camp lick project -...

Camp Lick Project

Scoping Package

Prepared by: Blue Mountain Ranger District

Malheur National Forest

May 4, 2016

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected].

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html

Camp Lick Project, Scoping Package

i

Table of Contents Project Background and Introduction ......................................................................................... 1 Project Location and Existing Condition .................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Need for Action ...................................................................................................... 3 Proposed Action .......................................................................................................................... 5

Silviculture Treatments ........................................................................................................... 5 Riparian and Upland Watershed Restoration Treatments ....................................................... 6 Prescribed Burning and Unplanned Ignitions .......................................................................... 8 Strategic Fuel Breaks ............................................................................................................... 9 Road Activities ...................................................................................................................... 10 Recreation Opportunity Improvements ................................................................................. 19 Project Design Criteria .......................................................................................................... 20 Connectivity Corridors .......................................................................................................... 20 Potential Forest Plan Amendments ....................................................................................... 20

Relationship to the Aquatic Restoration Decision .................................................................... 21 References Cited ....................................................................................................................... 23

Tables

Table 1. Malheur Forest Plan management areas within the Camp Lick planning area ................. 2 Table 2. Plant association groups in the Camp Lick planning area ................................................. 2 Table 3. Proposed burn blocks ........................................................................................................ 9 Table 4. Proposed road changes and their actual effect on forest access. ..................................... 13 Table 5. Proposed road system changes in the Camp Lick planning area ..................................... 14

Maps

Map 1. Camp Lick planning area location

Map 2. Current Malheur Forest Plan management areas

Map 3. Plant association groups

Map 4. Dedicated old growth, replacement old growth, and connectivity corridors

Map 5. Silviculture treatments

Map 6. Riparian and upland watershed restoration treatments

Map 7. Prescribed burn blocks

Map 8. Existing road system

Map 9. Proposed changes to the road system

Map 10. Existing and proposed recreation developments


1

Project Background and Introduction The proposed action (described below) was developed through a collaborative process involving the public, Blue Mountain Forest Partners (BMFP), and Malheur National Forest staff. Beginning in the summer of 2014, fieldtrips and meetings were held with collaborators to discuss the existing and desired conditions of the Upper Camp Creek, Lower Camp Creek, and Lick Creek subwatersheds, and a potential suite of activities to achieve those desired conditions.

On September 17, 2014, BMFP and Malheur National Forest staff visited sites within the Camp Lick planning area. The site visit included discussions on fir and juniper encroachment, wildlife habitat improvement, forest densities, ladder fuels, fire starts, potential silviculture treatments, natural ignition, floodplain connectivity, conifer encroachment in riparian areas, erosion, and meadow gullying and drying.

In February 2015, the Forest Service interdisciplinary team for the Camp Lick Project prepared resource stories on the existing condition of the planning area, which were subsequently posted on the BMFP You Tube page. The resource stories served as a baseline for developing proposed treatments. Information from these resource stories were shared at a public open house meeting. Stakeholders of the planning area were invited to attend and an article was published in the Blue Mountain Eagle on February 17, 2015, to announce the meeting to local interested public. In addition, there was a radio spot on local radio station KJDY where the information about the public open house meeting was provided. The full detailed versions of the Camp Lick Project resource stories can be found online at: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6ZBnsdnJddpdGaiVn2KrPp4Ri55bNC5d.

On June 19, 2015, BMFP and Malheur National Forest staff visited several sites focusing on proposed changes to dedicated and replacement old growth areas. One site is currently designated as dedicated old growth and designated marten habitat; however, this site is not providing the desired conditions for these habitat types. Fieldtrip attendees also discussed designating another site as old growth that meets the desired conditions for dedicated old growth and pileated woodpecker habitat.

Project Location and Existing Condition The Camp Lick Project is located on the Blue Mountain Ranger District (BMRD) within the Malheur National Forest. The planning area is located in Grant County approximately 10 miles northeast of the city of John Day, Oregon1. The Camp Lick planning area encompasses approximately 40,000 acres in the Upper Camp Creek, Lower Camp Creek, and Lick Creek subwatersheds that drain into the Middle Fork John Day River. The main road access to the planning area is via County Road 18 off U.S. Highway 26 from east of the planning area and County Road 20 off State Route 7 from the north. See Map 1.

The legal description for the planning area is (township, range, sections): Township 10 South, Range 32 East, sections 19-36; T. 10 S., R. 33 E., sec. 18, 19, 30-32; T. 11 S., R. 32 E., sec. 1-36; T. 11 S., R. 33 E., sec. 4-10, 15-22, 28-32; and T. 12 S., R. 32 E., sec. 1-5, 8-12, Willamette Meridian.

The Camp Lick planning area ranges in elevation from 3,500 feet at the northern boundary of the planning area at the confluence of Camp Creek and the Middle Fork John Day River to 6,300 feet at the eastern boundary.

1 The term project planning area (or planning area) is used to describe the overall area of consideration that was reviewed for the development of treatment needs and opportunities. Project areas are defined as the areas within the broader project planning area where activities are being proposed and would occur.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6ZBnsdnJddpdGaiVn2KrPp4Ri55bNC5d


2

The Camp Lick planning area includes several management areas (MAs), which are described in detail in the Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Malheur Forest Plan) (USDA Forest Service 1990). See Table 1 and Map 2.

Table 1. Malheur Forest Plan management areas within the Camp Lick planning area Management area (MA) Acres* Malheur Forest Plan goals General Forest (MA-1) 14,800

acres Manage for timber production and other multiple uses on a sustained yield basis.

Rangeland (MA-2) Included in MA-1

Manage for livestock forage production and other multiple uses on a sustained yield basis.

Riparian Areas (MA-3) / Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs)

6,100 acres

Manage to protect or enhance riparian-dependent resources in watersheds supporting anadromous fish. Acres for this MA are measured using RHCA buffers.

Big-Game Winter Range Maintenance (MA-4A)

15,900 acres

Maintain or enhance the quality of the winter range habitat for deer and elk through timber harvesting, prescribed burning, and other management practices. Manage for elk habitat by balancing cover quality, cover spacing, forage, and open road densities.

Developed Recreation Sites (MA-12)

5 acres Manage for developed recreation opportunities, providing interpretation and enhancement of cultural and natural resources.

Old Growth (MA-13) 2,600 acres

Provide “suitable” habitat for old growth dependent wildlife species, ecosystem diversity, and preservation of aesthetic qualities. Manage old growth for wildlife and plant habitat, ecosystem diversity, and aesthetic quality. Dedicated old growth areas are managed to provide old growth characteristics for dependent wildlife species. Replacement old growth areas are managed to provide future old growth habitat.

Visual Corridors (MA-14F – Foreground)

600 acres Manage corridor viewsheds with primary consideration given to their scenic quality and the growth of large diameter trees. Visual quality objectives of retention, partial retention, and modification will be applied while providing for other uses and resources.

*Some management areas overlap, so the total acreage is greater than the planning area.

The planning area includes 1 developed campground (Lower Camp Creek Campground), 46 dispersed campsites, and 1.5 miles of hike/bike trails. There are no inventoried roadless areas or designated wilderness within the Camp Lick planning area.

The Camp Lick planning area currently has approximately 200 miles of open roads and 200 miles of closed roads, translating to an open road density of approximately 3.3 miles per square mile and 3.1 miles per square mile respectively. The overall road density for the planning area is approximately 6.4 miles per square mile.

There are 8 plant association groups (PAGs) that occur within the Camp Lick planning area as displayed in Table 2. The three largest PAGs in the planning area are Warm Dry Upland Forest, Cool Dry Upland Forest, and Cool Moist Upland Forest. See Map 3.

Table 2. Plant association groups in the Camp Lick planning area Plant association group (PAG) Acres* Cold Dry Upland Forest 3,100 Cool Dry Upland Forest 800 Cool Moist Upland Forest 6,300


3

Plant association group (PAG) Acres* Hot Dry Upland Forest 1,500 Warm Dry Upland Forest 22,000 Warm Moist Upland Forest / Very Moist Upland Forest 2,400 Upland Woodland (Juniper) 600

*Some areas do not have a PAG identified, so the total acreage is less than the planning area.

The three largest PAGs present in the Camp Lick planning area are:

• Warm Dry PAG (55 percent) – Occupies low to mid elevations and south slopes at higher elevations. Stands are composed of ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, grand fir, and western larch. Fire regime is low intensity, high frequency (10 to 15 years) over most of the area, with small patches of mortality.

• Cool Moist PAG (16 percent) – Occupies mid elevations, northerly aspects and cooler, wetter draw bottoms. Stands are composed of ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, grand fir, lodgepole pine, western white pine, and western larch. Fire regime is relatively frequent (2 to 120 years), mixed severity regime. Stand replacement patch size would range from 1 to 100 acres.

• Cold Dry PAG (8 percent) – Occupies high elevation sites, northerly aspects, and colder, relatively dry areas such as frost pockets. Stands are composed of Englemann spruce, western larch, and lodgepole pine. The fire regime is high intensity, low frequency (50 to 275+ years) with noticeable susceptibility to torching and crown fires.

In addition, several range allotments are located within the planning area: mostly the Long Creek allotment, with smaller areas of the Slide Creek, Dixie, Lower Middle Fork, Camp Creek, Roundtop, and John Day allotments.

Purpose and Need for Action The purpose and need for the Camp Lick Project was developed by comparing the management objectives and desired conditions in the Malheur Forest Plan to the existing conditions in the planning area related to forest resiliency and function. Where plan information was not explicit, best available science and local research were utilized in a collaborative setting with stakeholders.

Maintain and improve landscape resiliency and resistance to disturbances such as wildfire, drought, and insects and diseases by managing for desirable forest composition, stocking levels, and pattern. More specifically we want to:

• Trend the landscape pattern of stand structures towards that which falls within the historic range of variability

• Increase the acreage of stands where western larch and ponderosa pine are the predominant species

• Promote western white pine in appropriate locations

• Manage stand density to promote vigor

Promote the resistance and resiliency of forest stand structure, composition, and density given the historical fire regime to reduce the potential impacts of wildfire. Implement treatments to reduce wildland fire spread, intensity, and effects, return fire to the landscape as a function of stand maintenance rather than stand replacing disturbance within treated areas, and allow unplanned ignitions to be used as a management tool. More specifically we want to:


4

• Protect firefighter safety and improve readiness to manage wildfires through safe public access improvements

• Protect resource values and private land

• Reduce fuel loading and continuity by reducing the density and horizontal and vertical connectivity of standing vegetation, surface fuels, and/or ladder fuels

• Reduce fuels along Forest Service Road (FSR) 36, which is identified as an escape corridor in the Grant County Community Fire Protection Plan, and FSR 3640, 3660, 3670, and 3675, which are identified as priority Forest Service corridors

Maintain or improve biodiversity and habitat for fish and wildlife species present in the project planning area, taking into account changes in climatic conditions. More specifically we want to:

• Incorporate essential project recommendations presented in the Camp Lick Watershed Restoration Action Plan for the Upper Camp Creek, Lower Camp Creek, and Lick Creek subwatersheds to assist in restoring watershed resiliency for landscape processes and functions.

• Implement restoration that benefits favorable water flows and habitat for fish.

Improve wildlife habitat:

• Designate/expand the dedicated old growth (DOG), replacement old growth (ROG), and pileated woodpecker feeding areas (PWFAs) in the planning area to improve the agency’s ability to manage for pileated woodpecker, pine marten, three-toed woodpeckers, white-headed woodpeckers, and other late and old successional (LOS) dependent species

• Identify structural connectivity between late and old structure habitats and maintain or enhance functional connectivity such that linkage areas are fostered or maintained, permeability for wildlife species to move between stand and adjacent watersheds is maximized, and ecological processes are sustained.

• Improve forage and juxtaposition of cover in big game winter range

• Enhance and increase understory diversity and forage quality and availability in warm dry environments

• Increase and/or retain functional security areas for big game and other wildlife

• Enhance and/or protect critical and unique habitat types, including springs, seeps, wet meadows, aspen, riparian habitat, and upland shrub communities, for nesting migratory birds and other wildlife

Protect and maintain historic properties:

• Identify, evaluate, and enhance historic properties

• Reduce or eliminate potential for adverse effect

• Share the value of historic properties with the public

Other resource objectives we want to accomplish:

• Maintain/increase the availability of traditional use plants (e.g., huckleberries)

• Provide a variety of wood products (including merchantable sawtimber and post and poles)

• Maintain/improve conditions in the grazing allotments (i.e., forage)


5

• Maintain/enhance recreational opportunities

• Contribute towards forest management employment opportunities to help maintain and improve community stability and infrastructure

• Provide a safe road system that moves toward current public access and resource management objectives

Proposed Action In response to collaborative and public input, the Forest Service is proposing a suite of activities to move forest stands toward resilient conditions, restore fire-adapted ecosystems, reduce ladder and surface fuels, reduce the impacts of roads and ungulates to riparian areas, improve fish and wildlife habitat, and improve aspen stands while providing wood products on a sustained yield basis, thereby improving forest landscape resiliency and overall conditions of the watershed as well as maintaining community stability. The Forest Service suite of activities includes:

• Silviculture treatments to create resiliency • Riparian and upland watershed restoration treatments • Fuel management treatments • Evaluation of road system and effect on resources • Recreation opportunities

These activities would occur over approximately the next 10 years. A brief description of these activities follows; more detailed information is available upon request. The Camp Lick Project would include a variety of design criteria that serve to mitigate impacts of activities to forest resources, including: wildlife, soils, watershed condition, aquatic species, Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, heritage resources, visuals, rangeland, botanical resources, and invasive plants. These design criteria will be similar to those described in recent Malheur National Forest environmental assessments and environmental impact statements.

Silviculture Treatments Commercial thinning (approximately 9,300 acres): Treatment prescribed to reduce stand density primarily to improve growth and enhance stand health. Thinning is often from below but may also be a free thinning throughout a diameter range. Thinning may also be prescribed to meet fuel reduction objectives to, for example, increase the distance between tree crowns or reduce ladder fuels and/or may be prescribed to meet habitat improvement objectives.

• Reduce late seral (approximately 860 acres): Treatment prescribed to reduce the proportion of late seral grand fir in stands that historically were comprised of ponderosa pine, western larch, or Douglas-fir at greater proportions than are currently present. This treatment would remove primarily grand fir throughout the diameter range but would also reduce stand density where other species are present. Treatment would not remove old trees as defined by Franklin and Johnson (Franklin and Johnson, 2012), but may remove grand fir over 21 inches diameter at breast height. These treatment acres are included in the total commercial thinning acres.

Lodgepole treatments (approximately 500 acres): Treatment is prescribed in stand of lodgepole where trees are of the appropriate size to be utilized for post and poles. The lodgepole in the project area may be sufficient for both commercial post and pole and personal use. In these areas, generally 100 percent of the lodgepole pine would either be removed or piled and burned. Specifically identified firewood opportunities may also be identified due to the continued mountain pine beetle caused mortality in lodgepole.


6

Non-commercial thinning (approximately 2,500 acres): Treatment prescribed generally in stands with trees not past the sapling stage to improve the growth, composition, health, or structure of the stand. Treatment may be prescribed to include trees up to 11 inches diameter at breast height that are not deemed commercial or it is not economically viable to remove the small number of trees this size. As described in commercial thinning, this may be prescribed to meet other objectives. Non-commercial thinning is also prescribed in some areas that would be first commercially thinned, as described above. In some areas, mastication (see description under fuels) would be utilized to non-commercially thin and treat the slash in one operation.

Western white pine restoration (approximately 150 acres): Treatment prescribed to promote western white pine by reducing competition around existing trees to improve the vigor of individual trees and create conditions favorable for western white pine regeneration.

Juniper Reduction (approximately 1,200 acres): Treatment is prescribed to reduce juniper where it has expanded in either range or density. Overgrazing and fire suppression have decreased fire frequency and the area burned, allowing juniper expansion and increases in density. Juniper would be cut in stands proposed specifically under this treatments, but may also be cut as part of the non-commercial thinning treatments.

Biomass removal: Many units proposed for silvicultural treatments described above might have enough small diameter material to be considered for biomass utilization. Biomass can be defined as pieces that are not large enough to have commercial sawlog value. Biomass removal from any specific unit would follow the guidelines of the designated prescription. This material may be used for pulp chips, co-generation of electricity, commercial fuel pellets, post and poles, and other non-traditional uses. This material may be removed during logging operations, by hand, or with small equipment such as all-terrain/utility-terrain vehicles, or small excavators or forwarders. For the most part, existing woody material on the ground is not suitable for biomass utilization and would be left on site for nutrient input to the soil or would be piled and burned if in excessive amounts. Efforts would be made to stimulate local markets by utilizing woody biomass generated by this project rather than dispose of it by burning. Utilization is limited by the marginal economics of the products to areas accessible by ground based skidding.

Riparian and Upland Watershed Restoration Treatments Aspen restoration (approximately 45 acres): Treatment prescribed to improve aspen stands and allow for expansion where appropriate in 18 stands. To reduce shading and competition, conifers could be felled or girdled up to 150 feet (cut distance) from the existing aspen stand’s perimeter. Determination of the cut distance is site-specific based on topography, aspect, springtime sun angle, soil condition, and road location. In general, a cut distance of up to 150 feet would occur to the south and west of the aspen stand where the most benefit would be realized as a result of promoting soil warming and extra light reaching the soil surface. Conifers to the north and east of the aspen stand would be cut up to 75 feet from the aspen perimeter. Western larch would generally be retained because of the lower amount of shade produced by these trees. Ponderosa pine with high ground-to-crown height may also be retained because the shade produced by the conifer does not fall within the aspen stand.

Ecological riparian treatments (approximately 2,260 acres): This prescription is recommended when the existing stand is overstocked to the point where tree vigor is declining, predisposing the stand to insect attack and uncharacteristic fire events that can occur due to buildup of fuels and crown density. Primary objectives of riparian treatments are 1) to restore riparian stand resilience to uncharacteristic crown fire in reaches that are thermally sensitive to solar radiation, 2) to improve chronic large wood recruitment processes of riparian forests in reaches that are most important for fish (moderate to high


7

steelhead intrinsic potential) and in reaches where hillslope erosion rates are inherently higher, and 3) to improve riparian hardwoods age class and species diversity. Treatments would be variable density thinning, either thinning from below or throughout the diameter range. Thinning would not include large and old trees as defined in the silviculture prescription.

In Warm Dry ponderosa pine stands, variable density thinning is generally to be applied from below (i.e., the smaller trees are removed and the larger trees are retained). In Warm Dry and Cool Moist mixed conifer stands, thinning is to be throughout a diameter range to retain the desired species composition and provide for structural diversity. This would reduce fire hazard while still leaving more of a multi strata stand. Thinning throughout the diameter range would not include large and old trees as defined in the silviculture prescription. A follow-up non-commercial thinning may occur where there are sufficient small trees remaining after commercial thinning.

• Type A thinning (approximately 1,060 acres): The Type A thinning prescription may be modified to achieve other goals along with reducing stand density, reducing fire hazard, and improving forest health. Thinning may be utilized to reduce conifer density and increase available soil moisture for hardwood survival and regeneration, and forage production in stands that were historically more open, meadow environments. Type A thinning may contain a commercial component in areas where ecological goals can be met while also removing some saleable wood products.

• Type B thinning (approximately 1,200 acres): The Type B thinning prescription was designed to improve stand conditions in ecologically important reaches that have average slopes greater than 30 percent and/or are away from the road system and would require new temporary roads. Type B thinning area would have no potential for commercial harvest.

Meadow thinning (approximately 115 acres): Ten meadows, totaling approximately 115 acres are proposed for this treatment. This prescription is recommended when small and medium diameter ponderosa pine, lodgepole and grand fir trees encroach into the meadow boundary. The goals of this prescription are to restore large tree structure around the edges of meadows, increase intact hydric plant communities, and promote meadow functions of water storage and slow release into the late season. For this prescription the conifers within the meadow would be felled and placed into, or directly adjacent to, the stream channel. The meadow boundaries would be determined through soil mapping work done for the Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory, site visits, and professional judgment.

Sediment/floodplain process treatments (approximately 235 acres): This prescription is recommended to emulate a fire disturbance across the upland areas; 10 treatments locations are proposed with a total treated area of approximately 235 acres. The objective is to establish conditions in the landscape that have the potential to provide an episodic pulse of sediment and wood of a range of sizes to the stream network. Sediment would include gravel to boulder sizes, not just the fine sediment size that often results from such processes as road and channel erosion. Severe fires provide for increased overland flow runoff and soil saturation that can generate a debris flow. Emerging research in fire dependent ecosystems (similar to Camp/Lick in terms of precipitation, topography, forest types, and natural fire regimes) identifies debris flows as a ‘disturbance’ that is pivotal for maintaining productive and diverse aquatic ecosystems (Reeves et al. 1995; Flitcroft et al. 2015).

The planning area has not experienced a wildfire larger than 15 acres since 1910 because of active fire suppression. As a result, occurrence of debris flows has been decreased, which in turn has likely reduced the quantity and quality of spawning gravels in Camp Creek and its tributaries. Because an uncharacteristic wildfire has the potential to burn more of these debris flow prone areas in a high soil burn severity, the resulting sediment could overwhelm entire networks of fish-bearing streams. This treatment is aimed at creating a mosaic of different seral conditions on these potential debris flow source zones


8

across the planning area to reduce the likelihood of multiple source areas releasing simultaneously after a severe wildfire. The restoration of the upland forest is aimed at restoring sediment and wood supply processes to meet desired conditions for spawning gravel, channel form, pool quality and quantity in Camp Creek and its tributaries. As a result, this treatment would set up the biophysical conditions for debris flows to occur in a manner that will provide needed ecological benefits.

Prescribed Burning and Unplanned Ignitions The primary objective of prescribed burning is to restore and maintain an ecosystem that will thrive with the recurring disturbance of wildfire within the planning area. Prescribed burns are designed to reduce and maintain fuel loadings, leading to a decreased probability of catastrophic effects of wildland fire occurring. Specifically, this means a reduction in surface fuels, duff/litter depth, ladder fuels, crown bulk density, and an increase in canopy base heights. Prescribed burning would also be used to stimulate the growth of aspen and other fire-adapted vegetation. Both mechanically treated and untreated stands would be exposed to prescribed burning as fire is re-introduced into the planning area. Treated stands would see a combination of burning piled material and underburning. Those stands not being mechanically treated would be managed primarily with the use of prescribed burning. As conditions, including weather, relative humidity, and fuel moisture, allow, unplanned ignitions within the planning area would be used to meet the objectives of prescribed burning.

Unplanned ignitions are fires started randomly by either natural (i.e. lightning), human caused or deliberate incendiary device (i.e. arson). Human caused and arson fire are not managed on the landscape and require full suppression tactics as long as fire firefighter and public safety can be maintained. Natural fires would be used if certain prescription parameters are being meet. It is also important to recognized values at risk for an area where the fire may start and the risk it may impose on a firefighter. Unplanned ignitions should have prescription parameters that can be obtained to meet other resource objectives designed in the NEPA document. This could be accomplished with certain information on current weather, fuel characteristics, long term weather forecasts, time of year (season), and availability of resources to manage a fire.

• Underburning would occur on up to approximately 32,080 acres. This includes approximately 235 acres outside of the planning area boundary (see Map 7). Expanding these prescribed fire boundaries to natural fuel breaks and roads increases firefighter safety and limits resource damage created by constructing new containment lines.

• Portions of dedicated old growth and replacement old growth areas would have prescribed fire in them to facilitate firefighter safety by using natural barriers and roads within these stands. It is not the intent to alter or change the applicable stand characteristics using fire, within old growth stands, unless it is to meet the needs of other resources.

• Pile burning in silviculture treatments units would include approximately 6,200 acres. Acres that are pile burned are also included in (i.e., overlap with) the total underburning acres. Materials may be removed and utilized commercially where markets exist (e.g., biomass fuel, small diameter logs).

• Mastication, as it applies to the Camp/Lick project, is the process of thinning and mulching of trees of a predetermined diameter breast height. It is used to reduce stocking levels and to treat fuel loads in one step as compared to thinning, handpiling, and hand pile burning. Mastication thins and grinds the tree from the top down and redistributes the slash across the unit being treated so that the horizontal and vertical continuity of fuels is reduced to a point that prescribed fire or natural fire effects is reduce to an acceptable level.

Table 3 shows the proposed burn block with their acreages (see Map 7 for a map of the various burn blocks in the planning area), burn areas may change based on the further development of the proposed


9

actions. Burn blocks may be combined or reduced in size during implementation to facilitate efficient and effective underburning.

Table 3. Proposed burn blocks Burn block Acres Burn block Acres Block 1 1,840 Block 13 1,940 Block 2 1,680 Block 14 1,610 Block 3 380 Block 15 1,690 Block 4 2,200 Block 16 1,780 Block 5 1,680 Block 17 880 Block 6 1,060 Block 18 720 Block 7 1,580 Block 19 1,030 Block 8 880 Block 20 3,500 Block 9 1,000 Block 21 1,780 Block 10 1,560 Block 22 310 Block 11 1,980 Block 23 430 Block 12 570 Total = approximately 32,080 acres

Strategic Fuel Breaks The Grant County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) has identified one (1) county road and the Malheur National Forest has identified seven (7) additional Forest Service roads as potential escape route/safety corridors in the event of a wildland fire in the planning area. The objective along these safety corridors is to manipulate the existing vegetation in a way that moderates fire behavior, allowing safe travel for the public and suppression forces should the need arise to escape from an emerging wildland fire. Fuel breaks would be created and maintained using a combination of mechanical treatments and prescribed burning. Additionally, the decreased fuel loadings in strategically placed fuel breaks would afford suppression forces a higher probability of success controlling wildfires. Fuel breaks established in the planning area may serve as potential anchor points during direct attack, allow for indirect attack when needed, and be used as control lines during prescribed burning. Furthermore, strategic fuel breaks established in the Camp Lick planning area would build upon the fuel breaks created adjacent to County Road 18 during implementation of the County Road 18 Healthy Forest Restoration Act Project signed September 18, 2009. Specifically, approximately:

• 28 miles of treatments along roads identified by the CWPP • 24.5 miles of treatments along Forest Service priority 1 roads (in the planning area) • 21 miles of treatments along Forest Service priority 2 roads (in the planning area) • 9.6 miles of treatments along Forest Service priority 3 roads (in the planning area)

Similarly developed strategic fuel treatments would be created along the boundaries between National Forest System lands and privately owned lands.

• Approximately 4.5 miles of treatments along boundaries between National Forest System lands and private lands

See Maps 5 and 7.


10

Road Activities Roads would be utilized in the planning area to provide access for treatment activities. General road maintenance, temporary road construction, temporarily opening closed roads for log haul, closing currently open roads, and decommissioning roads are proposed. Temporary road construction and temporarily opening closed roads would occur to provide adequate access for harvest and fuel reduction treatments. See Maps 8 and 9.

Road Use, Road Maintenance, and Temporary Road Construction The following road activities would occur in support of implementing silviculture treatments and other project activities.

Road maintenance for haul would occur on open or temporarily opened roads to provide safe access and adequate drainage. The following work is classified as maintenance: blading and shaping the roadbed, reshaping drain dips or grade sags, reshaping waterbars/cross ditches, spot rocking in the roadbed, brushing and removing danger trees, removing snow, minor realigning of road junctions, cleaning culverts, seeding, removing excess material from the roadbed, placing fill material in ruts in the road, and installation of minor drainage features. Some county roads would also need to be used for haul.

Closed roads to be temporarily opened for haul would be temporarily opened for log haul, and then closed at the completion of the project. The closure would remain consistent with the intent of the original closure. Basic custodial maintenance would be performed to allow for future access and to prevent damage by maintaining adequate drainage. Their mileage is included above under road maintenance.

Temporary road construction (approximately 10 miles) would be necessary to access some timber harvest units. Temporary roads would be rehabilitated after use. Rehabilitation would eliminate future use of the road with the objective of restoring hydrological function.

Use of private roads to access silviculture units: There are several roads where easements exist or may be needed through private land where access would be needed to implement this project.

Gravel pit development: Existing rock sources in and near the planning area would potentially be utilized. Materials suitable for road surfacing, riprap, and other road improvements would be excavated from these pits which may necessitate their expansion and improvement.

Road System Changes The Camp Lick interdisciplinary team reviewed each road segment in the planning area for its existing condition and access needs and made a recommendation on whether the road should be: maintained at its current maintenance level, closed, decommissioned, or opened. Two roads were identified for opening as part of the proposed action, reasons roads might be proposed for opening are if they provide a recreational loop opportunity and are not causing resource damage. Some roads were identified for closure and decommissioning, this is proposed for a variety of reasons including aquatic resource damage, excessive road densities in big game habitat, and non-use of the road.

Forest roads are linear features that can impact hydrologic and geomorphic processes and functions that can affect biotic species (macroinvertebrates, fish, etc.). Roads have the tendency to capture water from the hillslope and concentrate it to one location, thereby increasing the probability of landslides, gully formation, and changes to sediment transport. Beyond rerouting water, roads also directly contribute sediments eroded from their surface to water bodies.


11

Road density (miles of road within an area) is an important indicator for watershed condition, but in isolation does not demonstrate fine sediment being delivered directly to waterbodies. The proximity of roads within 300 feet of a stream is a better indicator for road-stream connectivity; roads in close proximity have a higher likelihood of accelerated water and sediment runoff to streams. Further, time since last road maintenance also indicates the degree to which road drainage features (ditch relief culverts, stream crossing culverts, etc.) may be filled with material and not functioning, thereby increasing the risk for gully formation or changes to sediment and water transport. These indicators often cumulatively contribute to each other. Roads within close proximity to streams that have not had maintenance, likely have water concentrated on the surface with gullies or rills developed and deliver directly to perennial waterbodies. Rills and gullies are terms for defining very small channels that slowly develop into streams, they are erosion source areas and conduits for water to be accelerated. Native surface roads have the highest likelihood of being eroded to a waterbody.

Approximately, 40 percent (15,900 acres) of the Camp Lick planning area is located in the Big-Game Winter Range (MA 4A) land allocation. The goals for Big-Game Winter Range are to:

Maintain or enhance the quality of the winter range habitat for deer and elk through timber harvesting, prescribed burning, and other management practices. Manage for elk habitat by balancing cover quality, cover spacing, forage, and open road densities. (USDA Forest Service 1990, page IV-69)

One of the standards of this land allocation is:

To limit disturbance to wintering big game, the open road density will be no greater than 2.2 mi/mi2 by 1999. Where existing conditions do not meet this goal, project transportation system designs will be developed in order to move toward this goal in the shortest time frame possible. Densities will be monitored on a watershed basis, see Appendix I (USDA Forest Service 1990, page IV-72).

Currently the open road density in the planning area is approximately 3.3 miles per square mile (that is approximately 60 miles of open road in excess of the Forest Plan standard for road density in Big-Game Winter Range). Road closures and decommissioning proposed as part of this project would help move this planning area toward this goal, which would benefit elk habitat. Extensive research and published literature (e.g. Rowland et al. 2004 and Rumble et al. 2005) shows the relationship of elk behavior, distribution, and habitat use in relation to roads on the landscape.

Surveys of roads in the planning area identified some roads that are not being used (e.g., have trees growing in them, are grassed/brushed in, and are effectively closed on the ground). These roads are proposed for a change in maintenance level (closure) to be consistent with conditions on the ground.

Open currently closed road (ML 1 to ML 2) (5.5 miles, 2 road segments): Openings are proposed when there is an opportunity to provide access in areas where roads are already open on the ground and are not causing resource damage. In some cases, a road may be opened in order to provide continued access into an area where another road may be closed due to resource concerns. The proposed road openings would provide 5.5 miles of access on two road segments that are not currently in use.

Close currently open roads (ML 2 to ML 1) (25.7 miles, 45 road segments): Closures are proposed when there is no short-term management need for the road and/or closing the road is needed to address other resource concerns or needs. Closure of roads desired to be kept on the system would occur, but road use would be limited to infrequent management and other permitted activities. Closure may be by a physical barrier or gate, or by regulation. Basic custodial maintenance would be performed for future


12

resource access, to prevent damage. Closed roads are to be left in a stable hydrologic state and are to be periodically maintained.

Several roads are grown closed or are not being maintained as open. These are being proposed to close as the result of non-use. Approximately 17.7 miles, or 70 percent, of the roads proposed for closure show no sign of use on the ground or are not accessible due to the condition of the road. In addition approximately 11 miles of the proposed closures are redundant roads that would not result in a change in access to the areas they are located in.

Road decommissioning (6.2 miles, 15 road segments): Several currently open or closed roads are proposed for decommissioning to reduce sediment delivery to streams on roads not needed for future management. These roads would be permanently removed from the Forest transportation system. The goal is to establish a condition that would not require custodial maintenance in the future, through stabilization and restoration to a more natural state. Road decommissioning treatments are designed to improve hydrologic and ecologic function. Of the roads proposed for decommissioning, approximately 3.5 miles, or 56 percent, are not in use and there are 2.5 miles of redundant roads that would not result in a change of access to areas on the ground.

Road decommissioning treatments are designed to improve hydrologic and ecologic function. Roads to be decommissioned would be restored by applying the above design criteria for temporary roads with the following exceptions/additions:

• All culverts, roadside ditches and ruts would be removed. • Stream crossing areas would be reshaped to resemble a natural condition by meeting the Road

and Trail Erosion Control and Decommissioning Requirements found in the Programmatic Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion (USDI FWS 2013a, p.41).

• Erosion control measures (sediment filters or straw bales) would be utilized where necessary to prevent sediment from reaching the stream. Dispose of fill or waste material in stable sites out of the flood-prone area.

• The road surface would be reshaped or outsloped, and/or frequent cross ditches or waterbars would be constructed to ensure there is not a continuous flow pattern to the stream.

• Effective barriers at the beginning of the road (e.g., berms, rocks, logs, etc.) would be installed to prevent vehicle use.

Decommissioning does not necessarily mean returning a road to its original ground contours. The cost of decommissioning roads can vary greatly due to terrain issues, soil types, slope gradient aspect, locality, etc. Some roads would naturally re-vegetate themselves over time and need no treatment.

This includes approximately 2.14 miles (6 road segments) of the proposed road decommissioning that would occur within riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs).

In order to show how the proposed road system changes would result in an actual change in access on the ground, the following table summarizes the proposed road changes and categorized them according to proposed maintenance level, current use on the ground, and whether there are alternative roads available in the area that would continue to provide motorized access to the area. In total, approximately 62 percent of the roads proposed for closure or decommissioning are not currently in use on the ground and 40 percent of these areas have alternative access available.


13

Table 4. Proposed road changes and their actual effect on forest access.

Proposed road system change by maintenance level

(ML) Total miles

Miles of road showing use on the

ground

Miles of road showing no signs of use on the

ground

Miles of road being proposed for closure or decommissioning with

alternative access available to the area

Open to closed road (ML 2 to 1) 5.5 3.8 1.7 N/A

Closed to open road (ML 1 to 2) 25.7 8 17.7 11

Open to decommissioned road (ML2 to DE) 6.2 2.7 3.5 2.5

Overall, there would be a net change to current motorized us of roads of 5.2 miles based on the proposed openings (5.5 miles) and closures or decommissioning (10.7 miles) of roads that are in use on the ground. Some of these areas may still be accessible by other open roads.

Confirmation of Road Closures Within the project planning area, there are fifty-nine road segments totaling approximately 27 miles shown as closed (maintenance level 1) in the road system. These roads were administratively closed in the past, but do not have an associated signed NEPA decision regarding their closure. These roads would have their closure confirmed by this project. Closure of roads desired to be kept on the system would occur, but road use would be limited to infrequent management and other permitted activities. Closure may be by a physical barrier or gate, or by regulation. Basic custodial maintenance would be performed for future resource access, to prevent damage. Closed roads are to be left in a stable hydrologic state and are to be periodically maintained.


14

Table 5. Proposed road system changes in the Camp Lick planning area Forest Service road #

Current maintenance level (ML)

Proposed action

Proposed ML

Beginning mile post

Ending mile post

Miles Reason for change

1800312 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.32 0.32 Road is an area that is high priority elk habitat. 1800313 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.3 0.3 Road is an area that is high priority elk habitat. 1800339 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.2 0.2 Short segment that heads toward ridge and ends at a

closed road, should not change access to area. 1800394 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.28 0.28 Northern segment of this road is already closed under

previous closure. Proposed closure of FSR 1800339 would block access to this road.

1800500 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.9 0.9 Road is grassed in on the ground; not showing signs of use.

1800533 2 Close road 1 0.00 1.69 1.69 Road is grassed in on the ground; not showing signs of use. Minor to no evidence of use. Road is located in Big-Game Winter Range (MA 4A) and is a priority closure for elk habitat.

3600105 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.11 0.11 Road is already closed on the ground by range fence. Road is located in Big-Game Winter Range (MA 4A).

3600145 2 Decommission road

DE 0.00 0.22 0.22 Road is overgrown and a fence is located in the road prism; not showing signs of use.


DE 0.00 0.93 0.93 Closed by earth berm and fence on the ground; not showing signs of use. Road is in close proximity to the stream. Road is redundant to other roads in the area.


DE 0.00 0.38 0.38 Road is in close proximity to stream.


DE 0.00 0.24 0.24 Road is a railroad grade, not an actual road. Decommission after dispersed campsite.

3600534 2 Close road 1 0.00 1.25 1.25 Log in road at milepost 0.2 preventing use. Road is located in Big-Game Winter Range (MA 4A).


DE 0.00 0.24 0.24 Road crosses a meadow and is altering flow paths. Leads to a fence at milepost 0.1 with no use observed past the fence.


DE 0.00 0.13 0.13 Road is naturally closed on the ground due to being heavily vegetated and is also redundant to another nearby road (FSR 3600551).


15

Forest Service road #


Proposed action

Proposed ML

Beginning mile post

Ending mile post


3600686 2 Close road 1 0.00 1.26 1.26 The road is located in Big-Game Winter Range (MA 4A). Road is within close proximity to stream.

3600703 1 Open road 2 0.00 3.8 3.8 Road is open on the ground with use, in good condition 3600856 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.73 0.73 Road that terminates at a closed road network. Major

rutting present. Road is located in Big-Game Winter Range (MA 4A). Close road after dispersed campsite.

3600905 2 Close road 1 0.3 1.66 1.36 The road is located in Big-Game Winter Range (MA 4A) and travels through good quality summer elk forage. Close portion of road west of junction with FSR 3600703 to maintain access to that road.

3600976 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.8 0.8 Road is rutted and heavily vegetated along ridge top and is naturally closed. Road is located in Big-Game Winter Range (MA 4A) and is a priority closure for elk habitat.

3620482 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.18 0.18 Road is closed on the ground, not showing signs of use. 3620484 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.7 0.7 Road is closed on the ground, not showing signs of use.

Loops around ridgetop. 3645158 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.42 0.42 Spur road that would be cut off by proposed closure of

FSR 3645457 (which is grassed in, not showing signs of use).

3645457 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.69 0.69 Spur road that would be cut off by proposed closure of FSR 1800533 (which is grassed in, not showing signs of use). There is a tree in road preventing access.

3645618 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.27 0.27 No use present on the road. Trees and logs in the roadway. Most of road is located in Big-Game Winter Range (MA 4A) and is a high quality summer elk forage area.

3650026 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.23 0.23 No use present on the road. Trees and logs in the roadway. Quality summer elk forage area.

3650027 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.12 0.12 No use present on the road. Trees and logs in the roadway. Quality summer elk forage area.

3650030 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.32 0.32 Road is overgrown with vegetation and naturally closed; no use present. Road is located in Big-Game Winter Range (MA 4A) and is a high priority closure for elk.


16



Proposed action

Proposed ML

Beginning mile post

Ending mile post


3650110 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.3 0.3 Road is overgrown with vegetation and naturally closed; no signs of roadway design. Road is located in elk summer range.

3650122 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.51 0.51 No use present on the road, with trees in the roadway. Road is located in Big-Game Winter Range (MA 4A).

3650124 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.77 0.77 Road segment through 2 draws and around ridgetop. Road is located in Big-Game Winter Range (MA 4A) and summer elk range.

3650127 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.3 0.3 Road is overgrown, with trees in the roadway and is naturally closed on the ground. Road segment ends at a closed road.

3650142 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.25 0.25 The road is located in Big-Game Winter Range (MA 4A).

3650166 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.22 0.22 Short, redundant spur road. 3650210 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.15 0.15 Road is located along a ridge and is a priority closure

for elk. Road segment ends at a closed road. 3650225 2 Decommission

road DE 0.00 0.27 0.27 Road and stream are connected and the road has failed

in 2 locations. 3650226 2 Decommission

road DE 6.51 8.11 1.60 Decommission from FSR 3600239 to 3600189. Road

would be cut off by proposed decommissioning of FSR 3600239 and 3600189.


DE 0.2 0.41 0.21 Short road segment that is not accessible due to an existing closed road (FSR 3650229).


DE 0.00 0.2 0.2 No sign of roadway on the ground.

3650328 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.38 0.38 Priority closure for elk due to traversing several southeast facing ridges.

3650358 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.2 0.2 This road segment is closed on the ground with culverts pulled. Road segment would not be accessible due to proposed closure of FSR 3650-360. Road is located in Big-Game Winter Range (MA 4A). Road segment ends at a closed road.


17



Proposed action

Proposed ML

Beginning mile post

Ending mile post


3650360 2 Close road 1 0.00 3.94 3.94 Road is starting to naturally overgrow with vegetation due to non-use. The road surface is eroding with gullies present. Road is located in Big-Game Winter Range (MA 4A) and is a priority closure for elk habitat.

3650362 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.17 0.17 Short spur road, located on a ridgetop. Road is located in Big-Game Winter Range (MA 4A) and is a priority closure for elk habitat. Would be inaccessible by proposed FSR 3650360 road closure.

3650377 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.8 0.8 Naturally closed on ground. Small trees growing in road. No signs of use. Ruts and rills present.

3650395 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.12 0.12 Spur road in close proximity to stream. Road is located in Big-Game Winter Range (MA 4A).

3650396 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.31 0.31 Spur road located in Big-Game Winter Range (MA 4A). 3650397 2 Decommission

road DE 0.00 0.39 0.39 Road is washed out and eroded with multiple gullies.

High erosion area. Road is located in Big-Game Winter Range (MA 4A).

3650428 2 Close road 1 1.40 2.0 0.6 Close portion of road north of FSR 3650394 and stormproof rest of road, the first mile of road is already closed. The road surface is eroding; culvert washed out; 3 foot trees in road indicate no use. Road is located in Big-Game Winter Range (MA 4A).

3650430 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.56 0.56 Road is located in Big-Game Winter Range (MA 4A) and ends in an elk forage area. It is also a parallel spur to FSR 3650428.

3650625 2 Close road 1 0.00 1.67 1.67 Road is naturally closed on the ground with small trees growing in the roadway; major rutting present. Road is located in Big-Game Winter Range (MA 4A) and traverses ridges and high priority elk nursery and occupancy area.

3650690 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.52 0.52 Road is naturally closed on the ground with small trees growing in the roadway. Road is located in Big-Game Winter Range (MA 4A) and is a priority closure for elk habitat.


DE 0.00 0.38 0.38 Logs are in road preventing driving. Road is within close proximity to stream.


18



Proposed action

Proposed ML

Beginning mile post

Ending mile post


3650700 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.06 0.06 Road is naturally closed on the ground; roadway is overgrown and shows no signs of use. Road is located in Big-Game Winter Range (MA 4A).


DE 0.00 0.33 0.33 Road is within close proximity to stream. Road is located in Big-Game Winter Range (MA 4A).

3650715 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.41 0.41 Road is naturally closed on the ground; roadway is overgrown. Road is located in Big-Game Winter Range (MA 4A) and is a high priority closure for elk security and elk nursery.


DE 0.00 0.09 0.09 Road is naturally closed on the ground due to vegetation overgrowth and berm.

3650845 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.28 0.28 Roadway is heavily vegetated, including 3 inch trees growing in the roadway; road is naturally closed on the ground.

3660020 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.36 0.36 Road is grassed in with no signs of use. 3660042 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.3 0.3 Road is grassed in with no signs of use. 3660240 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.23 0.23 Road is naturally closed on the ground with no signs of

use; roadway is overgrown with heavy brush and trees. Road is located in Big-Game Winter Range (MA 4A).


DE 0.00 0.53 0.53 Decommission portion of road between 3660630 to 3660 (parallels a stream, erosion issue)

3660664 1 Open road 2 0.00 1.73 1.73 Open to provide access and allow decommissioning of 565 portion, road not paralleling stream

3660851 2 Close road 1 0.00 0.2 0.2 Spur leading to a ridgetop. Road is located in Big-Game Winter Range (MA 4A).


19

Recreation Opportunity Improvements

Trail Developments The objective is to meet the current public needs for a more broad recreation experience while on the Malheur National Forest by creating and maintaining a trail system in the Camp Lick planning area. There is a need to provide more opportunities for the recreating public due to the lack of current opportunities for bicyclists and hikers. Currently, recreating visitors are faced with a lack of interesting trail options. The only trail within the Camp Lick planning area is the Arch Rock National Recreation Trail, which is only half of a mile in length. See Map 10.

As proposed, the Cougar Rock trail would create a loop opportunity in the southwest portion of the planning area. There would be no changes proposed to the existing Arch Rock National Recreation Trail.

The proposal would create worthy destinations and loop opportunities in the Camp Lick planning area for non-motorized recreation use, including hiking and mountain biking, where currently such opportunities do not exist. The trails would generally follow ridge lines, with a small number of drainage crossings. The trails would be designed for biking/hiking or hiking use only; therefore, motorized access would be prohibited. Engineering controls and education would be used foremost to prevent off-highway vehicles from accessing the trails. Signage would be placed at trailheads to indicate the permitted methods of travel on the trails. Trail design techniques such as routing trails between large trees and bicycle-width cattle guards at fence crossings would be used to discourage off-highway vehicle use of the trails. The trail would not be designed for equestrian use; however, equestrian use would be permitted except for on hiker only trails (i.e., Arch Rock National Recreation Trail). Multiple use trail etiquette information would be provided at trailheads. The proposed trail would create new and additional opportunities for a non-motorized trail system to be enjoyed by visitors. Bringing the recreating public into the local communities would provide economic benefits.

The Cougar Rock trail (6.1 miles) would be combine trail-on-road with new construction to create an easily accessible, moderate length loop hike or bicycle ride with scenic views. The trail would begin at the proposed Cougar Rock trailhead, which would be located near the junction of FSR 3650193 and 3650191. The trail would follow FSR 3650193 to its junction with FSR 3650213. It would then follow FSR 3650213 south to its end near the summit of Cougar Rock. The trail would then be newly constructed to swing to the west around the north flank of Cougar Rock summit and follow the contour to where it connects to the end of FSR 3650276. The trail then follows FSR 3650276 north to near its junction with FSR 3650283. It then leaves the road and starts a segment of new trail construction. The trail continues north on the west side of the ridge and circles around the north side of an unnamed summit along the ridge, where it passes the junction with the Four Corners trail (proposed as part of the Magone Project). Once the trail hooks back to the south along the east side of the unnamed summit, it connects to the end of FSR 3650190. It follows FSR 3650190 all the way south along the east side of the ridge to the road’s beginning at its junction with FSR 3650193. At that point, the Cougar Rock trail ends by connecting back into itself and completing the loop.

Trailhead Development The Cougar Rock trailhead would be a small trailhead built alongside the beginning of FSR 3650193 near the junction with FSR 3650191. It would have a small native surface or graveled parking area with a trailhead informational sign. The trailhead would allow access to the Cougar Rock trail for the loop hike or bike and views that it offers.


20

Interpretive Sign Installation The installation of an interpretive sign would be aimed at adding interest and value to the public to reach the Forest’s goal of restoring and maintaining a healthy, resilient landscape. By design, interpretive installations reinforce awareness of culture resources and inspire public stewardship by fostering community pride in local heritage. Interpretive signage can provide high-quality user experiences without the need for onsite staff or extensive maintenance.

The proposed sign would be installed along FSR 3600, where the railroad grade parallels Camp Creek and is visible from FSR 3600, between the junctions of FSR 3650 at Cougar Creek and FSR 2045 at Lick Creek. This location would provide viewing access to the railroad grade with adequate room for single vehicle parking.

Project Design Criteria Resource specialists will be developing project design criteria to avoid, minimize, or mitigate known and potential adverse effects from the proposed project activities. These protection measures will be defined once the proposed action is finalized and alternative(s) are developed.

Connectivity Corridors Preliminary connectivity corridors have been identified, linking late and old structure stands and incorporating riparian areas as necessary to facilitate the movement of old growth dependent species while allowing them to avoid predation. Connectivity corridors are but one component of overall ecosystem integrity. Connectivity corridors facilitate the movement of species between resources patches, supporting security, interaction, dispersal, and exchange of genetic diversity. Habitat loss and fragmentation are reduced by conserving and managing linkages and ultimately corridors provide support for biodiversity adaptations to changing conditions.

The goal of creating “connectivity” is to manage stands in corridors at higher canopy densities when compared to more intensively managed stands located outside of corridors. Corridors established for old growth species in the planning area would allow for big game migratory and dispersal movements, as well as providing higher cover rates and forage. The designated connectivity corridors are approximately 10,100 acres in size. See Map 4.

Potential Forest Plan Amendments The proposed action may require the following amendments to the Malheur Forest Plan:

• Changes to Old Growth boundaries –The Malheur Forest Plan standards for old growth habitats are identified for Management area 13 (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-105 to IV-107; USDA Forest Service 1990b, Appendix G). Direction in these sections is to distribute old growth across the Malheur National Forest to provide for wildlife species dependent on these lands including pileated woodpecker and pine marten. Acres in management area 13 include both designated old growth and replacement old growth.

o Malheur Forest Plan Management Area 13, Standard #4 states, “Inventory and validate all old growth areas. Correct previously dedicated old growth unit designations that are not meeting management requirement direction where possible. Utilize the interdisciplinary process to develop recommendations for boundary adjustments, or unit relocation” (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-105). All or part of 9 dedicated old growth areas (DOGs) are located in the Camp Lick planning area. The DOGs in the planning area have been evaluated for the presence of replacement old growth areas (ROGs) and pileated woodpecker feeding areas (PWFAs), for the suitability of DOG designation, and for


21

whether there are sites that would better meeting management requirements. Proposed changes to the DOG / ROG system would result in an overall increase in management areas 13 designated land of approximately 1,800 acres. See map 4.

• Reduce satisfactory and/or total cover below Malheur Forest Plan standards in big game summer range (Forest Wide Standard #28) (USDA Forest Service 1990a, pages IV-27 to IV-28) and/or Big-Game Winter Range Maintenance (MA 4A) (USDA Forest Service 1990a, pages IV–69 to IV–70).

• Connectivity – Regional Forester’s Eastside Forest Plan Amendment 2 (Eastside Screens), Standard #6(d)(3) “Maintain connectivity and reduce fragmentation of late and old structure (LOS) stands” (USDA Forest Service 1995a). This amendment may be needed because a contiguous network pattern with 2 or more connection points may not be maintained between all LOS stands and old growth habitats.

• Removal of trees greater than 21 inches DBH – Regional Forester’s Eastside Forest Plan Amendment 2 (Eastside Screens), Standard #6(d)(2)(a): “Maintain all remnant late and old seral and/or structural live trees ≥21” DBH that currently exist within stands proposed for harvest activities” (USDA Forest Service 1995a).

Information on the specifics of the potential forest plan amendments will be developed and made available for further comment in the Camp Lick Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment.

Relationship to the Aquatic Restoration Decision The Malheur National Forest initiated an Aquatic Restoration Environmental Assessment (EA) in January 2014, and the decision notice and finding of no significant impact (DN/FONSI) was signed in September 2014. This decision allows activities that are consistent with the 17 aquatic restoration categories described in that decision to be implemented following review of the activity with a Project Implementation Checklist to ensure the activity is consistent with the analysis and is within the criteria of the Aquatic Restoration Decision.

The Camp Lick planning area is one of the planning areas identified for accelerated restoration on the Malheur National Forest. An interdisciplinary team gathered information at a watershed scale and used that information to develop a suite of activities to improve resource resiliency, processes, and functions within the Camp Lick planning area. The team identified a variety of activities that would move the planning area towards its desired future condition. Some of these activities are aquatic restoration actions that are authorized by the Aquatic Restoration Decision. Activities that may be implemented in the Camp Lick planning area are:

• Category 1 – Fish Passage Restoration (e.g., culvert removal/replacement) • Category 2 – Large Wood, Boulder, and Gravel Placement (e.g., large woody debris (LWD) /

coarse woody debris (CWD) augmentation, reduce/remove lodgepole encroachment within elevated floodplains, log weir and boulder modification

• Category 3 – Legacy Structure Removal (e.g., alluvial fan restoration) • Category 4 – Channel Reconstruction/Relocation (Cottonwood Creek) • Category 5 – Off- and Side-Channel Habitat Restoration • Category 6 – Streambank Restoration • Category 7 – Set-back or Removal of Existing Berms, Dikes, and Levees • Category 8 – Reduction of Recreation Impacts (e.g., stormproofing/hardening roads and dispersed

campsites with heavy recreation use) • Category 9 – Livestock Fencing, Off-Channel Livestock Watering Facilities (e.g., maintaining

and developing range water developments to increase cattle distribution)


22

• Category 10 – Piling and other Structure Removal • Category 11 – Road Erosion Control • Category 12 – Juniper Removal • Category 13 – Riparian Vegetation Treatment (controlled burning) (e.g., aspen stand restoration) • Category 14 – Riparian Vegetation (Hardwood) Planting • Category 15 – Bull Trout Protection • Category 16 – Beaver Habitat Restoration (e.g., place lodgepole posts in the ground for beavers to

build off of) • Category 17 – Fisheries, Hydrology, Geomorphology, Wildlife, Botany, and Cultural Surveys in

Support of Aquatic Restoration

We welcome input on these activities now; there will also be an opportunity to review these activities at a later date when they are posted on the Malheur National Forest’s Aquatic Restoration website before implementation.

Please see the following website for information on future aquatic restoration projects on the Malheur National Forest:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/malheur/landmanagement/?cid=STELPRD3817723&width=full

This webpage is designed to provide information about aquatic restoration activities on the Malheur National Forest, and will provide an annual list of projects planned to be implemented by each Ranger District as well as an accomplishments section where the interested public can learn about completed projects. The list and description of projects to be implemented each summer will be posted on this website each spring and at least 30 days prior to planned implementation. Projects may also be posted and implemented at other times of the year. A Project Implementation Checklist will be used on each project to ensure all activities are consistent with the Malheur Forest Plan and project design criteria associated with the Aquatic Restoration Decision.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/malheur/landmanagement/?cid=STELPRD3817723&width=full


23

References Cited Flitcroft et al. 2015. Wildfire may increase habitat quality for spring Chinook salmon in the Wenatchee

River subbasin, WA, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 359: 126-140.

Franklin and Johnson. 2012. A Restoration Framework for Federal Forests in the Pacific Northwest. Society of American Forests Journal of Forestry. 110(8): 429-439.

Reeves et al.1995. A Disturbance-Based Ecosystem Approach to Maintaining and Restoring freshwater Habitats of Evolutionarily Significant Units of Anadromous Salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. American Fisheries Society Symposium. 17: 334-349.

Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson, and M.A. Penninger. 2004. Effects of roads on elk: implications for management in forested ecosystems. In: Transactions of the 69th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference: 491-508. Available online: http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/24797

Rumble, M.A., L. Benkobi, and R.S. Gamo. 2005. Elk responses to humans in a densely roaded area. Intermountain Journal of Sciences 11(1-2): 10-24. Available online: http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/30804

USDA Forest Service. 1990a. Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Malheur National Forest, John Day, Oregon. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/malheur/landmanagement/planning

USDA Forest Service. 1990b. Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement. USDA Forest Service, Malheur National Forest, John Day, Oregon. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/malheur/landmanagement/planning

USDA Forest Service. 1990c. Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Record of Decision. USDA Forest Service, Malheur National Forest, John Day, Oregon. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/malheur/landmanagement/planning

USDA Forest Service. 1995a. Decision Notice for the Revised Continuation of Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales. (Eastside Screens). USDA Forest Service, Region 6: Colville, Deschutes, Fremont, Malheur, Ochoco, Okanogan, Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman and Winema National Forests in Oregon and Washington. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/malheur/landmanagement/planning

USDA Forest Service. 1995b. Revised Environmental Assessment for the Revised Continuation of Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales. (Eastside Screens). USDA Forest Service, Region 6: Colville, Deschutes, Fremont, Malheur, Ochoco, Okanogan, Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman and Winema National Forests in Oregon and Washington. Available online at:http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/malheur/landmanagement/planning

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Environment Assessment for the Inland Native Fish Strategy; Interim Strategies for Managing Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, Western Montana, and Portions of Nevada. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions. Portland, OR.

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/24797

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/30804

http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/malheur/landmanagement/planning






24

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. 2013a. Programmatic Biological Opinion for Aquatic Restoration Activities in the States of Oregon, Washington and protions of California, Idaho and Nevada (ARBO II). [FWS reference: 01EOFW00-2013-F-0090]. Portland, OR: Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office. P. 41.

camp lick project -...

Documents