Silvicuture Practices in Butte Falls and Ashland Resource ... · Young Stand Management Silviculture Prescriptions Early stand thinning Conifers and hardwoods would be cut in dense

1

Categorical Exclusion Determination and Decision Record for FY 2015–2019 Silviculture Practices in Butte Falls and Ashland Resource Areas—Reforestation, Young Stand Management, and Forest Condition Restoration Treatments

DOI-BLM-OR-M050-2015-0002-CX

Proposed Action Title: Fiscal Year 2015–2019 Silviculture Practices in the Butte Falls and Ashland Resource Areas—Reforestation, Young Stand Management, and Forest Condition Restoration Treatments

Location: Throughout the Butte Falls and Ashland Resource Areas, Jackson County, Oregon

A. Proposed Action

The Medford District Bureau of Land Management’s Butte Falls and Ashland Resource Areas (BLM) are proposing reforestation, young stand management, and forest condition restoration treatments to accomplish land use allocation objectives described in the 1995 Medford District Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (ROD/RMP, p.183–186). The proposed treatments would be scheduled to assure the treatment areas maintain developmental paths that result in desired stand characteristics in the future. Proposed silviculture treatments would be implemented on forest stands up to 80 years old located throughout the Butte Falls and Ashland Resource Areas over a 5-year period. All stands would be accessed using existing road systems.

Prior to treatment, proposed silviculture treatment areas would be reviewed and cleared by BLM resource specialists. The project silviculturist would develop site-specific prescriptions and maps for each treatment area to submit for review by specialists for appropriateness of treatment and for necessary clearances. Applicable project design features would be implemented for each treatment area. The project silviculturist would complete a project checklist (see Appendix A) and submit to Resource Area specialists for review before project implementation.

Reforestation

Reforestation objectives are to promptly establish forested stands on forest land. Reforestation planning involves describing the site, interpreting the seedling environment, identifying management and operational constraints, and prescribing the appropriate reforestation treatments. Proposed treatments include pruning, seedling planting, installing spot fertilizer pellets, mulching, spot scalping, grubbing, tubing, installing shade cards, controlling competing vegetation, and gopher trapping. Pruning could be used for removing the lower branches from undesirable lodgepole pine or ponderosa pine trees to allow easy access for planting more desirable species, such as Douglas-fir, under their driplines. Seedling planting would be used to establish the desirable species into the stand. Spot scalping, mulching, grubbing, and vegetation competition control would reduce competition from grass, forbs, shrubs, and hardwoods to help with seedling establishment. Gopher trapping would reduce gopher populations to minimize the impact of gophers eating the roots of the seedlings.

Although projects under this NEPA document would be implemented for a 5-year period, vegetative competition control and gopher trapping could be needed for up to 10 years after the

FY 2015-2019 Silviculture Practices DOI-BLM-OR-M050-2015-0002-CX December 2014

2

seedlings have been planted. Gophers can eat the roots of tree seedlings up to 10 years after they have been planted, and it can take up to 10 years for planted seedlings to grow above the competing brush and hardwoods to where they are no longer a threat to seedling survival. Future treatments would be considered under new NEPA documentation.

Only those treatments that are needed for each reforestation unit would be prescribed based on the individual evaluation of each unit. It is unlikely all treatments would be prescribed for any one unit.

Reforestation activities would occur in areas such as (1) timber sales, (2) stewardship projects, (3) rehabilitation sites, (4) stabilization sites, and (5) watershed restoration projects. Mechanized equipment would be limited to augers, chainsaws, or similar handheld devices.

Reforestation Silviculture Prescriptions Pruning Pruning on lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) or ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) would remove the lower live limbs to a maximum height of 9 feet or equal to 50% of the total tree height, whichever is less. Pruning slash would be scattered at least 1 foot from the base of the pruned trees.

Tree planting Native conifer trees would be primarily planted on an 8-foot by 8-foot or 10-foot by 10-foot spacing; however, wider spacing could be used in site-specific instances. Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, sugar pine, and incense cedar would be the conifer species planted. Tree planting would be accomplished using hand tools, such as shovels and hoedads, or hand-held augers to make a planting hole up to 13 inches deep. The seedlings would be bare-root or containerized, 1 to 3 years old, and 6 to 24 inches tall. The planting spots would be prepared by scalping away vegetation, gravel, slash, humus, ash, and any other debris for an 8- to 12-inch radius. The seedlings would be set firmly in the planting holes with moist soil filled in and well compacted. After compacting around the seedlings, soil would be at ground level with no deep depression or high mound at the stems.

Spot fertilization A single fertilizer packet or pellet would be placed in the planting hole at the time of seedling planting. The packets or pellets contain slow release nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in a teabag-like packet or briquette-like pellet. Packets or pellets may contain trace minerals.

Scalping Scalping would be completed using hand tools such as hazel hoes to remove all vegetation up to 1 inch in diameter for up to a 2-foot radius around planted seedlings.

Grubbing Grubbing would be completed using hand held tools, such as hazel hoes or pulaskis, or chain saws to remove vegetation up to 3 inches in diameter for up to a 4-foot radius around seedlings.

Mulching A 3-foot by 3-foot paper or biodegradable synthetic (plastic) mulch material with an opening in the middle would be placed over the seedling. Vegetation would be scalped away from the


3

seedling for a 3-foot by 3-foot distance before the mulch is placed. Approximately 5 metal, U-shaped pins 6 inches long would be used to secure the mulch material. Mulch would lay flat on the ground to inhibit unwanted vegetation growth.

Seedling tubing or netting A rigid plastic mesh “Vexar” tube or flexible plastic netting would be placed over planted seedlings to reduce animal browse. A bamboo stake approximately 30 inches long would be woven through the tubing and stuck in the ground to hold the tube upright.

Shade card installation A 12-inch by 10-inch flat cardboard or plastic mesh material would be placed on the south side of young seedlings to provide shade for the young seedlings in order to reduce mortality during the dry, droughty summer season. It would be held upright by a wooden stake or metal U-shaped pin placed about 6 to 8 inches from the seedling. Metal pins would be removed from the site after seedlings have established themselves.

Gopher trapping This would involve searching for evidence of underground gopher runways by looking for mounds of soil pushed above ground at the end of their runways. A probe (e.g., stick, metal pole) would then be used to find a soft area in the ground that is the hollow runway. Once the runway is found, a shovel would be used to dig out enough space for a metal trap to be placed on either side of the runway. Traps are similar to a small rodent trap that kills the animal almost instantly. Traps would be checked after 48 hours. Disturbance would be limited to the areas where gopher runways exist. The traps are attached to wooden stakes that are visible above ground. Everything would be removed when the trapping is completed. During the hotter times of the year, carcasses would be placed in the holes and the holes would be filled back in on top of the carcasses. In the cooler times of the year, the carcasses may be left on top of the ground as food for eagles, ravens, and hawks instead of being placed in the holes and covered up. In either case, the holes would be filled back in.

Vegetative competition control Brush and hardwoods competing with seedlings would be cut using one of the following three methods of treatment:

1. 100% brushing and hardwood control—Cut all brush and hardwoods more than 1 foot tall and up to 8 inches DBH in the entire treatment area.

2. 100% brushing and hardwood control with spacing—Cut all brush more than 1 foot tall and up to 8 inches DBH in the entire treatment area and cut all hardwoods more than 1 foot tall and up to 8 inches DBH to a 25- to 40-foot spacing.

3. Radius brushing and hardwood control—Cut all brush and hardwoods more than 1 foot tall and up to 8 inches DBH that have limbs falling within a cylindrical area extending for a 6- to 8-foot radius from the bole of the seedling.

All three of the above treatment methods could include girdling hardwoods 8 to 12 inches DBH not selected as leave trees.


4

Young Stand Management

Proposed young stand management treatments would be conducted in forest stands up to 40 years old that are considered established in order to meet one or more of four objectives.

The first objective is to place young stands on developmental paths toward improved vigor, increased growth, greater resistance to disturbance, and desired species composition and structure. Proposed treatments could include early stand thinning and, much less frequently, vegetation competition control.

The second objective is to reduce the risk of wildfire by lopping slash to a desirable fuel depth to increase its decomposition rate and to keep flame lengths at a minimum if a fire should start, or by chipping. Stands could also be protected from wildfire by pruning the lower branches of trees to remove the ladder fuels that allow fire to climb up into the crowns of trees.

The third objective is to lessen the impact of white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola) to the sugar pine in the stands by pruning.

The fourth objective is to enhance clear wood production and tree value by pruning.

Mechanized equipment would be limited to chainsaws or other handheld devices. All-terrain vehicles may be used on infrequent occasions to remove nonsawlog material, such as posts, poles, and firewood loaded onto a trailer, or to maneuver a chipper around for slash treatment. The all-terrain vehicles, trailers, and chippers would have low ground-pressure tires. If the chippers do not have low ground-pressure tires, they would be limited to existing skid trails and roads. The maximum slope for all-terrain vehicles and chippers would be 20%.

Young Stand Management Silviculture Prescriptions Early stand thinning Conifers and hardwoods would be cut in dense stands where competition for resources would reduce the growth and development of desired species. Dominant conifers are preferred for retention; spacing and species preference depends on site conditions. Generally, the lower productive sites call for a wider spacing and the higher productive sites call for a narrower spacing. Drier sites would retain more ponderosa pine and incense cedar and moister sites would retain more Douglas-fir, sugar pine, and true fir.

Conifer thinning could be done by using a uniform spacing of the leave trees ranging from 14 feet (222 trees per acre) to 20 feet (109 trees per acre). It could also be done by using a variable spacing of the leave trees depending on the average size of the trees in a particular clump within the stand. If the average size of a clump is 7 feet tall or less, leave trees could be spaced 12 feet apart. If the average size of the leave trees in the clump is 8 inches DBH up to an 18-foot spacing. Both spacing instances would be based on measuring distances from tree bole to tree bole.

Conifer thinning could also be based on spacing from tree crown to tree crown. Crown spacing could be used in stands with multiple size classes and multiple species where a stand with nonuniform DBH and height is desired. Leave trees would be spaced horizontally and vertically based on crown coverage and the desired space between crowns to be attained. Space between


5

crowns would generally be 4 to 8 feet between drip-lines and would vary depending on stand condition, stand characteristics, and management objectives.

All three of the above spacing methods could include one or more of the following in the prescription:

1. Leave approximately 10% to 15% of the stands in small openings and unthinned patches ranging in size from 0.1 acre to 0.25 acre (37- to 59-foot radius). The shape of the patches and openings should be irregular and spatially random in occurrence within the stand. When available, existing stand components would be used to provide openings and unthinned patches.

2. Remove all trees within 15 to 35 feet of legacy conifer or hardwood trees.

3. Leave hardwoods at a 30- to 40-foot spacing depending on their densities and management objectives, or leave all of the hardwoods.

No trees greater than 8 inches DBH would be cut, except for cull conifers (trees with no commercial value as sawtimber or showing clear signs that they are going to die) between 8 and 12 inches DBH. Also, in some instances, hardwoods between 8 and 12 inches DBH would be cut or girdled.

Vegetative competition control Brush and hardwoods competing with seedlings would be cut using one of three methods of treatment:

1. 100% brushing and hardwood control—Cut all brush and hardwoods more than 1 foot tall and 8 inches or less DBH in the entire treatment area.

2. 100% brushing; hardwood control with spacing—Cut all brush more than 1 foot tall and 8 inches or less DBH in the entire treatment area and cutting hardwoods more than 1-foot tall and 8 inches or less DBH to a 25- to 40-foot spacing.

3. Radius brushing and hardwood control—Cut all brush and hardwoods more than 1 foot tall and 8 inches DBH or less that have limbs falling within a cylindrical area extending for a 6- to 8-foot radius from the bole of the seedling.

All three of the above treatment methods could include cutting or girdling hardwoods 8 to 12 inches DBH not selected as leave trees.

Pruning to reduce white pine blister rust impact Pruning on sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana) would remove lower live limbs to a maximum height of 9 feet or equal to 50% of the total tree height, whichever is less. Pruning slash would be scattered at least 1 foot from the bases of pruned trees.

Pruning to increase tree value Pruning on selected trees would remove the bottom portion of the live crowns up to 22 feet or equal to 50% of the total tree height, whichever is less. Pruning could be done in two or three phases to reach desired height. Pruning prescriptions would be site specific; species preference and spacing of pruned trees would be based on existing stand condition and objectives. Pruning slash would be scattered at least 1 foot from the base of pruned trees.


6

Pruning to reduce wildfire risk Pruning designated vegetation would remove lower live limbs to a maximum height of 12 feet, with 8 feet being the most common height, or equal to 50% of the total tree height, whichever is less. Pruning slash would be scattered at least 1 foot from the base of pruned trees.

Slash treatment A BLM fuels specialist would conduct site-specific evaluations to determine the extent of slash treatment. Proximity to rural interface areas, private lands, or a fuels hazard reduction project would be assessed. Treatment units in need of fuels reduction that could withstand the fire effects from burning hand-piled slash would not be treated for young stand management at this time but would be assessed for hand pile, cover, and burn treatment under a separate environmental analysis document.

Slash from thinning or pruning treatments could be treated in one or a combination of the methods described below:

Lopping—Slash would be cut to 8-foot lengths or less, lopped, and scattered so that slash lays parallel with the ground and slash depth does not exceed a certain height, generally 3 feet above the ground surface.

Chipping—Slash up to 4 inches in diameter outside of riparian areas would be processed through a portable chipping machine pulled by an all-terrain vehicle. The chipper would be moved or repositioned to prevent buildup of chip piles or rows. In all locations where chips are created, chips would not be piled and would be spread to a depth not exceeding 4 inches thick above the ground. Chips would not be placed on any roadbed surface, or inside any drainages or water bodies. Chips would be a minimum of 10 feet from drainage edges, road edges, fences, property improvements, private land boundaries, snags over 12 inches DBH, and trees more than 20 inches DBH. Chipping would not occur on slopes greater than 20%.

Forest Condition Restoration

Forest condition restoration treatments are proposed in forested stands generally between 41 and 80 years old; the overall purpose is to build resilient stands. Stand conditions could vary from being dominated by tree-form hardwoods with a manageable component of conifers to dense, single-story conifers with a minor tree-form hardwood component. Forest condition restoration would meet one or more of four objectives.

The first objective is to restore the stand to a more fire-resilient condition with large trees by reducing the density of forested stands to increase the growth of the residual trees and improve stand vigor, influencing species composition and structure, or reducing the susceptibility of the stand to insect and disease attack and spread. Restoration thinning with uniform spacing is the proposed prescription for meeting this objective.

The second objective is to retain and release older trees, increase the growth of the residual trees and improve stand vigor by reducing stand densities, shift composition toward fire drought-tolerant tree species, and incorporate spatial heterogeneity at multiple spatial scales. Restoration thinning with crown spacing and restoration thinning with uniform spacing or crown spacing with skips and gaps are the proposed prescriptions for meeting this objective.


7

The third objective is to reduce the risk of wildfire by lopping activity slash to a desirable fuel depth to increase its decomposition rate and to keep flame lengths at a minimum if a fire should get started, or by chipping. Stands could also be protected from wildfire by pruning the lower branches of trees to remove the ladder fuels that allow fire to climb into the crowns of trees.

The fourth objective is to enhance clear wood production and tree value by pruning.

Mechanized equipment would be limited to chainsaws or other handheld devices and, on some occasions, all-terrain vehicles. All-terrain vehicles would be used on infrequent occasions to remove nonsawlog material such as posts, poles, and firewood loaded onto a trailer. All-terrain vehicles would also be used on infrequent occasions to maneuver a chipper around for chipping slash. The all-terrain vehicles, trailers, and chippers would all have low ground-pressure tires. If the chippers do not have low ground-pressure tires, they would be limited to use only on existing skid trails and roads. All-terrain vehicles and chippers would be limited to slopes of 20% or less.

Forest Condition Restoration Silviculture Prescriptions Restoration thinning with uniform spacing Competing conifers and hardwoods in dense stands where competition for resources would reduce the growth and development of desired species would be cut. Dominant conifers are preferred for retention; spacing and species preference depends on site conditions. Generally, the lower productive sites would have a wider spacing and the higher productive sites would have a narrower spacing. Drier sites would retain more ponderosa pine and incense cedar and moister sites would retain more Douglas-fir, sugar pine, and true fir.

Conifer thinning would use a uniform spacing of the leave trees ranging from 16 feet (170 trees per acre) to 20 feet (109 trees per acre). Spacing would be based on measuring distances from tree bole to tree bole.

Restoration thinning with crown spacing Conifers would be cut based on spacing from tree crown to tree crown. Spacing between crowns would generally be 4 to 8 feet between driplines and would vary depending on stand conditions and stand characteristics.

Prescriptions for the restoration thinning spacing methods could include one or more of the following:

1. Leave approximately 10% to 15% of the stands in unthinned patches (skips) and small openings (gaps) ranging in size from 0.1 acre to 0.25 acre (37- to 59-foot radius). The shape of the patches and openings should be irregular and spatially random in occurrence within the stand. When available, existing stand components would be used to provide unthinned patches and openings.

2. Remove all trees within 15 to 35 feet around legacy conifer or hardwood trees.

3. Leave hardwoods at a 30- to 40-foot spacing depending on their densities and management objectives, or leave all of the hardwoods and not cut any.

In the majority of stands, no trees greater than 8 inches DBH would be cut, except for cull conifers (trees that have no commercial value as sawtimber or show clear signs that they are going to die) between 8 and 12 inches DBH. On sites of low productivity, the upper DBH limit


8

could be 10 inches. This would be justified in a situation where a high number of 8 to 10 inch trees are competing against each other and there is presently not enough volume for a sawtimber sale. This would be particularly applicable to sites of low productivity where self thinning is not likely to occur resulting in a stagnant, even-aged stand. Thinning in this situation would allow for stand structural development and reduce the stress on the residual trees. In some instances, hardwoods between 8 and 12 inches DBH would be cut or girdled.

Pruning to increase tree value Pruning on selected trees would remove the bottom portion of the live crowns up to 22 feet or equal to 50% of the total tree height, whichever is less. Pruning could be done in two or three phases to reach desired height. Pruning prescriptions would be site specific; species preference and spacing of pruned trees would be based on existing stand conditions and objectives. Pruning slash would be scattered at least 1 foot from the base of pruned trees.

Pruning to reduce wildfire risk Pruning designated vegetation would remove lower live limbs to a maximum height of 12 feet, with 8 feet being the most common height, or equal to 50% of the total tree height, whichever is less. Pruning slash would be scattered at least 1 foot from the base of pruned trees.

Slash treatment A BLM fuels specialist would conduct site-specific evaluations to determine the extent of slash treatment. Proximity to rural interface areas, private lands, or a fuels hazard reduction project would be assessed. Treatment units in need of fuels reduction that could withstand the fire effects from burning hand-piled slash would not be treated for young stand management at this time but would be assessed for hand pile, cover, and burn treatment under a separate environmental analysis document.

Slash from thinning or pruning treatments could be treated in one or a combination of the methods described below:

Lopping—Slash would be cut to 8-foot lengths or less, lopped, and scattered so that slash lays parallel with the ground and slash depth does not exceed a certain height, generally 3 feet above the ground surface.

Chipping—Slash up to 4 inches in diameter outside of riparian areas would be processed through a portable chipping machine pulled by an all-terrain vehicle. The chipper would be moved or repositioned to prevent buildup of chip piles or rows. In all locations where chips are created, chips would not be piled and would be spread to a depth not exceeding 4 inches thick above the ground. Chips would not be placed on any roadbed surface, or inside any drainages or water bodies. Chips would be a minimum of 10 feet from drainage edges, road edges, fences, property improvements, private land boundaries, snags over 12 inches DBH, and trees more than 20 inches DBH. Chipping would not occur on slopes greater than 20%.


9

Project Design Features

Project Design Features are an integral part of the Proposed Action and have been developed to avoid or reduce the potential for adverse impacts to resources. The following Project Design Features are included in this project.

Cultural Resources • Notify the Resource Area cultural specialist in advance of treatments for review and cultural

clearance for the Area of Potential Effect.

• Flag all cultural sites within a proposed treatment area for protection prior to project implementation, unless a formal Determination of Eligibility establishes a site as Not Eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places with written concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Office. Paleontological (fossil) sites within a proposed treatment area will be flagged for protection prior to project implementation. The flagged area will include a 25-foot buffer around the site boundary. No disturbance will occur in the buffered areas. The Resource Area cultural specialist will provide site-specific project design features at the time of the review and will identify to the project proponent/implementer on a map.

• Allow in-site treatments on a case-to-case basis in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office when the treatment will have a positive effect (such as reducing fuel loads). All material removed from in-site treatments will be piled outside of the site’s boundary.

• In the event unrecorded paleontological, archaeological, or historical sites or artifacts are discovered during project implementation, stop all work in the area and notify the Contracting Officer’s Representative of the finding. The project may be redesigned to protect the cultural resource values present, or evaluation and mitigation procedures will be implemented based on recommendations from the Resource Area cultural specialist and concurrence by the Field Manager and State Historic Preservation Office. Written or verbal start work orders will be given to the contractor by the Contracting Officer’s Representative after approval by the District Archaeologist.

Equipment Use • Restrict vehicle use to existing roads.

• Position gates as found (open or closed) on all access roads to treatment units.

• Restrict road use on unsurfaced roads to the dry season (typically May 1 to October 31), unless the road is sufficiently dry to protect the road and resource values. Suspend road use on unsurfaced roads any time of year during precipitation events when use would cause water to be channeled away from designated road drainage and cause elevated stream turbidity and sedimentation.

• Require all-terrain vehicles, trailers, and chippers to have low ground-pressure tires. Chippers without low ground-pressure tires will be limited to use only on existing skid trails and roads.

• No skidding of material to be removed by the ATVs and trailers is allowed. All material to be removed will be carried to and loaded on the trailers by hand.


10

Noxious Weeds and Disease • Conduct management practices that may include treating infestations, scheduling projects

outside of weed seed dispersal times, designating parking and access and egress routes, and requiring equipment to be cleaned to prevent the spread of noxious weeds and nonnative invasive species.

• Establish a 25-foot radius buffer of uncut conifers from any area infected with blackstain disease (Leptographium wageneri) if found within a treatment unit.

Range • Ensure management activities do not damage rangeland improvements such as fencing,

gates, cattle guards, and water improvements. If damage occurs, notify the District Rangeland Management Specialist.

Recreation and Visuals • Pick up all trash and garbage and dispose of properly.

• Coordinate management activities occurring adjacent to or within recreation sites and designated trails with the Outdoor Recreation Planner.

Riparian Areas • Do not allow scalping, grubbing, and brush and hardwood cutting within 25 feet slope

distance (each side) of intermittent streams, springs, seeps, ponds, wetlands, and specific dry draws identified on individual maps prior to treatment implementation, and within 50 feet slope distance (each side) of perennial and fish-bearing streams.

• Do not plant trees within 10 feet of all streams or within springs, seeps, ponds, or wetlands.

• Allow conifer young stand management and pruning through riparian areas to promote increased growth of riparian zone conifers, as determined by fisheries biologists or hydrologists and based on site-specific conditions in the riparian area. Areas will be identified on individual treatment area maps before treatment implementation. The same no-cut buffer distance may be required for conifers.

• Refuel equipment, including chainsaws and other hand power tools, at least 100 feet from water bodies to prevent direct delivery of contaminants into a water body.

• For gopher trapping, no digging will occur within the banks of any channel feature or in any designated wetlands, springs, or seeps. Digging within riparian areas will be mulched and seeded with weed-free straw and native seed or other acceptable native materials.

Slash Treatment • Remove and lop and scatter slash from all drivable road surfaces, drainage ditches, fill

slopes, and cut banks.

Special Status Plants • Maps of the proposed treatment areas with proposed treatments will be routed to the botanists

for review prior to the beginning of the survey season (April 1–July 31) to determine if surveys for BLM Special Status plant species are needed. If surveys are needed and Special Status plants are found within treatment units, appropriate protective measures, as determined by the BLM botanist, that include protection buffers, seasonal restrictions, or both will be implemented.


11

Vegetation Management • Plant native conifer species primarily on an 8-foot by 8-foot or 10-foot by 10-foot spacing;

however, wider spacing could be employed in site-specific instances. Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, sugar pine, and incense cedar conifer species will be planted. Site conditions will dictate species to be planted.

• Hardwood seedlings may be planted, particularly in restoration areas and riparian zones. Species planted will be native and adapted to the site. Hardwood species considered for planting include red alder, Oregon ash, willow, big leaf maple, dogwood, and cottonwood. Shrub species include oceanspray, hazel, ninebark, and ceanothus.

• Do not cut madrone, black oak, and white oak over 6 inches DBH, and preserve riparian hardwoods such as Oregon ash, big leaf maple, and red alder within riparian areas.

Wildlife • Maps of the proposed treatment areas with proposed treatments will be routed to the wildlife

biologist for review prior to the beginning of the survey season (March 1–July 31) to determine if seasonal restrictions and surveys for BLM Special Status wildlife species are needed.

• Seasonally restrict activities that produce loud noise (e.g., chainsaws, augers, all-terrain vehicles) from March 1 through June 30 within 200 feet of northern spotted owl nest sites, unless instructed differently by the BLM wildlife biologist. The restriction may be extended up to September 30 if nesting activity is occurring at that time.

• Seasonally restrict activities within 0.5 mile of bald eagle or peregrine falcon nests or important daily roosts from January 1 to August 15, unless instructed differently by the BLM wildlife biologist. The restriction may be lifted if the work area is hidden from view of the raptor, activity noise will be blocked by topographic relief, or activities are similar to public use to which eagles are acclimated.

B. Land Use Plan Conformance

Resource Management Plan Conformance

The proposed action is in conformance with the 1995 Medford District Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (1995 ROD/RMP) because it is provided for in management direction on page 62:

Design and implement silvicultural treatments in stands that are in a condition, or that will soon be in a condition, which prevents management objectives from being achieved. Treatments are intended to restore the ability of stands to respond to other management and to reduce the risk of mortality from insects, disease, and wildfire. Treatments will consist of thinning of stands, forest fertilization, reduction of understory vegetation, reduction of fuel ladders, and restoration of more stable plant communities.

Survey and Manage Exemption

In ruling on Conservation Northwest, et al. v Mark E. Rey, et al. on December 12, 2009, Judge Coughenour in the U.S. District Court for Western Washington set aside the 2007 Record of Decision eliminating the Survey and Manage mitigation measures, but deferred issuing a remedy until further proceedings. Judge Coughenour did not issue a remedy or injunction at that time.


12

The plaintiffs and Federal Agencies entered into settlement negotiations in April 2010, and the Court filed approval of the resulting Settlement Agreement on July 6, 2011. The Defendant-Intervener subsequently appealed the 2011 Settlement Agreement. On April 25, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated the 2011 Survey and Manage Settlement Agreement and remanded the case back to the District Court. On February 18, 2014, the District Court vacated the 2007 RODs which returned the BLM to the status quo in existence prior to the 2007 RODs, which includes the use of the Pechman exemptions.

In 2006, the District Court for the Western District of Washington (Judge Pechman) invalidated the agencies’ 2004 RODs eliminating Survey and Manage due to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) violations. Following the District Court’s 2006 ruling, parties to the litigation entered into a stipulation exempting certain categories of activities from the Survey and Manage standard. Also known as the Pechman exemptions, Judge Pechman’s Order from October 11, 2006 directs

Defendants shall not authorize, allow, or permit to continue any logging or other ground-disturbing activities on projects to which the 2004 ROD applied unless such activities are in compliance with the 2001 ROD (as the 2001 ROD was amended or modified as of March 21, 2004), except that this order will not apply to:

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

b. Replacing culverts on roads that are in use and part of the road system, and removing culverts if the road is temporary or to be decommissioned;

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

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

The BLM reviewed this project in consideration of Judge Pechman’s October 11, 2006 order. Because the project includes thinning only in stands less than 80 years old, this project meets Pechman Exemption “a.” and, therefore, may proceed.

C. Compliance with NEPA

The proposed action is categorically excluded from further documentation under NEPA in accordance with 516 DM 11.9 C(3) and C(4).

516 DM 11.9 C(4) allows for Precommercial thinning and brush control using small mechanical devices.

516 DM 11.9 C(3) allows for Seeding or reforestation of timber sales or burn areas where no chaining is done, no pesticides are used, and there is no conversion of timber type or conversion of non-forest to forest land. Specific reforestation activities covered include: seeding and seedling plantings, shading, tubing (browse protection), paper mulching, bud caps, ravel protection, application of non-toxic big game repellant, spot scalping, rodent trapping,


13

fertilization of seed trees, fence construction around out-planting sites, and collection of pollen, scions and cones.

These categorical exclusions are appropriate in this situation because there are no extraordinary circumstances potentially having effects that may significantly affect the environment. The proposed action has been reviewed and none of the extraordinary circumstances described in 516 DM 2 apply.


D. NEPA Categorical Exclusion Review

The Code of Federal Regulations at 43 CFR § 46.215 provide for a review ofthe following criteria for categorical exclusion to determine if exceptions apply to the proposed action based on actions which may:

Butte Falls Resource Area CX Extraordinary Circumstances Documentation

Yes No

1. Have significant impacts on public health or safety. X

Initial RIU

Rationale: Proposed activities will follow established rules concerning health and safety, including Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules.

2. Have significant impacts on such natural resources and unique geographic characteristics as historic or cultural resources; park, recreation, or refuge lands; wilderness areas; wild or scenic rivers; national natural landmarks; sole or principal drinking water aquifers; prime farmlands; wetlands (Executive Order 11990); floodplains (Executive Order 11988); national monuments; migratory birds; and other ecologically significant or critical areas.

~ Initial

Rationale: The project, by design, is not located in any park, recreation, or refuge lands; wilderness areas; wild or scenic rivers; national natural landmarks; or national monuments. Projects would not be implemented in prime farmlands, wetlands, or ecologically significant or critical areas. The BLM resource area archaeologist will be contacted prior to project implementation to review the project and conduct cultural resources surveys as necessary. All eligible or potentially eligible sites within the proposed area will be flagged for protection prior to project implementation.

3. Have highly controversial environmental effects or involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources [NEP A Section 1 02(2)(E)].

X Initial

~w Rationale: Based on past experience from these types of activities, there are no predicted environmental effects from the proposed action that are considered to be highly controversial nor are there unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses. Land use allocations and goals for the affected lands were established and analyzed under the ROD/RMP and the corresponding environmental impact statement.

4. Have highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental effects or involve unique or unknown environmental risks.

X

Initi~

Rationale: The activities proposed in this CX are long-standing practices on BLM-administered lands. Past experience from these types of activities has shown no highly uncertain, potentially significant, unique, or unknown risks.

14


Butte Falls Resource Area CX Extraordinary Circumstances Yes No Documentation

5. Establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision in principle about X future actions with potentially significant environmental effects.

InitialRw

Rationale: The activities proposed in this CX are addressed and authorized under the existing ROD/RMP. This project will implement the decisions made in that land use plan. The proposed activities are widely used on Federal lands throughout Oregon and there is no evidence this type of project would establish a precedent or decision for future actions that would have significant environmental effects.

6. Have a direct relationship to other actions with individually insignificant but v cumulatively significant environmental effects.

Ini~J-_s

Rationale: The BLM has conducted these types of activities in the past with no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects.

7. Have significant impacts on properties listed, or eligible for listing, on the ~ National Register of Historic Places as determined by either the bureau or office.

Initial

Rationale: The BLM resource area archaeologist will be contacted prior to project implementation to review the project and conduct cultural resources surveys as necessary. All eligible or potentially eligible sites within the proposed area will be flagged for protection prior to project implementation.

8. Have significant impacts on species listed, or proposed to be listed, on the List of IYU,J v Endangered or Threatened Species, or have significant impacts on designated Critical Habitat for these species. Ini~j:f.~ Rationale: Areas proposed for treatment will be reviewed by the BLM botanist, wildlife biologist, and fisheries biologist before any activity begins. Appropriate buffers and project design features will be implemented to avoid adverse effects to threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat.

9. Violate a Federal law, or a State, local, or tribal law or requirement imposed for 'X the protection of the environment.

InitiR..w

Rationale: The proposed activities conform to RMP direction for management of public lands in the Medford District and comply with applicable laws, rules, and regulations.

10. Have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low income or minority X populations (Executive Order 12898).

Initial (l.v.J

15


Butte Falls Resource Area CX Extraordinary Circumstances Documentation

Yes No

Rationale: Similar actions have occurred throughout the District and there is no evidence that this type of project would have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on said populations.

11. Limit access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites on Federal lands by Indian religious practitioners or significantly adversely affect the physical integrity of such sacred sites (Executive Order 130007).

M~ 4

Initial

Rationale: The BLM resource area archaeologist will be contacted prior to project implementation to review the project and conduct cultural resources surveys as necessary. All eligible or potentially eligible sites within the proposed area will be flagged for protection prior to project implementation.

12. Contribute to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of noxious weeds or nonnative invasive species known to occur in the area or actions that may promote the introduction, growth, or expansion of the range of such species (Federal Noxious Weed Control Act and Executive Order 13112).

X

Initial rvuJ

Rationale: Botanical surveys conducted prior to project implementation identify infestations of noxious weeds and nonnative invasive species in or adjacent to proposed units. These infestations will be treated per Medford District's Integrated Weed Management Plan and Environmental Assessment OR-110-98-14.

16

Butte Falls Resource

Name Title

Area Categorical Exclusion Reviewers:

Date Initials

Robyn Wicks NEP A Coordinator

Marcia Wineteer Botanist

Dave Roelofs Wildlife Biologist

Jon Raybourn Fish Biologist

Shawn Simpson

Amy Meredith

Al Mason

Hydrologist

Soil Scientist

Fire/Fuels Specialist

Stephen Summers Archaeologist

Jeff Brown Engineer

Trish Lindaman Outdoor Recreation Planner


17


Ashland Resource Area CX Extraordinary Circumstances Yes No Documentation

1. Have significant impacts on public health or safety. x Initial~

Rationale: Proposed activities will follow established rules conceming health and safety, including Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules.

2. Have significant impacts on such natural resources and unique geographic X characteristics as historic or cultural resources; park, recreation, or refuge lands;

Initial wildemess areas; wild or scenic rivers; national natural landmarks; sole or principal drinking water aquifers; prime farmlands; wetlands (Executive Order 11990); floodplains (Executive Order 11988); national monuments; migratory birds; and '?>~ other ecologically significant or critical areas.

Rationale: The project, by design, is not located in any park, recreation, or refuge lands; wildemess areas; wild or scenic rivers; national natural landmarks; or national monuments. Projects would not be implemented in prime farmlands, wetlands or ecologically significant or critical areas. The BLM Archaeologist will review individual proposed treatment locations and any known significant sites or potentially significant (unevaluated) sites located within treatment locations will be flagged for avoidance.

3. Have highly controversial environmental effects or involve unresolved conflicts X conceming alternative uses of available resources [NEPA Section 1 02(2)(E)].

Initial li-$'

Rationale: Based on past experience from these types of activities, there are no predicted environmental effects from the proposed action that are considered to be highly controversial nor are there unresolved conflicts conceming altemative uses. Land use allocations and goals for the affected lands were established and analyzed under the ROD/RMP and the corresponding environmental impact statement.

4. Have highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental effects or X involve unique or unknown environmental risks.

Initial s~

Rationale: The activities proposed in this CX are long-standing practices on ELM-administered lands. Past experience from these types of activities has shown no highly uncertain, potentially significant, unique, or unknown risks.

5. Establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision in principle about ' X future actions with potentially significant environmental effects.

Initial

~~

18

FY 2015-2019 Silviculture Practices DOI-BLM-OR-MOS0-2015-0002-CX December 2014


Rationale: The activities proposed in this CX are addressed and authorized under the existing ROD/RMP. This project will implement the decisions made in that land use plan. The proposed activities are widely used on Federal lands throughout Oregon and there is no evidence this type of project would establish a precedent or decision for future actions that would have significant environmental effects.

6. Have a direct relationship to other actions with individually insignificant but X cumulatively significant environmental effects.

Initi~

Rationale: The BLM has conducted these types of activities in the past with no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects.

7. Have significant impacts on properties listed, or eligible for listing, on the X:: National Register ofHistoric Places as detennined by either the bureau or office.

Initial

~ Rationale: The activities described in the CX are considered an exempt undertaking according to the working agreement the Oregon BLM has with SHPO as long as there are no cultural resource concerns within treatment areas. The BLM Archaeologist will review individual proposed treatment locations and any known significant sites or potentially significant (unevaluated) sites located within treatment locations will be flagged for avoidance.

8. Have significant impacts on species listed, or proposed to be listed, on the List of K Endangered or Threatened Species, or have significant impacts on designated Critical Habitat for these species. Ini~!~~-

( ./

Rationale: Areas proposed for treatment will be reviewed by the BLM botanist, wildlife biologist, and fisheries biologist before any activity begins. Appropriate buffers and project design features will be implemented to avoid adverse effects to threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat.

9. Violate a Federal law, or a State, local, or tribal law or requirement imposed for '< the protection of the environment.

Initi~

Rationale; The proposed activities conform to RMP direction for management of public lands in the Medford District and comply with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations.

10. Have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low income or minority >< populations (Executive Order 12898).

Initial ~ s Rationale: Similar actions have occurred throughout the District and there is no evidence that this type of project would have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on said populations.

19

FY 2015-2019 Silviculture Practices DOI-BLM-OR-M050-20 15-0002-CX December 2014


11. Limit access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites on Federal lands by ';(

Indian religious practitioners or significantly adversely affect the physical integrity of such sacred sites (Executive Order 130007). Initi~

Rationale: The activities described in the CX are considered an exempt undertaking according to the working agreement the Oregon BLM has with SHPO as long as there are no cultural resource concerns within treatment areas. The BLM arch eologist will review individual proposed treatment locations to determine if there is a potential to limit access to or significantly adversely affect the physical integrity of such sacred sites. Work may commence when clearance is given.

12. Contribute to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of noxious weeds x· or nonnative invasive species known to occur in the area or actions that may

Initial promote the introduction, growth, or expansion of the range of such species (Federal Noxious Weed Control Act and Executive Order 13112). ~ Rationale: The proposed activities outlined in this CX will not contribute to the spread of noxious weeds or nonnative invasive species across Federal lands any faster than if the proposed activities did not occur. Botanical surveys conducted prior to project implementation identify infestations of noxious weeds and nonnative invasive species in or adjacent to proposed units. These infestations will be treated per Medford District's Integrated Weed Management Plan and Environmental Assessment OR-110-98-14.

20

Ashland Resource Area Categorical Exclusion Reviewers:

Name Title Date Initials

Stephanie Kelleher NEP A Coordinator

Armand Rebischke Botanist

Steve Godwin Wildlife Biologist

Chris Volpe Fish Biologist L -L/ Mike Derrig Hydrologist ~

Amy Meredith Soil Scientist ~ \t51 \ S ~ Greg Chandler Fuels Specialist J /7//.5. ~ Lisa Rice Archaeologist 6 (/pt.l__;J.6t5

i dL John McNeel Engineer

Zach Million Outdoor Recreation Planner


21


E. Decision and Rationale

Butte Falls Resource Area Decision Based on the attached Categorical Exclusion, it is my decision to implement the FY 2015-2019 Silviculture Practices described in the Proposed Action within the Butte Falls Resource Area. In making my decision, I considered the Project Design Features that will be incorporated into the project.

In addition, I have reviewed the plan conformance statement and have determined the Proposed Action is in accordance with the approved land use plan and that no further environmental analysis is required. Therefore, an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement is not needed. It is my decision to implement the Proposed Action in accordance with 43 CFR §5003-Administrative Remedies. If no protest is received by the close of business (4:30p.m.) within 15 days after publication of this Categorical Exclusion and Decision Record, this decision will become final and may be implemented immediately.

' (

C.D. Jol«<son Acting Field Manager Butte Falls Resource Area

22

Date

erritsma anager

nd Resource Area


Ashland Resource Area Decision Based on the attached Categorical Exclusion, it is my decision to implement the FY 2015-2018 Silviculture Practices described in the Proposed Action. In making my decision, I considered the Project Design Features that will be incorporated into the project.

In addition, I have reviewed the plan conformance statement and have determined the Proposed Action is in accordance with the approved land use plan and that no further environmental analysis is required. Therefore, an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement is not needed. It is my decision to implement the Proposed Action in accordance with 43 CFR §5003-Administrative Remedies. If no protest is received by the close ofbusiness (4:30p.m.) within 15 days after publication of this Categorical Exclusion and Decision Record, this decision will become final and may be implemented immediately.

23


24

Administrative Remedies

Notice of the decision to be made on the action described in this categorical exclusion will be posted on the Medford District Web site at http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/medford/plans/ index.php.

The decision described in this document is a forest management decision and is subject to protest by the public. In accordance with Forest Management Regulations 43 CFR Subpart 5003—Administrative Remedies, protests of this decision may be filed with the Authorized Officer within 15 days of the publication date of this decision on the Medford District Web site. Authorized Officers are C.D. Johnson, Acting Butte Falls Resource Area Field Manager, and John Gerritsma, Ashland Resource Area Field Manager.

Regulations at 43 CFR §5003.3(b) state, “Protests shall be filed with the authorized officer and shall contain a written statement of reasons for protesting the decision.” This precludes the acceptance of electronic mail (email) or facsimile (fax) protests. Only written and signed hard copies of protests that are delivered to the Medford District BLM, 3040 Biddle Road, Medford, Oregon will be accepted. The protest must clearly and concisely state which portion or element of the decision is being protested and the reasons why the decision is believed to be in error. Regulations at 43 CFR §5003.3(c) state, “Protests received more than 15 days after the publication of the notice of decision are not timely filed and shall not be considered.” Upon timely filing of a protest, the authorized officer shall reconsider the project decision to be implemented in light of the statement of reasons for the protest and other pertinent information available. The authorized officer shall, at the conclusion of the review, serve the protest decision in writing to the protesting parties. Upon denial of a protest, the authorized officer may proceed with the implementation of the decision as permitted by regulations 43 CFR §5003.3(f).

If no protest is received by close of business (4:30 p.m.) within 15 days after posting the decision, this decision will become final. If a timely protest is received, the project decision will be reconsidered in light of the statement of reasons for the protest and other pertinent information available and the BLM will issue a protest decision.

Contact Information For more information, contact Bill Ripley, Silviculturist, at 541-618-2276.


25

Appendix A: Checklist for Actions under Programmatic Categorical Exclusion

FY 2015-2019 Silviculture Practices in Butte Falls and Ashland Resource Areas—Reforestation, Young Stand Management, and Forest Condition Restoration Treatments

DOI-BLM-OR-M050-2015-0002-CX Butte Falls Resource Area Project Name:

Location (see maps):

Project Description:


This project will implement the following project design features included in the FY 2015-2019 Silviculture Practices in Butte Falls and Ashland Resource Areas—Reforestation, Young Stand Management, and Forest Condition Restoration Treatments Categorical Exclusion and Decision Record (DOI-BLM-OR-M050-2015-0002-CX).

Project Reviewers:


Botanist

Wildlife Biologist

Fish Biologist

Soil Scientist

Archaeologist

Fuels Specialist

Engineer

Outdoor Recreation Planner

Range Specialist

Silviculturist/Project Lead

NEPA Coordinator

________________________________ _________________________

Field Manager Date Butte Falls Resource Area


26

FY 2015-2019 Silviculture Practices in Butte Falls and Ashland Resource Areas—Reforestation, Young Stand Management, and Forest Condition Restoration Treatments

DOI-BLM-OR-M050-2015-0002-CX Ashland Resource Area Project Name:

Location (see maps):

Project Description:


This project will implement the following project design features included in the FY 2015-2019 Silviculture Practices in Butte Falls and Ashland Resource Areas—Reforestation, Young Stand Management, and Forest Condition Restoration Treatments Categorical Exclusion and Decision Record (DOI-BLM-OR-M050-2015-0002-CX).

Project Reviewers:


Botanist

Wildlife Biologist

Fish Biologist

Soil Scientist

Archaeologist

Fuels Specialist

Engineer

Outdoor Recreation Planner

Range Specialist

Silviculturist/Project Lead

NEPA Coordinator

________________________________ _________________________

Field Manager Date Ashland Resource Area

Documents

Silvicuture Practices in Butte Falls and Ashland Resource ... · Young Stand Management Silviculture Prescriptions Early stand thinning Conifers and hardwoods would be cut in dense