Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Enviro Impact Statement Unil,..d States Department of Agricultuft' SUMMARY ~ ~ DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Forest Service ASHLAND WATERSHED PROTECTION PROJECT ~ Ashland Ranger District Rogue River National Forest Pacific Northwest Region August 1999 ......-~~..,.- VICINITY MAP Oregon o ,p 0 00 0 ROGUE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST ~ Ashland Watershed Protection Project Area .....~._._.,._". ....-.-.....,..."..,.-."...- ......----..., ------.,. .._.,-~ ~ r I SUMMARY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ASHLAND WATERSHED PROTECTION PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION A. INTRODUCTION This draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) includes analysis and disclosure of a proposal to manage vegetation within the Ashland Creek Watershed and addresses the underlying pwpose and need for this Forest Service Action. The Ashland Creek Watershed is located primarily on lands managed by the USDA Forest Service, within the Ashland Ranger District of the Rogue River National Forest (RRNF), in southwest Oregon. The overall goal for the management of the Ashland Watershed. and this project, is to provide high quality drinking water for the City of Ashland, and to maintain large areas of late- successional habitat by creating a fire resilient landscape relatively resistant to large-scale high severity wildfire. This project would be implemented over a period of about 8 to 12 years. In March of 1998, an Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared and a Decision Notice was signed authorizing the implementation of the Ashland Interface Fire Hazard Reduction (HazRed) Project. Appeals to this decision were filed with the Regional Forester that resulted in a reversal of the decision in July of 1998. At the discretion of the Responsible Official, it was decided to conduct more extensive environmental analysis with the preparation of this draft EIS, that will include a broader range of Alternatives Considered in Detail. B. THE PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action for the Ashland Watershed Protection Project would treat vegetation and dead and down fuels on approximately 1,549 acres. A variety of treatment methods are considered that include prescribed fire, manual treatment of vegetation (cutting with chainsaws or haJ1dtools and handpiling for burning), and mechanical removal of trees using yarding equipment such as helicopters, skyline cable systems and crawler tractors The Forest Service Proposed Action is not necessarily the only or preferred means to achieve the identified goals, but provides a place to begin the environmental analysis process. Under this Proposed Action for vegetation management for watershed protection, about 1,097 acres are being considered for treatment with prescribed underburning or manual methods and about 452 acres are being considered for mechanical tree removal methods The Proposed Action in this draft EIS is identified as Alternative 5. The Project Area is located mostly within the Ashland Creek Watershed and partially within the Tolman, and Hamilton Creek Watersheds (tributaries of Bear Creek, within the Rogue River Basin). The legal location descriptions for all proposed actions is T. 39 S., R. I E., in sections 17, 19,20,21,27,28,29, 32, 33, and 34; T. 40 S., R. 1 E., in sections 4 and 5; W.M., Jackson County, Oregon. Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-1 Ashland Watershed Protection Project C. PURPOSE AND NEED 1. Background - Historical Fire Environment The "natural" historical fire return interval (or fire cycle), on a landscape basis, for the majority of the Project Area is 8 to 15 years, with an average cycle of 10 years (USDA 1996). Generally, fires occurring within forests with a frequent fire return interval result in a low severity fire regime, and maintain open, fire adapted plant communities. A low severity fire regime is one where fires are frequent (less than 20 years), oflow intensity, and ecosystems are dominated by vegetation well adapted to survive fire (Agee 1996). The Ashland Watershed Fire of 1910, occurring around the time when fire suppression began for the area, demonstrated the effects of a fire occurring in a low severity fire regime. Of the area burned on National Forest System Lands (current boundary), 2,600 acres are currently classified as late-successional habitat. Large, flfe adapted old pines and Douglas-flf trees, bearing fire scars of the 1910 fire, are still present in the area burned by this wildfire. 2. Existing Condition With the onset of effective fire suppression, the "natural" fire cycle for the Ashland Watershed has changed. With the exception of several smaller events (13 to 350 acres) and numerous lightning flfes (less than one acre), the Project Area has not experienced a large-scale fire since 1910 and 1959. Without frequent fires, the vegetation of the area has changed from open stand conditions composed offlfe adapted species, to dense overstocked forest stands with a high percentage of shade-tolerant flfe intolerant species. Forest stands competing for water and growing space, self thin (a natural process where trees weakened by competition from other trees die), contributing to a continuous build up of standing dead and down fuels on the forest floor. The 1959 Ashland Creek Fire, the 1987 Longwood Fire, and the 1994 Hull Mountain Fire provide examples of the fire severity that can occur when areas that historically experienced frequent flfes, bum after missing their "natural" fire cycles: . The 1959 Ashland Creek Fire burned after missing about 5 fire cycles and resulted in 69 percent of the area burned at high flfe severity, 22 percent at moderate fire severity, and 9 percent low severity. . The 1987 Longwood Fire burned after missing two flfe cycles and burned 23 percent at high, 43 percent at moderate, and 30 percent low severity. . The 1994 Hull Mountain Fire, burned 7, 930 acres; of the area burned on Federal lands, 77 percent burned at moderate to high fire severity. A fire hazard and risk assessment completed for the Bear Watershed Analysis and the Mt. Ashland Late- Successional Reserve Assessment classified the Project Area as having a moderate to high fire hazard and a moderate, to extreme fire risk. Fire hazard is determined by vegetation that forms a threat for fire ignition, rate of spread, and resistance to control, based on the vegetation type, arrangement, volume, condition, and location (aspect, percent slope, elevation). Fire risk is determined by the chance of various ignition sources (lightning or human caused) to cause a fire that threatens valuable resources, life, and/or property. The resources of highest priority for protection within the Project Area are water quantity and quality (including the water treatment plant), and late-successional forest and associated organisms. In summary, the Project Area has missed 4 to 9 fire cycles, and based on the correlation of missed flfe cycles and increased area burned at high flfe severity, a fire starting in the vicinity oftheAshland Creek Watershed during extreme fire weather conditions, would likely result in a large percentage of the area burning at high flfe severity. Considering current vegetation conditions, the continued build-up of dead and down fuel loads, and the downsizing in Federal agency staffing levels (number of trained and available emergency fire fighters), a fire escaping initial attack would also have a greater potential than other fires experienced in the last 25 years to result in a large-scale fire (greater than 650 acres in size). Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-2 Ashland Watershed Protection Project ,.,..."..... ._. __""_.','..',~_'"""_...&'_ --_0-___'._"--- ,,"_^" 3. Purpose and NeedIDesired Future Condition The desired future condition for the Project Area is a forest that would be relatively fire safe. A fire safe forest would have: . surface fuel conditions that would limit the surface frreline intensity (flame lengths); . forested conditions comprised of fire tolerant trees; described in terms of species, sizes and structure (arrangement and condition); and . a low probability for crown fires (fires burning through the canopies of trees) to be initiated or spread through the forest (Agee 1996). The maintenance or development of a forest that would be relatively free of the potential for a crown fire to develop or spread, is dependent on the management of the surface fuels and crown fuels. If surface fuels are treated to reduce their flammability and intensity that would contribute to initiating a crown fire, and crown fuels are managed to reduce their density (crown bulk density), the potential for fire to ignite and spread through the crowns of trees is significantly reduced. In the Forest Service's professional judgment. to protect Ashland's Municipal Watershed and late- successional habitat. vegetation management treatments are needed in strategic areas within the Ashland Creek Watershed and adjacent drainages to reduce fire hazard and the potential for a large-scale high severity (stand replacing) wildfire. D. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION This Action is designed under the Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service, 1990) as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1994). The Project Area is allocated to Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve under the Northwest Forest Plan, and to Restricted Watershed under the RRNF Forest Plan. The Project Area is not located within an inventoried roadless area or a key watershed. National and Regional Policy and agreements with local government also provide direction for land management within the Project Area. A Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review was chartered in 1995 in response to the challenge of managing the increasing complexity and magnitude of wildland fire in the United States. The recommended set of Federal wildland fire policies are being incorporated into land and resource management plans ("Forest Plans") and fire management plans as they are revised. The policies are also being revised by supplements to the Forest Service Manual (FSM 5100 - Fire Management) on an incremental basis; and finally, the policies may be incorporated into project level environmental analyses, as appropriate. A Cooperative Agreement between the City of Ashland and the Forest Service for the management of the Ashland Watershed was originally approved in 1929. A Memorandum of Understanding drafted in 1985, and updated in 1996 and 1999, defmes the roles and responsibilities of both the City of Ashland and the Forest Service for the management of the Watershed. E. DECISION TO BE MADE The draft EIS provides a basis for decisions that must be made and documented in a forthcoming Record of Decision (ROD), and focuses on providing analysis sufficient to make a Federal decision whether to implement the project as proposed or through the selection of one of the alternatives considered (including the No-Action Alternative), a combination of alternatives, or blend of actions considered. Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-3 Ashland Watershed Protection Project ~,,,~_....~,,_., ---".. The Ashland District Ranger of the Rogue River National Forest is the Responsible Official who will decide: . if a fire hazard reduction proposal is appropriate for the protection of the Ashland Creek Watershed and Late-Successional Reserve objectives, and if so, which alternative would be implemented; and . if an action alternative is selected, the extent of the areas to be treated, the treatment prescriptions and methods to be used, the appropriate mitigation measures to be applied, and the scheduling of the project implementation. F. SCOPING AND ISSUES The draft EIS has been developed with extensive public participation which began during the environmental analysis process conducted with the originally proposed Ashland Interface Fire Hazard Reduction (HazRed) Project in July of 1996. The public involvement requirements ofNEP A (40 CFR 150 1.7) have been met in order to develop and publish an EIS with few or no surprises for the public. The Notice of Intent to prepare and Environmental Impact Statement was published in the Federal Register February 25, 1999 (64 FR 9307). While the draft EIS focuses on the significant issues listed below, all issues identified through scoping are considered in various resource analysis. The significant issues primarily serve as the basis for developing and comparing alternatives. The interdisciplinary team, with the approval of the Responsible Official, has identified the following as the significant issues associated with the Proposed Action: Issue #1: Impacts to Water Quality and Hydrologic Function Issue #2: Impacts to Soils and Site Productivity Issue #3: Impacts to Late-Successional Habitat and Late-Successional Reserve Function (Biological and Social Values) Issue #4: Impacts Associated with the Effectiveness of Fire Hazard Reduction Prescriptions Issue #5: Impacts Associated with the Economic Feasibility of Implementing Fire Hazard Reduction ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION Five alternatives, four action alternatives and a No-Action Alternative, are analyzed in detail in the draft EIS, including the Proposed Action and the Forest Service preferred alternative (Alternative 5). lIDs range of alternatives is designed to provide a variety of choices for the implementation of vegetation management for fire hazard reduction for the purpose of watershed protection. All alternatives (including the No-Action Alternative) assume that fire prevention and suppression activities would continue in the Project Area. Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-4 Ashland Watershed Protection Project .--,.."....._....~_..... ._.....__....."_e..~..__...__. "'''''-..<= Alternative 1 (No-Action) Alternative 1, No-Action, is used as a baseline against which to compare other alternatives. Under this alternative no vegetation management for the purpose of ftre hazard reduction would occur. No understory vegetation or fuels treatments would occur, no shaded fuel breaks would be maintained or constructed, no flank or density management treatments would occur. Agreements with the City of Ashland to conduct vegetation management for the purpose of ftre hazard reduction would be re- negotiated. Under the No-Action Alternative, there are two scenarios that could occur: . the frrst, assumes a no wildfire scenario; current forest stand conditions would continue gradually through natural forest successional processes without disturbance from a large-seale-high severity wildftre; and . the second, assumes a wildfire scenario; a large-scale high severity wildfire would reset the current vegetation to pioneer vegetation (grasses, forbs, and shrubs) conditions for extensive areas within the Watershed. ~~~( ~ ~\~~ ~~/~;~~'-~ ~.~~ ~~~~t~ i\ '" ("\~~ /~\~lJ~ ;n \~~) q~~\\ '(~'\~ I\, il'l,. -, ~' " n)))' \ I " ~). ,,~^~;', U\~ ~ \ " ' ;\0 \ \ ~6/~ ~ l.C ,,)\\) ,0 ~ ~ ~\\~,- ~ f.~" ,,\, / ~), /~ I~J(f""c.~> ~~\\2~~;,;'\J?) )~,' ~:~( ~- "'~ '~I ~'7, '\)/J)~~ ~~ .'\ "'~~~~:V ~)( "'r~~~ ~~!j; };7~ I ~~ ~~,~ ," ", ~~ 1)>f;j~~S \1-Jh', \ L W ~)))/!- r(c J~ ~ If ~J1:;k/ :-:~.~,<~,\ ,~Z'/C /r~ ~~r-~1~~~~JI' ~~~~ 1~~(?~ ///2 ~~~" 0-. ~-V:l~~~ I\~ jJ ( i'->' \~ ~~~ : r\' ~ ~ ~' I~ ~ '_\.<' '- ~(~~ ,1lA--;:: . \) 0.) ((. ~, ,; ~ e~ '\7]l)}1~ ~ ; ii" r;:.f! ~ ~ ~ '~" ~~ ' ,,? '" . J;) l?:- ~ =-/~~~~~ (( f( ~ l -. ~/ ",.1) ((;Ia.-i~ //1 \\uc::;:: ljl)~ ~~ ~;J ~, IJ}/ ~~\*~~ )\~, t '- "L'- =---~ ~J)J. \'~~~ ' \\;t~1 ~ //,l\ ,'- ~,:-' \~d~~:J((!I'{ir(~\" .~~< %)~!)(i ~\\ '\ \ :-n\' \;,0 ( i;~ ~ ~. . /) / ) 1 ~if.fJ 2,'" ' ~~ 1\\ ,_..:<::-_",,- /;~ .....'\.. \ \ l i IJ J T ~<~:~:)~~QJ)) I) J I \f!J((t<\::) ~~ ~?~'i\-~ ~) ~\1~/ (,( r- J) j 'j '~\( i ; '=\V{,>/"~ .. 1/ :..-~))(' ~ (, ~~~ '!( Ii /---.~~, \) (\1" ) ~/r:~: Proposed A.shland Watershed I.. 1 Ie ~... \\ _=:.- ,:)\\' \\\ -, I r) - Protection Project il l!i i\.~ + -'f ,N G. () \ ) '. , Altern.live 1 ~~ ..:- I '''''' \, ~ f; ;/j I NO-ACTION ,,;,--::- \\\\~//-~ ''/( /.-,1 /(,,' rr-- .J /.. Curren.Condl1lon ,~-.~~_ \,\\ /. "d, 'J +- -,.... f' ',J :,' \' ',))!>,':":-+'~. T ' ":" ... ... ., Protect Ar.. ~, , . I I'.. ,Jo.---==. ~ p I I __{,. i'l~ _ Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-5 Ashland Watershed Protection Project -.,...... "T4- .... '.',' __'~,~,~'''''''~___m'...__.. ...--- Because of the current vegetation conditions, the probability that no large-scale wildfires wouldoccur is low to highly unlikely; however, assessing a no wildfire scenario provides a neutral baseline against which to compare other alternatives including a no-action wildfire scenario. - A. COMPONENTS OF THE ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1. Vegetation Treatment Prescriptions Four vegetation treatment prescriptions were considered for analysis with this draft EIS: (1) understory vegetation management; (2) density management for fuels reduction; (3) shaded fuel break maintenance and construction; and (4) flank management. A brief description of each prescription and its objective: Understory veeetation and fuels treatments: The objective of this treatment prescription is to reduce the likelihood of forest stands to ignite a crown fire. To reduce fuel ladders, this prescription focuses on managing the understory vegetation (shrubs, small conifers, and hardwoods), generally up to 8 inches in diameter (depending on the treatment method used). This prescription would also treat existing dead and down fuels on the forest floor. Density manaeement for fuels reduction: The objective of density management for fuels reduction is to manage the vegetation to reduce the likelihood of forested stands to ignite and carry a crown fire. This prescription involves treating vegetation to reduce crown bulk densities, fuel ladder structure, and ground fuel buildup within strategically located areas to lower the fire hazard rating. On a landscape level, the fire hazard rating would be reduced to low (fires would average less than 4 foot flame lengths) within the stands treated. Generally, two types offorested stands are proposed for density management treatments for the purpose of fuels reduction, mature stands (multistoried uneven-aged to single storied even-aged) and young stands (mainly pine plantations resulting from the 1959 fire). Shaded fuel break maintenance and construction: Proposed for strategic ridgetops to manage the forest structure (reducing surface and ladder fuels, opening the forest canopy) to change wildfire behavior and chance for the initiation and spread of crown fires, allow fire retardant penetration, and provide safe areas for firefighters. This would be accomplished by managing: the canopies of codominant and dominant trees (trees that form the main or upper canopy of the forest) creating or maintaining 20 to 30 feet spacing between the tips of tree branches; snag density; the understory vegetation (shrubs, young trees, etc.); and the dead and downed fuel component (coarse woody material) on the forest floor to maintain around 1.5 to 2.0 tons per acre. Flank manaeement: Flanks are located adjacent to the ridgetop shaded fuel breaks, generally running parallel on both sides of the shaded fuel break. Flanks average 300 feet in width down slope from the edge of the fuel break. The forest structure is changed in the flank areas for the objectives of changing wildfire behavior before it reaches the shaded fuel break, opening the forest canopy to allow for fire retardant penetration, and providing firefighters a safe area to work. This is accomplished by: thinning the codominant and dominant trees of the overstory canopies to create 20 to 30 feet spacing between tree crowns; managing the understory vegetation (small trees and shrubs; managing snag densities; and managing deAd And down fuels on the forest floor to maintain about 5 to 10 tons per acre. 2. Vegetation Treatment Methods lbree treatment methods are proposed for treating vegetation to meet fire hazard reduction objectives, they include: (1) prescribed underburning, (2) manual, and (3) mechanical tree removal. Following is a brief description of each method: Prescribed underburnine: Prescribed underburning involves the controlled application of fire to understory vegetation when fuel moisture, soil moisture, and weather and atmospheric conditions allow the fire to be confined to a predetermined area and intensity to achieve the planned resource objectives (usually late-winter to spring). Follow-up maintenance burning is needed in 5 to 8 years following the initial underbum to remove the vegetation killed from the first prescribed underburn. Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-6 Ashland Watershed Protection Project "..~._"~".._,...,."",,,-._... Manual treatments: This involves hand cutting small trees (generally up to 8 inches diameter) and vegetation with chainsaws and hand tools, and post treatment disposal of the material. Mechanical tree removal: This involves removing the trees designated by fire hazard reduction prescriptions by utilizing a combination of helicopter, skyline cable, tractor, and horse yarding systems to move the trees from the treatment units to landing areas. From the landing area the trees are then removed from the forest by trucks. After designated trees are removed by manual and mechanical methods, post treatment fuels disposal is necessary to fully achieve fire hazard reduction objectives. This would be accomplished by hand piling and burning the slash, swamper burning (continuously feeding slash to small fires), jackpot burning (underburning concentrated areas of slash), or underburning. Alternative 2 The objective for Alternative 2 is replicate, to the extent possible, historical fire cycles for the Project Area. It reduces existing dead fuels on the forest floor and changes some of the vegetation structured to reduce the fire hazard. Alternative 2 responds to Issue #3 Impacts to late-successional habitat and Late- Successional Reserve function, and proposes the use of prescribed underburning to restore the historical vegetation conditions of the watershed. ( _35 ,-.. Proposed Ashland Watershed Protection ProJect ..",...d "."IiI-' Q,,'root Alternative 2 ; 'I..... , " "". Project A,.. i )~ i"2/_A1 Unit Do.ignlt,on II! (~_.~ .+ 08, Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-7 Ashland Watershed Protection Project Alternative 2 would function to minimize changes in late-successional structure by treating the understory vegetation and existing dead fuels on the forest floor on 1,394 acres. Density management _would be conducted on about 155 acres of pine plantations in the area of the 1959 fire, for a total of about 1,549 acres treated ,using prescribed underbuming only. Underburning would occur late winter to spring. Alternative 3 Alternative 3 maximizes the protection of soils and site productivity while treating some of the vegetation structure to reduce fire hazard. This alternative responds to Issue #2. Impacts to soils and site productivity. Although mainly designed to maximize soil protection., this alternative also responds to Issue #3. Impacts to late-successional habitat and Late-Successional Reserve function. This alternative would function to reduce the effects of prescribed fire on soil properties by manually treating only the understory vegetation structure and burning the vegetative debris by swam per burning in small piles (4 to 6 feet diameter) to reduce the percent of area affected by burning. This alternative would treat the understory vegetation and existing dead fuels on the forest floor on about 1,366 acres, selectively removing shrubs, small conifers, and hardwoods up to 8 inches diameter breast height (dbh). Density management would be conducted on about 155 of pine plantations in the area of the 1959 fire. ( .n Proposed Ashland Watershed Protection Project ...".,".. ""l\lJ"OI"'Io' Allern etive 3 , ...... .". Project A r.. ,. :,' /. !2/~A: Unit Do.ign.lion oe Draft Environmentallmpact Statement S-8 Ashland Watershed Protection Project Alternative 3 would treat vegetation on a total of 1,521 acres of the Project Area using only the manual treatment method, which is cutting small trees and vegetation with chainsaws and hand tool~. The vegetation residue created by this treatment method and pre-existing dead and down material would be disposed of by continuously feeding material into small swamper bum piles. Alternative 4 This alternative would minimize change to late-successional forest structures while completing vegetation management to reduce the fire hazard. This alternative responds to Issue #3. Impacts to late-successional habitat and Late-Successional Reserve function (biological and social values). Alternative 4 would function to minimize changes in late-successional forest structure by mechanically removing only selected trees less than 17 inches dbh. A combination of treatment methods would be used to achieve treatment prescriptions: 452 acres of mechanical tree removal, 32 acres of manual treatments, 287 acres of manual treatment or prescribed underburning, and 778 acres of prescribed underburning. Alternative 4 would conduct understory vegetation and fuels treatments on an estimated 874 acres, and density management for fuels reduction on an estimated 675 acres, for a total of 1,549 acres treated. Shaded fuel break construction, maintenance and flank treatments are not included. ':' .'\\.\'.-// ~.' -\r;.... ,:,') \l~::-\.:'~~~I'\ ~ I,.~ .':-~' ~ \. \< ,-:</.~. ,.I'\'\~rn---=: ': ~ \.\ ~S. \ -;;'':..'<~ 'j I ,~ l7');Y,\ \ ~ :\ (', ;:'~N "".\ ,'. ,,'f) 'C)"f AI~~ ,'::: _~ . ') If.'f/;, , ,(( 'r-'., {A ~ -..JJl //...:..-- ~ \lj.' \ ~~ ~ ~-.~ ~ ~"~ '(!~I~ t) \'~ ; ~ ,~Jh \ \ v: ,___~ )) 'c: I ., ~ \\':'C.~v l- )) I"" ~ ~hi · ~~) ~2~~ @ }ll( ~ =0 i~~~,~~ ~~ ~!/ ~ 0 ~ ~t _ ~(/ :\ ,\.~\l\.!Jn)) i) ,) ~ ~ 1 GII ,)' ~ /".TI/ ~<:~~ ~\\~/ ~ ~ I \I ~~ J))) r ~,~ ~~~ ~(~~ I ~~ '/1:i% 1m), ,\.\( ",,' :\\')))) < ~. IV:'-~) ~J~~ID;%~~~~~~ ~ ~ 'IL~~I~?~)(~ \'\~ Nk.I.~..-::'. ....) Proposed Ashland Watershed ~ ,\ ; ,\\ ~~" ) \ \ \["))"-u ( Protection Project ~'\Ii S"- ) } ) \ ''i.,'l';~.r~';~'i.:~...t )):;." '/-f >-\' \\.' \ r (([ i!(//~' \,.1 . :::.: ...,.."... \'i~ ~~~t ~< ~\ \) f(~?(/(\/-~' ,- P,opoud Rood R.con."uc..on,\/I/~~ ~: ~t.;.~~-:r;; ~ (~ 1'\1 Jf /~ \(l\\ Iii {~ I I NoncommefClal Tr..tmen, M.thod. ~;::=--: - .>_ ,':::J._,-. I )/ J., 1/ J /'..Y.~ -:J-.~\;\ ':l~' , '/;~ .' V' ('~/II,r'{l ''->'''1 . Commerc.aITr..tmentMelhod. ;/~;:'~:-:-:.~ , \1 /___~-"I . ~c.; / ,/"'./,' /,-/,: \')' i_I. / ~,C;..;"I.." \;i~l~'/ '~ ,I ,,'f, ;, . r. .-/ ,\,,1';" "'.' , . /~.-;" I" ~'. C .~ -:- _'M'::" oa '/ I~ 'f .:.. "", , (,~lI~~.lt J~ ~}.I-;t~~~< ~;.!~~ '~~..\:s~~Jj\1J f'j, MAP 11-4! ' ~\\1~li" \ ',\'3]6; I I , II \ \ \: \ ~'C: ~ L.\~ ;::: -.... \ \J ~~ .~). ~ ~' ~~(II/: lt~,'" () (/ f r/::. '\ 'V \~ \ f/:I/ / y. JJ?J: ~~ ~ ' 'i.J:./ ~ ~ . ~ '-= -...aI rJ ~ ~tl ~ ~~.~ )Q)!: :,..;: ; ,1/,,: Unit D..ign.tion ... P,opo..d H.ttcopl., lending Con.uuction Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-9 Ashland Watershed Protection Project ,.~,~._,.- Vegetative debris (slash) created from manual and mechanical treatment methods, and existing dead and down material, would be disposed of through handpiling and burning, swamper burning (6-10 ft. diameter piles), jackpot burning (burning concentrated areas of dead and down fuels), or underburning~ If enough slash material is generated at tree landing sites (7 to 8 truckloads of chipped material) to make it economically feasible, tub grinders would be used to chip slash. Alternative 5 (proposed Action) Alternative 5 would maximize fire hazard reduction in the Project Area for the protection of the Ashland Municipal Watershed and Late-Successional Reserve values within the guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan and Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Alternative 5 would function to maximize fire hazard reduction by maintaining 8.5 miles of existing shaded fuel breaks (205 acres), constructing 0.4 mile of new shaded fuel break (13 acres), managing shaded fuel break flanks (401 acres), conducting density management for fuels reduction (301 acres), and conducting understory vegetation management treatments (629 acres). This alternative would treat vegetation on a total of 1,549 acres. 1~'.\'.~'~~lIIf"'\!I<I/ i~II,"'. ':~M~~:~~~~Jt~JM:~I>. " \....__ t))~\ \ >, ~'l~ 11/ , \~....'.... \'( 0....... (, ~ / " ( '(y, . ,,?; ~ .TI'\.\\ 1 ,,,,- - '1' / \ \ " 'j; , ~ ~ I ) ~ "\' '~\ \ 'tI:-- ~ ~,,\1 ': > / f"; \) ( ~ ~0~\~:'/---:::'~')' -f( '-...'~~ w ,J )!\~ ~ J}f ~r~ ~ ~ ~,,~\ ~0))~;:- /" ( t ~~~- ,j~1 ~ ~),~~~ :1\ ~ 'If ~<.-("" , ~~ ,.....< ~ I' 'o' N \ \'(1-..: ."... Q /1 , ' \~~'~J:j ~~?\ ~ 1\ ~ ~ )~ ~(~ \'J I ~~ ')(0f,0~/'-- ~'Ih \ 'l 'J ~ IWII ~M~ ~ IS \1.Xdr ~~::-;;: ","--.:.: ~ rJ ~ .Ai 1.\~0~~, ~ fife ~~(~ ~ ~ ~. ~~--;~. ~ jJ ~ ~'/ ::::: \\~ - :lIm > W ~ 2 \. ~ / "' ~fiL~)I ~(~ ~ ~~rl::J)))1 ~ :I: ~Il't,:::~ Jrr7;~ ~ --....- /f///-:- '?- h .-;' )~. fill cr~ .....---....~ r I ~ ;. ~)' ~v~~~ ~~ ir ~1 l~' / (f'\.. V ~~ ~ 1'..--:: ))1 'J/ ,\.,' ~'\'ll l\"; '( ,w...... \\~ :J~ _/JJ);J) Vi 'f~\' ~~~)@I~ ~ - '\ - \ W/J?) \I '~~I'J)I '~~ ~~-.'<:' , " :~:~-/~ ,- '\\~...\\i ~\\., 1,1 . ~...... 1 ( ProposedAshlandWatershed S~~\' ~ \\l - I l V;':'\ji . Protection Project . :;;; \ r) Nj)J,J It!',.\,' / ~ AAI';~.r~';;'i':~"5' ~I f/"\ , \ ~C )J f r; f -, lJ.- (- . ~ 111 a ~V J 'I !;/ k-__ /i,--- ... ~. Proj.ct Ar.. /) J ,,~____J '\\) \ 1 ! ((I </\ [. , .i ;,- ! ..-,_.' P,oPooodRoodRocono"UClIon, V/-~y.'l\':\....~~ ) 1/) :!-J}:,~'j.\ \1' 1\.;,pJ.~l I j Noncommorclal TrOl,mont M.'ho~.~.::::-:::I~.::....;:. ~4"~1~~ ( l/l0.'.'/~..;y ~ ~.; )_:J.:'.'~J( . F.m -;; ~ ~~v......-: " ( /If/'::: II.; ! 'j r< ::.. j ,,/ IIlmI Comm.rclIl Tr...mon. M.'hodo ::::/./"-;::--.'~ \\~\~ ?' '. ~(_. /r'>. i /--:' I (( -;;; r, 1,111... UnitO..ign.tton ~~~\1\\\\ ... //--. ,IJ..- _,ft.. ,-71'. \'. . '.~' ~--: ";" , L "n" .. Propo..dHelioopt.r 0..,'./")': (. .'_.---:::::: . l... I I Landlnil Con.'rue,ton (/' - - Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-IO Ashland Watershed Protection Project A combination of treatment methods would be used to implement treatment prescriptions: 452 acres of mechanical tree removal (no diameter limit), 32 acres of mlikual treatments, 287 acres of manual treatment or prescribed underburning, and 778 acres of prescribed underburning. Vegetative debris (slash) created from manual and mechanical treatment methods, and existing dead and down material, would be disposed of through handpiling and burning, swamper burning (6-10 ft. diameter piles), jackpot burning (burning concentrated areas of dead and down fuels), or underburning. If enough slash material is generated at tree landing sites (7 to 8 truckloads of chipped material) to make it economically feasible, tub grinders would be used to chip slash. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section briefly summarizes the affected environment and environmental consequences based on the significant issues identified to be associated with implementing the Proposed Action. and provides a comparison of how each alternative addresses the significant issues. While this summary focuses on the significant issues, all issues identified through scoping are considered in the various resource analysis contained in the draft EIS. SYSDYN5 is the name of a program used to model how random fire events might interact with a dynamic ecosystem through time. It integrates concepts of natural succession. fire event frequency, fire effects and management activities in a flow system based on the concepts of SYStem DYNamics. This model provides a framework for addressing issues of risk related to sustaining levels of late-successional habitat' through time. Modeling and analysis was based on current vegetative conditions (successional stages), rates of vegetation succession (with and without disturbance), annual fire frequencies, local fire management strategies, site specific topographic features, and local weather and atmospheric conditions. The fire analysis area used for running this model included National Forest System Lands within the Ashland Creek (East Fork, West Fork, and below Reeder Reservoir), Tolman Creek, Roca Creek, and Hamilton Creek Watersheds. The results ofSYSDYN5 modeling (weighted average fire size, cumulative acres burned, and acres maintained by successional stage) are used throughout the analysis of effects of implementing the Proposed Action and alternatives. It provides a basis for a comparison of how effective each alternative would be in meeting the purpose and need for protecting the Municipal Watershed and Late-Successional Reserve values. Issue #1: Impacts on Water Quality and Hydrologic Functions The Ashland Watershed Protection Project Area contains portions of six watersheds including East Fork of Ashland Creek, West Fork of Ashland Creek, the tributary area below Reeder Reservoir, and the headwaters ofRoca, Hamilton, and Tolman Creeks. All of these ultimately enter Bear Creek, a tributary of the Rogue River Basin. Reeder Reservoir, located mostly on City of Ashland property, collects the waters of both East Fork and West Fork of Ashland Creek and serves as Ashland's domestic supply of water. Maximum peak stream flows have resulted from rain-on-snow events. When rain fall and snow melt are synchronized, there is often a substantial increase in peak flow, and flooding may occur. However, in comparison to summer thunderstorms, winter storms have historically brought the most devastating flooding in southwest Oregon. The most severe floods occurred in the winters of 1853, 1861, 1890, 1927, 1948, 1955, 1964,1974, and 1997. The most recent flood (New Years Day 1997) flood was a 25 to 30 year event (a level or magnitude of flooding that would be expected to occur only once in 25-30 years). Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-II Ashland Watershed Protection Project .._........-~~.".- Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), Ashland Creek below the Project Area and Forest boun~ (from the:: Ashland City limits to its mouth) has beer. -identified by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) as a Section 303(d) Water Quality Limited (WQL) water body for bacteria. Also below the Project Area and Forest boundary, Bear Creek (from its mouth to Neil Creek) is identified as a 303(d) listed water body for flow, habitat modifications, summer temperatures, and bacterial levels. There would. be no increase in bacteria levels in lower Ashland or Bear Creeks as a result of implementing any of the alternatives considered. There would be little or no change in base flow, increase in water temperature, or adverse impacts on habitat parameters in lower Ashland or Bear Creek as a result of implementing any of the action alternatives. Except for sedimentation, water quality is very high within the Project Area. Summer-water temperatures rarely exceed 60 degrees Fahrenheit for extended periods oftime; the maximum 7-day average temperature recorded in the East Fork of Ashland Creek was 64.4 degrees during the extreme low flow resulting from the 1994 drought. There would be no increase in water temperatures in the East and West Fork, and main stem of Ashland Creek as a result of any of the action alternatives since no stream shade would be removed as a result of propo~ed activities. Within the Project Area, the only Section 303(d) listed water body is Reeder Reservoir, which is listed for sediment. This is largely due to the naturally highly erosive and unstable granitics that occupy large portions of the Ashland Watershed (see Geology and Soils). Potential impacts to water quality and hydrologic function are influenced by the relative risk for accelerating landslide activity, impacts to soils, increasing the amount of hydrologically immature vegetation in a watershed, increasing road density, and reducing the shade produced by vegetation over streams. Debris landslides are a common natural phenomenon in the Ashland Watershed, and one of the primary mechanisms for the delivery of coarse sediment to streams within the Project Area. Landslide activity can be accelerated by management activities. Slope stability mapping, referred to as Landslide Hazard . Zonation (LHZ) mapping, was completed prior to, and following the January 1997 flood event. Hazard Zone 1 is the highest risk zone, and Hazard Zone 2 is also high-risk terrain and usually occurs above Hazard Zone 1 areas. The acres treated by treatment method in Hazard Zone 2, and relative risk for each alternative to accelerate a moderate landslide are used as indicators to compare how each alternative affects slope stability and potential for sediment production. No activities would occur in Hazard Zone 1 terrain with any action alternative. · The no wildfire scenario of the No-Action Alternative has the lowest risk for accelerated landslide activity (5 percent risk-natural rate), since no action is proposed, no Hazard Zone 2 areas would be entered, and wildfires would be 10 acres or less. · Actions proposed under Alternatives 2 through 5 would enter 223 to 224 acres of Hazard Zone 2 areas contributing to a slight increase in the relative risk of accelerating landslide activity over baseline conditions, the risk ranging from 8 to 12 percent. . Alternative 2 would underburn 224 acres of Hazard Zone 2 and has the second to lowest risk for accelerating landslide activity; Alternative 3 would have the least risk for of the action altenratives, treating 223 acres of Hazard Zone 2 by removing only small understory vegetation with manual treatments only; Alternatives 4 and 5 are siniilar in risk, both treating 77 acres of Hazard Zone 2 with mechanical tree yarding, 121 acres with underbuming, 20 acres with manual or underburning; 4 acres with manual treatment methods. · The wildfire scenario of the No-Action Alternative has the highest relative risk for accelerating landslide activity. Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-l2 Ashland Watershed Protection Project Activities increasing the area of exposed mineral soil could lead to increased areas of detrimental soil erosion (areas 100 square feet and 5 feet wide) and potential for sediment production. However, the potential for sediment to enter the stream determines the risk for adverse impacts to water quality. . The no wildfire scenario of the No-Action Alternative would result in the least area in detrimental soil condition (< 10 acres) and the lowest potential for sediment delivery to streams and Reeder Reservoir. . Alternatives 2 through 5 would result in 0 to 15 percent of the area treated in detrimental soil conditions as a result of proposed activities. . Of the action alternatives considered, Alternatives 4 and 5 would have a greater potential than alternatives 2 and 3 to accelerate sediment to waterways. This is a result of concentrating water (which carries sediment) into drainage systems associated with roads, landings, and skid trails. However, mitigation measures (Best Management Practices) are designed to reduce this potential for accelerating sediment produced to waterways. . Alternative 3 would have little or no potential for sediment delivery to streams since it would. not result with any area in detrimental soil condition. . The wildfire scenario of the No-Action Alternative shows the greatest area (19,000 acres or 50 percent of the area burned by wildfire) resulting in detrimental soil conditions from cumulative area burned by wildfire. Increasing the proportion of a watershed in hydrologically immature vegetation and increasing the road density (indicators of watershed condition) can have adverse impacts on the hydrologic function (base flow and channel maintenance/peak flow) of a watershed. . The no wildfire scenario of the No-Action Alternative would have no substantial increase in proportion of watersheds in hydrologically immature vegetation or road density (wildfires 10 acres or less), therefore, would have no change in base flow or channel maintenance and peak flow. . Alternatives 2 through 5 would not contribute to any substantial increase in proportion of watersheds in hydrologically immature vegetation and road density, therefore, would have only minor change (if any) in base flow or peak flow. . The wildfire scenario of the No-Action Alternative could result in substantial proportions of watersheds set back to hydrologically immature vegetation and would have the greatest potential for adverse impacts on base and peak flow (including catastrophic flood events). . The alternatives considered would not increase road density in the watersheds affected by this proposal. Under Alternatives 2 through 5, wildfire events could still occur. As a result of wildfires, there would be impacts on geologically unstable areas and soils that could lead to indirect effects on water quality from increased sediment production. Wildfires would also remove vegetation resulting in an increase in proportion of watersheds in hydrologically immature vegetation and reduction in stream shade. However, with vegetation management treatments proposed under Alternatives 2 through 5, wildfires would likely be contained to relatively smaller (compared to No-Action) fire sizes depending on the effectiveness of fire hazard reduction strategies by alternative. The impacts from wildfire on geologically unstable areas, soils, hydrologic function and water quality would progressively decrease under Alternatives 2 through 5 as the effectiveness of fire hazard reduction strategies increase. Alternative 5 would have the lowest overall risk (considering actions proposed and the potential wildfire effects) for accelerating landslides, impacting soils, impacts to hydrologic function, and impacts to water quality, as a result of reduced area burned by wildfire. Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-13 Ashland Watershed Protection Project ~-"~~,-,-_.,.",,._,.,~...._",,_...._.,~~.,.._.__.,. "-- Issue #2: Impacts on Soils and Site Productivity Soils in the Project Area of the Ashland Watershed are derived from quartz diorite bedrock (generally referred to as granitic bedrock) that has been weathered into a sandy loam topsoil and a gravelly loam subsoil. Duff and litter thickness vary between 1.5 and 3.5 cm and in most proposed units the average duff cover is greater than 90 percent. Areas where less than 90 percent soil cover has been found are on very steep slopes (> 70 percent slope gradients) with northeast to east, and southwest to west aspects. Soils have been classed as having a severe to very severe erosion hazard rating on the steeper slopes because of a combination of factors which include non-cohesive sandy texture of the soil, general lack of coarse fragments, and steeper slope gradients. Soils of the Project Area are also rated as having a high to very high compaction hazard potential, and are very susceptible to displacement by equipment or vehicles. Detrimental soil conditions occur when changes in soil properties result in unacceptable reductions in productivity, or changes in water quality or hydrologic function occur. Management activities can result in direct effects on the soil which are usually in the fonn of alterations to physical or chemical soil properties, or the actual removal of soil from the site. The processes known to have the greatest direct effects on the soil resource are: compaction, displacement, puddling, burned soil, removal of organic matter, and surface erosion. The potential for fire hazard reduction treatments to impact soil properties, leading to effects to water quality and site productivity, are measured by assessing acres and percentage of the area treated resulting in detrimental soil condition by treatment method (underburning, manual, mechanical); The potential for cumulative impacts to soil properties from wildfire, leading to effects to water quality and site productivity, are measured by assessing acres potentially resulting in detrimental soil condition from predicted wildfires burning within the fire analysis area over a 200 year period. · The no wildfire scenario of the No-Action Alternative would result in the least area in detrimental soil condition and the lowest impacts to soil properties. . Of the action alternatives considered, Alternative 3 would not result in detrimental soil conditions; Alternatives 4 and 5 would result in 136 to 180 acres (9-12 percent of the area treated in detrimental soil conditions; and Alternative 2 would result in 232 acres (15 percent of the area treated) in detrimental soil conditions. . The wildfire scenario of the No-Action Alternative shows the greatest area (19,000 acres or 50 percent of the area burned by wildfrre) resulting in detrimental soil conditions from cumulative area burned by wildfire. Issue #3: Impacts on Late Successional Habitat and Late-Successional Reserve Function The Project Area falls within the Mt. Ashland Late Successional Reserve (LSR) which covers an estimated 51,512 acres. The LSR straddles the Siskiyou Crest and lies mostly within the Ashland Watershed of the Rogue River National Forest to the north, and the Beaver Creek Watershed of the Klamath National Forest to the south. Considering the Regional context, the Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve is part of a network of Reserves that generally covers three major mountain ranges in the Pacific Northwest: the Cascades, the Klamath, and the Coast Ranges. Plants and animals tend to use major mountain ridges and rivers for migration and dispersal, which are essential processes for natural selection, and in the long-term, evolution. Where these features come together, such as where the Siskiyous, Cascades, Klamath River, and the Siskiyou Pass meet, there is often greater species diversity than surrounding areas. Each feature Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-14 Ashland Watershed Protection Project acts as a conveyor to and from its extremes, constantly bringing new genetic combinations together. Specifically, the Mt. Ashland LSR is a critical node in the overall migratory patterns in the Pacific Northwest, linking the high elevation Siskiyou range of the Klamath Mountains with the southern Oregon Cascades. The Soda Mountain LSR, immediately to the east of the Mt. Ashland LSR is highly fragmented by ownership patterns and past land use. Additionally, the Soda Mountain LSR is separated from the Mt. Ashland LSR by Interstate 5 which is a barrier for some animal species. LSRs to the immediate west and southwest are more continuous, lack significant migratory barriers, and over half the area in each is in late-successional condition providing good quality connectivity to the west. Late-successional habitat within the Mt. Ashland LSR exists with a varying range of canopy layering, amount of snags, dead and down woody material and stand decline. Of the 14, 980 acres of late- successional habitat occurring in the LSR, 8,370 acres are within the northern pOrtion of the LSR on the Ashland Ranger District, and 1807 acres are within the Project Area. The Mt. Ashland LSR Assessment identified large-scale high severity wildfire as the greatest threat for loss of late successional habitat. With the proposal of vegetation management to reduce fire hazard, it is important to compare the impacts as a result of project implementation to the long-term implications concerning the maintenance of late-successional habitat both temporally and spatially. Impacts to late successional habitat and Late-Successional Reserve Function (biological and social values) are measured by assessing: . Acres of late-successional habitat treated by method (prescribed underbuming, manual, or mechanical); . Acres of late-successional characteristics removed (changed from late-successional forest to open canopy forest), acres of late-successional characteristics modified; . Percentage oflate-successional habitat treated within the entire Mt. Ashland LSR, the North Zone of the LSR, and Project Area; . Acres of mid-successional habitat (11-17/17-24 inch dbh) treated by treatment method, and . Acres of mature habitat maintained in 200 years by senescent, old-growth, and late-successional conditio~ as a result of this project proposal and predicted (cumulative) wildfire occurrences over a 200 year period. Under Alternative 1, No-Actio~ no vegetation management treatments would occur and no late- successional habitat wouid be disturbed as a result of proposed management activities. Under the no wildfire scenario, SYSDYN5 computer model outputs show that 15,000 acres of mature habitat would be maintained in 200 years. Greater than 13,000 acres of this mature habitat would De in over-mature (senescent) forest conditions. Although these conditions usually provide quality late successional habitat, the susceptibility of these stands to disturbance risks, such as fire, is high. Alternatives 2 through 5 would all treat the same amount oflate successional habitat, 505 acres (3.4 percent of the late-successional habitat occurring within the entire Mt. Ashland LSR; 6.0 percent of the late-successional habitat within the north zone of the LSR; and 27.9 percent of the late-successional habitat occurring within the project area). On a landscape and regional scale, implementation of fire hazard reduction prescriptions on less than 4 percent of the late-successional habitat within the Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve would have little direct or indirect effects on species dispersal processes, especially when compared to other existing barriers such as the 1-5 corridor and other land uses. Of the acres treated with the action alternatives, Alternative 3 would result in the least change in late successional forest characteristics by only removing trees and dead and down coarse wood less than 8 inches in diameter. Alternative 2 would mainly reduce the understory vegetation structure and existing dead fuels on the forest floor, however, some of the mature overstory trees would suffer mortality from Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-15 Ashland Watershed Protection Project ,~~-"'-... .....------ underbuming. Alternatives 4 and 5 would both treat 190 acres oflate-successional habitat mechanically, 273 acres with underburning, 4 acres with manual treatments, and 38 acres with manual or underbuming treatments. Alternative 4 would change the late-successional forest structure less than Altern~tive 5 since it would not remove trees 17 inches or greater. Under Alternatives 2 through 5, wildfires would likely still occur; however, with vegetation treatments to reduce fare hazard, the size of wildfires would be contained to smaller fire sizes than the wildfare scenario. Of the action alternatives SYSDYN5 computer model outputs show Alternative 2 would maintain the smallest amount of mature habitat (10,400 acres) over a 200 year period. Alternatives 3 and 4 show similar amounts of mature habitat at 12,000 and 12,300 acres respectively. SYSDYN5 computer model outputs show Alternative 5 would maintain the greatest amount of mature habitat of the action alternatives in a 200 year period, with larger proportion of mature habitat in the old-growth (4,900 acres) and late-successional habitat (5,250 acres), and a lower proportion in the over-mature (senescent) forest condition (2,800 acres). Alternative 5 provides the most effective protection of Late-Successional Reserve values over the long-term by compartmentalizing landscape units and allowing for safe and effective fire suppression. Issue #4: Impacts Associated with the Effectiveness of Fire Hazard Reduction Prescriptions Vegetation adjacent to the existing 9.5 miles of shaded fuel breaks within the Project Area is comprised of dense overstocked stands ranging from young ponderosa pine plantations (most of which resulted from the 1959 Ashland Creek Fire) to mature single and multi-storied stands. Heavy fuel loads are produced as competition and moisture stress cause forest stands to self-thin. The current average dead and down fuel loading ranges from 10 to 35 tons per acre. This creates a probability of fire intensity where wildfire easily spreads to the crowns of trees, carried by the continuous vertical and horizontal vegetation (fuel ladders). Fire adapted species (ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, sugar pine) have experienced high mortality rates since the late 1980s in the large tree component. This is due to the increase of vegetation competition and drought conditions that occurred in the early 1 980s through early the 1990s. The Helikopter Salvage Sale (1990/91) was implemented to remove dead and dying trees to reduce buildup of fuels and fire hazard; post treatment fuels disposal including handpiling and burning and underburning occurred in areas where slash was from the sale was concentrated. The average dead and down fuel loading in Watershed areas not treated with the 1990/91 Helikopter Salvage Sale may reach 200 plus tons per acre where concentrations of beetle or dwarf mistletoe killed trees continues to occur. The comparison of alternatives occurred considering the effectiveness of each alternative to reduce fare size, intensity, and adverse fare effects to the Mt. Ashland LSR, Ashland Watershed and adjacent drainages. For all alternatives, wildfares would continue to be an influence to the Mt. Ashland LSR, AsWand Creek Watershed, adjacent drainages and the forest/urban interface of the City of Ashland. Based on the methodologies and constraints of each alternative, the efficacy of achieving hazard reduction would determine the degree of severity, fire size, and effects to the fire environment. With Alternative 1 (under both scenarios), no fire hazard reduction activities would occur at this time. This alternative assumes that current fare suppression capability is maintained. . Under the No-Action Alternative (no wildfire scenario), the assumption is that all fires would be kept to 10 acres or less over the 200 year period. It is highly unlikely that this scenario would occur given the present vegetation conditions and fare suppression organization and capabilities. Accomplishing this scenario would require a very large initial attack and reinforcement capability, including immediate availability of aviation resources during the fire season. Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-16 Ashland Watershed Protection Project ~.,~,--,-,>,""",,- · Under the No-Action Alternative (wildfire scenario), wildfIres would occur within the fIre analysis area. Modeling successional processes over 200 years, large fIre episodes would burn much of the forest/urban interface and signifIcant portions of adjacent drainages on National Forest and private land. SYSDYN5 modeling shows the cumulative area burned over a 200 year period to be 38,000 acres (with a some areas likely burning more than once) under this No-Action scenario. Under Alternative 2: . prescribed underburning would not increase the spacing between the canopies of the overstory trees; · ladder fuels would not be reduced or maintained, to a level that would maintain or improve the effectiveness of the existing shaded fuel breaks system; . dense forest canopies (particularly on steep slopes) would contribute to high fIre intensity and crown fIre initiation and spread;. . fIre retardant penetration and its effectiveness as a fIre suppression tool would be hindered; . snags would occur at higher densities causing concern for fIrefIghter safety; . SYSDYN5 shows that the average weighted fIre sizes during moderate, high, and severe fire weather conditions would be 375,809, and 1,183 acres respectively, with 28,500 cumulative acres burned over a 200 year period; . This alternative would, over the long-term, move the Project Area toward meeting the fIre ecology objectives of restoring fire resilient plant communities more resistant to large-scale high severity wildfIre. Under Alternative 3: . manual treatment of vegetation up to 8 inches diameter would not reduce ladder fuels or present dead and down fuel loading to sufficiently alter fIre hazard; . Ladder fuels and canopies would not be reduced, opened, or maintained to a level that would maintain or improve the effectiveness of the existing shaded fuel break system; . dense forest canopies (particularly on steep slopes) would contribute to high fIre intensity and crown fIre initiation and spread; . fIre retardant penetration would be hindered, including its effectiveness as a fire suppression tool; . snags would occur at higher densities causing concern for firefIghter safety; · SYSDYN5 computer modeling shows the average weighted fare sizes during moderate, high, and severe fIre weather conditions would be 364, 818, and 1,258 acres respectively, with 26,500 acres burned cumulative over a 200 year period; · fire ecology objectives to restore fIre resilient plant communities resistant to large-scale high severity fire would not be achieved. Under Alternative 4: · vegetation management using a 17 inch diameter limit on the trees removed mechanically would not sufficiently reduce ladder fuels or open canopies to a level that would maintain or improve the effectiveness of the existing shaded fuel break system; · forest canopies may be maintained in more open conditions for the short-term, however, would resort to closed canopy forest over the long term, contributing to higher fare intensity and crown fIre initiation and spread; . fIre retardant penetration and its effectiveness as a fIre suppression tool would be hindered; . snags would occur at higher densities causing concern for fIrefIghter safety; · SYSDYN 5 computer modeling shows the average weighted fare sizes during moderate, high, and severe fIre weather conditions would be 276, 696, and 1,048 acres respectively, with 22,500 acres burned cumulatively over a 200 year period; · fIre ecology objectives to restore and maintain fIre resilient plant communities more resistant to large- scale high severity fIre, would be difficult to achieve, since forest stands would be maintained as closed canopy forest over the long-term. Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-17 Ashland Watershed Protection Project ~""""""".,"~,~_..,_..., ~_.,-...,.'--,".-._~-_.._,-_._. -_... Under Alternative 5: · alternative would maintain the existing shaded fuel break system (about 8.5 miles of the ~xisting 9.5 miles) and construct a section (0.4 mile) of new shaded fuel break to increase the effectiveness of the existing system. · Areas adjacent to shaded fuel breaks would be treated through a combination of prescribed fire, manual, or mechanical treatments managing vegetation to reduce the chance for crown fire initiation and spread; increasing the effectiveness of the existing shaded fuel break system. · SYSDYN5 computer modeling shows the average weighted fire sizes during moderate, high, and severe fire weather conditions would be 216, 510, and 679 acres, respectively, with 16,000 acres burned cumulative over a 200 year period. the lowest of all alternatives (except the no wildfire scenario of Alternative 1). · flI'e ecology objectives to restore and maintain fire resilient plant communities more resistant to large- scale high severity fire, would be achieved over the long-term. All action alternatives show positive cumulative effects of flI'e hazard reduction on the landscape scale, when combined with fire hazard reduction efforts of the City of Ashland and private landowners. However, the probability of success in reducing the risk of large-scale stand replacing wildfire increases with the progressive effectiveness of each action alternative. Issue #5: Impacts Associated with the Economic Feasibility of Fire Hazard Reduction An economic analysis model called Decision Analysis (Hirsch, Radloff, Schopfer, Wolfe, and Yancik 1981), combining quantitative modeling with decision theory, was completed for all the alternatives. This is an analysis process used for determining fuel management decisions that involve complex, dynamic, and uncertain factors such as future fire occurrence, weather, flI'e behavior, and fire size. The objective of using Decision Analysis is to provide a decision-maker the informatiOl~ needed to determine which alternative(s) would minimize the combined treatment costs and projected resources losses as a result of fire. Decision Analysis calculates the expected outcome (expected cost-plus-loss value) of each alternative based on the probability-weighted average of all possible outcomes including whether a wildfire would/would not occur, and the probability for a fire of a given size and intensity to occur. The expected outcome is the sum of the products of outcome probabilities and outcome values. From this information, the cost of fire suppression, net resource value change of acres burned, and per acre treatment costs (offset from the net positive cash flow from the sale of trees under Alternatives 4 and 5) are combined to give the expected outcome (expected cost-plus-loss value) for each alternative. Cost plus loss value figures are calculated such that a lower total amount reflects increased economic efficiency. Based on the analysis: · Alternative 1 (wildfire scenario) has the highest cost-plus-loss value at $374,512; · Alternatives 2 and 3 result in similar cost-plus-loss values ranging from $276,000 to $280,033; · Alternative 4 shows the second to the lowest cost-plus-loss value at $226,083, and · Alternative 5 shows the lowest cost-plus-loss value at $164,125; reflecting smaller weighted average fire sizes as a result of the effectiveness of fire hazard reduction prescriptions, thus, lower flI'e suppression costs, less net value change, and treatment costs offset by the sale of trees Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-18 Ashland Watershed Protection Project '...............-- The net value change figures are calculated such that a higher total amount represents a grea!er loss, associated with forest resource values: · This value is similar for Alternatives 2 and 3, at $60,000 to $61,000; · Alternative 4 resulted in the second to the lowest net value change at $49,511; · Alternative 5 showed the lowest net value change at $35,781, reflecting smaller weighted average fire sizes as a result of the effectiveness of fire hazard reduction prescriptions. This summary of the draft EIS provides a brief overview of the Ashland Watershed Protection Project, the significant issues identified to be associated with the implementation of a fire hazard reduction proposa~ the alternatives developed, and the affected environment and environmental consequences based on the significant issues. Detailed documentation of the entire analysis is contained in the complete text of the Ashland Watershed Protection Project draft EIS, available upon request from the address listed below. Comments: The draft EIS comment period concludes on October 18, 1999. Responses must be postmarked by October 18, 1999. Send responses to: Linda Duffy, District Ranger Ashland Ranger District 645 Washington Street Ashland, OR 97520 Phone: (541) 482-3333 FAX: (541) 858-2402 Important Notice: Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with their comments during the review period of the draft EIS. This will enable the Forest Service to analyze and respond to the comments at one time and to use information acquired in the preparation of the final EIS, thus avoiding undue delay in the decision-making process. Reviewers have an obligation to structure their participation in the National Environmental Policy Act process so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewer's position and contentions; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Coro. v. NRDC. 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft EIS stage but that are not raised until after completion of the fmal EIS may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel. 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages. Inc. v. Harris. 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Comments on the draft EIS should be specific and should address the adequacy of the statement and the merits of the alternatives discussed (40 CFR 1503.3). Draft Environmental Impact Statement S-19 Ashland Watershed Protection Project . .--...........~-~~'~.- , ACS ANPR AQMA BMPs CEQ CFR CWE DBH (dbh) DEQ EA EIS EPA ESA FS FWS IDT KMP LHZ LRMP LSR LSRA MOU NAAQS NEPA NFMAS NFR NFS NLAA NMFS NWFP ONHP ORS OSHA OSU PM PM-IO PM-2.5 PNV R6 RARE REO RRNF SHPO SOCC SONC SYSDYN5 TES USDA USFWS WQL FreQuentlv Used Acronvms Aquatic Conservation Strategy Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Air Quality Management Area Best Management Practices Council on Environmental Quality Code of Federal Regulations Cumulative Watershed Effects diameter breast height Department of Environmental Quality Environmental Assessment Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Protection Agency Endangered Species Forest Service United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Interdisciplinary Team Klamath Mountain Province Landslide Hazard Zonation Land and Resource Management Plan Late-Successional Reserve Late-Successional Reserve Assessment Memorandum of Understanding National Ambient Air Quality Standards National Environmental Policy Act National Fire Management Analysis Systems Nesting, Foraging, and Roosting National Forest System Not Likely to Adversely Affect National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Forest Plan Oregon Natural Heritage Program Oregon Revised Statute Occupational Safety and Health Association Oregon State University particulate matter particulate matter 10 microns and less particulate matter 2.5 microns and less Present Net Value Pacific Northwest Region 6, USDA Forest Service Roadless Area Review and Evaluation Regional Ecosystem Office Rogue River National Forest State Historic Preservation Office Southern Oregon California Coastal Southern Oregon/Northem California Computer program designed to model the SYStem DYNamics or the effects of management and wildfire on the vegetation successional flow rates of an ecosystem. 1breatened, Endangered, and Sensitive United States Department of Agriculture United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Water Quality Limited ..,................---..._,.,._-<.".".."...".".._~-,._..,-""'-".__.. ..._--