet of a cabin Disposing of slash through chipping or hauling off-site

The exception to this permission is the following: No live trees or vegetation may be cut or removed within 100 feet of any stream

channel, whether it is flowing water or dry, without prior approval as specified in the Term Special Use Permit (FS-2700-5a).


II-9

Slash from pruning, thinning, or other cuttings must be disposed of properly in one of the following ways:

Chipped or mulched and chips scattered to a depth of no more than 3 inches Hauled off-site to an approved disposal facility

• No on-forest dump sites are identified as a result of this EA If piled and covered for burning;

• A burn permit must be obtained from the Naches Ranger Station • All conditions of the burn permit must be met • The Decision resulting from this EA will NOT excuse cabin owners from

obtaining a burn permit, nor will it permit them to burn outside of the burn season or during burning bans prescribed by the Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency or the Washington State Department of Ecology.

• Burn piles must be located so as not to damage structures or other improvements, down large woody material, or standing trees.

In addition, approval may be granted on an individual basis for the removal of down large wood in areas where the LSR standards for down woody material are exceeded, as verified by a Forest Service specialist.

Recreation residence owners would be allowed to do this fuels reduction work without further permission from the Forest Service. Other work, such as danger tree removal and planting, would remain under the requisites of the Term Special Use Permit (FS-2700-5a), although such removal and planting is analyzed here and will be authorized in the Decision Notice for this document. The Forest Service would not perform this fuel reduction work within 50 feet of the recreation residences nor would they provide funding or grants for cabin owners to have the work done. Responsibility will be with the individual permit holders for initiating and completing the work, financial responsibility, and liability for damage to natural resources or improvements. Logging Systems Approximately 964 acres of the commercial harvest area would be logged using ground based systems (summer and winter). The remaining 195 acres would be logged using a skyline system. See Figure II.1 and Table II.1 for a map and description of proposed skyline and ground based logging areas. The Refined Proposed Action would analyze for and allow either summer or winter logging, and conditions under which either would be allowed. Road Management Refer to Figure II.2 for proposed road closures and decommissioning. The interdisciplinary team analyzed the road system in the project area and recommends closing roads 1300480, 1300650, 1300675, 1305350, 1305613, 1306365, 1362373, 1362374, 1381380, 1382392. The interdisciplinary team also recommends roads 1362377 and 1362378 for decommissioning. Roads analysis indicated that these roads


II-10

were redundant to another road, causing unacceptable resource impacts or were located in otherwise undesirable locations. Closed roads (those reduced to maintenance level 1) would be appropriately bermed to prevent use by passenger vehicles, and may have culverts removed. Decommissioning would involve actions such as effective closure with a berm, recontouring slopes and/or planting of native vegetation to return the roadbed to a more natural appearance and removing these as a part of the road system. These recommended road management activities would not be part of the timber sale and would not utilized timber sale generated funds for their closure. Closures would take place as funding becomes available. Temporary roads to be constructed for and closed after the timber sale (NFMA required) are shown on Figure II.1. Table II.3: Roads recommended for closure Recommended for Closure (Reduce to Maintenance Level 1)

Miles

1300480 0.47 1300650 0.47 1300675 0.11 1305350 0.76 1305613 0.24 1306365 1.28 1362373 0.53 1362374 0.65 1381380 0.2 1382392 0.1 Total Miles 4.81 Table II.4: Roads recommended for decommissioning Recommended for Decommission (Remove from road system)

Miles

1362378 2.05 Total Miles 2.05 Figure II.2: Recommended road closures and obliteration


II-11

Invasive Species Management


II-12

The proposed action for invasive plant management within the Russell Ridge project area emphasizes prevention, early detection, early treatment, restoration of affected habitat, monitoring and long-term site management (adaptive management). This alternative proposes to implement a fully integrated invasive plant control management strategy on up to 800 acres (approx. 10% of the Russell Ridge project area) to manage existing invasive plant populations and to prevent further encroachment into presently un-infested areas as a result of implementation of the proposed action. This strategy would provide a treatment scenario that utilizes one or a combination of the following methods: 1) preventing spread or introduction (equipment cleaning), 2) manual control (pulling, digging, grubbing or hoeing by hand or with hand-tools), 3) mechanical control (mowing, clipping), 4) cultural control (planting and/or seeding of desirable vegetation, mulching) and 5) chemical control. Chemical control would include the application of the herbicides picloram (Tordon™) and/or the aquatic formulation of glyphosate (Rodeo™) to individual plants, or groups of plants, using hand-held nozzles attached to backpack sprayers or to tanks mounted on trucks. Adjuvants (e.g. surfactants) such as LI-700™ or Agridex™ and dyes would be mixed into the tank containing the herbicide to increase absorption of the herbicide by the plant and as a temporary indicator of the presence of herbicide in a given area. In riparian zones or within 100 feet of standing or running water, only the aquatic formulation of glyphosate (Rodeo™) would be utilized. Application of glyphosate in riparian zones would be by wicking or wiping individual plants, or backpack spraying individuals using hand-held nozzles. Only wicking and wiping would be implemented within 50 feet of a stream-course (as measured from the edge of the stream bank). Within the adjacent 50 to 100 foot buffer, wicking, wiping, and backpack spraying would be implemented. This proposed weed management strategy is a multi-phase approach providing for repeated treatment over time using a combination of methods. Proposed invasive species management is expected to occur annually over the life of this decision. Prevention is the preferred method for managing invasive plant populations, in particularly, with respect to sites not presently occupied by invasive species. Prevention practices would include coordinating and scheduling of road maintenance activities, inspecting gravel prior to use and pretreatment where weeds are found, aggressive re-vegetation and restoration of newly disturbed soil by rapid seeding and planting of desirable vegetation, educating the public in prevention awareness, working with user-groups to identify and report invasive plants promptly, and recognizing and proactively inspecting susceptible habitats within the project area. Early treatment would include inspection, removal and disposal of weed seed and plant parts by workers and forest-users. In areas currently occupied by invasive species, manual, mechanical, and chemical treatments would also be implemented. On these sites, herbicides would be an important early practice implemented to gain initial control of invasive plant populations. Herbicide treatment would be immediately followed with seeding of desirable vegetation. As prevention and initial control treatments are implemented and populations decline, herbicide treatment will ultimately be replaced with the manual, mechanical and cultural


II-13

methods identified previously. Herbicides would be used where methods other than herbicides have been found to be ineffective or are not feasible. Specific treatment locations within the Russell Ridge project area may include: road and trail corridors, landings, dispersed camping and parking areas, gravel pits, and other isolated patches of weed occurrence. Maps of inventoried dispersed camping areas, parking areas, and gravel pits are contained in the Russell Ridge project EA analysis file.