Post on 06-Jul-2020
transcript
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region April 2012
Decision Notice and
Finding of No Significant Impact
Equine Thin Project Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Gold Beach Ranger District Curry County, Oregon Legal Description: Township 36 South, Range 12 West, Sections 5, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19, 30, and 31;
Township 36 South, Range 12½ West, Sections 12, 13, 24, 25, and 26; Township 36 South, Range
13 West, Sections 34, 35, and 36; Township 37 South, Range 12½ West, Sections 1; Township 37
South, Range 13 West, Sections 1, 2, 3, and 11; Willamette Meridian; Curry County, Oregon.
Responsible
Official:
Alan Vandiver, District Ranger
Gold Beach Ranger District
29279 Ellensburg Avenue
Gold Beach, OR 97444
(541) 247-3601
For More
Information
Contact:
Holly Witt,
Environmental Coordinator
Gold Beach Ranger District
29279 Ellensburg Avenue
Gold Beach, OR 97444
(541) 247-3688
Equine Thin Project 2012 DN/FONSI
i
April 2012
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Equine Thin Project 2012 DN/FONSI
ii
April 2012
Contents
Section 1 Errata ........................................................................................................................1
Section 2 Introduction ..............................................................................................................1
2.1 Purpose and Need for Action .............................................................................................. 2
Section 3 The Decision ..............................................................................................................3
3.1 Selected Alternative ............................................................................................................ 3
3.2 Connected Actions .............................................................................................................. 4
Section 4 Rationale for the Decision ........................................................................................ 12
4.1 Response to Purpose and Need ........................................................................................ 12
4.2 Response to Relevant Issues ............................................................................................. 13
4.3 Response to New Information ......................................................................................... 15
Section 5 Other Alternatives Considered ................................................................................. 16
Section 6 Public Involvement .................................................................................................. 17
Section 7 Consistency Findings ................................................................................................ 18
Section 8 Findings of No Significant Impact .............................................................................. 19
8.1 Context and Intensity ........................................................................................................ 19
Section 9 Implementation of this Decision ............................................................................... 22
Section 10 Right to Administrative Review ................................................................................ 22
References. ....................................................................................................................................................... 23
ATTACHMENTS
A Response to Comments
B Mitigation Measures
C Strategy for Wildlife Reserve Trees
TABLES
Table 2-1. Summary of Selected Alternative Activities ................................................................................ 6
Table 2-2. Selected Alternative - Unit Table ................................................................................................ 7
FIGURES & MAPS
Figure 1. Vicinity Map of Equine Thin Selected Alternative (modified Alt. 2). ............................................. 9
Figure 2. Map of Selected Alternative (modified Alt. 2) North Half. .......................................................... 10
Figure 3. Map of Selected Alternative (modified Alt. 2) South Half. .......................................................... 11
Equine Thin Project 2012 DN/FONSI
iii
April 2012
Acronyms
ACS Aquatic Conservation Strategy
CHU Critical Habitat Units
DN Decision Notice
EA Environmental Assessment
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
IDT Interdisciplinary Team
LAA Likely to Adversely Affect
LSR Late-Successional Reserve
MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NLAA Not Likely to Adversely Affect
NWFP Northwest Forest Plan
PSQ Probable Sale Quantity
RR Riparian Reserve
LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan
SOPA Schedule of Proposed Actions
YTA Yarding with tops attached
Equine Thin Project 2012 DN/FONSI
1
April 2012
DECISION NOTICE
AND
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Equine Thin Project 2012
USDA Forest Service
Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest
Gold Beach Ranger District
Curry County, Oregon
1. Errata Cover page of - Environmental Assessment Equine Thin Project: The date should read
February 2012 (not May 2011).
EA Appendix A – Project Design Features, PDF #25, 26, & 28: The 3318000 road should not
be included for areas where Port-Orford-cedar management practices are required. There
is no measurably contributing POC along the 3318000 road which is at appreciable
additional risk from P. lateralis.
2. Introduction This Decision Notice (DN) document describes my decision and the reasons behind the decision
regarding the Equine Thin Project. My decision and findings are based on the Environmental
Assessment (EA) – Equine Thin Project dated February 2012, which documents the results of an
environmental analysis of the Proposed Action and other alternatives. This document also includes
my Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) concerning this project.
The Equine Thin Project EA was prepared by an interdisciplinary team and describes the Purpose
and Need for action, three alternatives in detail, the environmental effects of implementing each
alternative, the mitigation measures that will be implemented to avoid and mitigate potential
adverse impacts, and those persons and agencies consulted. The alternatives include a range of
actions to address the Purpose and Need and Relevant Issues. The Revised EA is available on the
Forest Service website: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=21680. The
administrative record for the Equine Thin Project is located at the Gold Beach Ranger District in
Gold Beach, Oregon.
Equine Thin Project 2012 DN/FONSI
2
April 2012
This project and analysis was designed under and tiers to the Final Environmental Impact Statement
for the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Siskiyou LRMP) (USDA
1989), as amended.
2.1 Purpose and Need for Action
The purposes (goals) of this project are to: 1) Actively manage stands and landscape features to
improve stand conditions, diversity, density, and structure to increase forest resiliency and health;
2) Actively manage Riparian Reserves to become late-seral habitat, increase forest health, and
improve hydrological function; and 3) Provide for a sustainable supply of timber products.
The existing conditions, described below, establish the need for the project.
1. Actively manage stands and landscape features to improve stand conditions, diversity,
density and structure to increase forest resiliency and health.
Existing Condition: The targeted stands are currently single layered and even-aged. Uniform forest
conditions are best avoided, as they are vulnerable to mortality from insects, disease, and fire
(Stephens and Moghaddas 2005). These stands are overstocked (relative densities range from 52-
100 and average 77), and substantially above the 30-45 relative densities needed to promote tree
growth. Canopy closures range from 60 to 95% and average 77%. Due to lack of light, understory
development and shrub communities are suppressed. These conditions generally increase stress
and decrease individual tree growth. This stress increases a tree’s susceptibility to insects and
disease.
Desired Condition: The project area would have a decrease in overstocked stands, making the area
less susceptible to insect and disease outbreaks. Canopy closures would range from 40 to 60%, with
the higher closures in riparian areas. Stand vigor would accelerate the development of more
complex forest structure. Tree species, age, and structure diversity would be improved. Forest
conditions would be enhanced for plant and wildlife species which benefit from forest diversity
(such as a multi-layered canopy, larger trees, shrub development, forest gaps and skipped areas).
2. Actively manage Riparian Reserves to become late-successional habitat, improve forest
health, and improve hydrological function.
Existing Condition: Management within Riparian Reserves is needed because the stands selected
for treatment are currently overstocked and lack structural and vegetative diversity (relative
densities average 77). In these forest conditions, large-diameter snags and woody debris accrue
slowly. A road in a Key Watershed (Quosatana Creek) has a failure and is at risk of additional
failures. Road failures can alter hydrological patterns and riparian vegetation.
Desired Condition: Thinned stands would more quickly acquire the desired vegetative
characteristics needed to maintain or restore Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives by
promoting the development of large-diameter trees, coarse woody debris, and structural
heterogeneity. These conditions would increase forest diversity for the benefit of aquatic and
terrestrial species. The removal of failed or failing road structures would improve riparian and
hydrological function by allowing natural flow regimes to occur, plus reduce the risk of sediment.
3. Provide for a sustainable supply of timber products.
Equine Thin Project 2012 DN/FONSI
3
April 2012
Existing Condition: The project is primarily within the Matrix land allocation (MA-14 General Forest
from Siskiyou LRMP), where the primary goal is to obtain a full yield of timber where it’s consistent
with other resource goals. It also provides habitat for species which require openings and early seral
conditions. Most of the National Forest’s probable sale quantity (PSQ) comes from timber harvested
on Matrix lands. Stands are currently in the stem-exclusion stage, so their growth potential is slowed
and not meeting the full yield the stand is capable of achieving.
Desired Condition: The project area would contribute to a sustained yield of timber harvest as
prescribed by the Siskiyou LRMP, as amended. The thinning would promote stand growth to
maximize timber yields and support future harvest. The timber sales would provide economic
benefits to local communities.
3. The Decision As the Responsible Official, it is my decision to implement a modified Alternative 2 as described in
this section, shown in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 (pages 6-8), and mapped in Figures 1, 2, and 3 (pages 9-
11). This modified Alternative will now be referred to as the Selected Alternative.
This decision is designed to meet the Purpose and Need for the project and area. It considers one
way of addressing the Purpose and Need while meeting all Forest Standards and Guidelines; and
Federal, State, and local laws, rules and regulations.
The Selected Alternative will commercially thin over-stocked natural stands within lands allocated
as matrix and riparian reserves as described in EA Alternative 2. It will also include
decommissioning a portion of the NFS 3680-260 road as described in EA Alternative 3.
3.1. Selected Alternative
The Selected Alternative will employ variable-density thinning to treat 550 acres of overstocked
conifer forest on the upper one-third of Wildhorse Ridge. These stands regenerated naturally after
stand-replacement fires between 1910 and 1940. Units are within Matrix (458 acres) and Riparian
Reserve (92 acres) land use allocations. One acre of Late-Successional Reserve (LSR) will be affected
through expansion of an existing rock quarry. About 94 acres of Matrix lands are also overlain by
the Partial Retention Visual (MA-13) allocation from the Siskiyou LRMP. The activities in the
Selected Alternative are summarized in Tables 2-1 and 2-2.
Mitigation measures include project design features, Best Management Practices, Standards and
Guidelines, and project design criteria from Section 7 consultation for wildlife under the Endangered
Species Act, and are an integral part of the Selected Alternative. The mitigation measures are
described in Attachment B, including their objectives and the areas where they are applicable.
Variable-Density Thinning prescriptions would target the removal of smaller Douglas-fir trees
which are co-dominant, intermediate and/or overtopped, while leaving the larger trees. All
hardwoods and minor conifer species would be retained to the extent possible. Legacy trees, large
snags, and down wood would be protected to the extent possible. A combination of ground-based,
skyline, and helicopter logging systems would be implemented based on road access, soil types,
slope, hydrological conditions, and cost. Within Riparian Reserve, no ground-based equipment
would be used. Within stream channel protection zones, full-suspension yarding would be used.
Equine Thin Project 2012 DN/FONSI
4
April 2012
Yarding tops attached would occur in all units except helicopter-logged units. In units vulnerable to
windthrow, thinning intensity would be reduced, no gaps would be created, and hard edges would
be buffered. Other seasonal and operational restrictions are described in Attachment B and are
designed to minimize effects to soil, fish, wildlife, plants, and Port-Orford-cedar.
Matrix thinning would leave relative densities of 30-45, on average. About 60 to 100 trees per acre
would remain. Canopy closures would remain above 40 percent and range from 40-55% (average
above 40%). Prescriptions would include the creation of small openings (gaps) and radial release
around sugar pines. Gaps would range from 0.25 to 1 acre in size and not cover more than 5 percent
of a unit. No gaps would be created in Riparian Reserve, areas at risk of windthrow (Units 4, 6, 7, 7A,
13, 20 and the south one-half of 16), or Fuels Management Zones.
Riparian Reserve (RR) thinning would target relative densities of 40-60, on average (including
protection buffers). About 100 to 150 trees per acre would remain. Canopy closures would remain
above 50% and range from 50-60% (average above 50%). Prescriptions would incorporate no-cut
buffers for 25 feet along both sides of intermittent streams and 50-60 feet (dependent upon stream
shading) along perennial streams. Design features control the conditions for cutting trees in these
protection buffers and require they be left on-site. Within Riparian Reserves, there would be no gap
creation, no construction of new roads, no construction of landings, no use of ground-based
equipment, and no pile burning. Full suspension yarding would be used within stream channel
protection zones.
Road Decommissioning – About 1.3 miles of NFS road 3680-260 would be decommissioned. This
is a mid-slope road within the Quosatana Creek watershed (a key watershed and 303(d) listed for
temperature). Activities would likely include culvert removal, outsloping of road, and construction
of waterbars and earthen berms.
3.2. Connected Actions
Temporary (Unclassified) Road Construction, Reconstruction, and Decommissioning
New: Approximately 1.1 miles of new, temporary spur roads would be constructed. Spur roads
would range from .04 to .28 miles in length. They would provide access to Units 2, 4, 6A, 12, 13, 16,
17, and 26. No new roads would be constructed in Riparian Reserves.
Existing closed: About 1.8 miles of currently-closed temporary road would be reopened,
reconstructed, and decommissioned after operations are complete.
Decommissioning: After operations are complete, temporary roads would be decommissioned via
out-sloping, scarification, the installation of cross-ditches (water bars), the scattering of slash on
disturbed soils, and/or the blocking of the road entrance with ditching and native materials.
Road Maintenance
Open classified roads - Approximately 27.4 miles of gravel-surfaced roads would require
normal road maintenance; such as, brushing, hazard tree felling, blading, culvert replacement,
ditch and culvert clean-out, and surface rock replacement. The primary roads are NFS 3680,
3318, and 1503.
Road Opening, Reconstruction, and Reclosure
Equine Thin Project 2012 DN/FONSI
5
April 2012
Closed classified roads - About 3.2 miles of currently closed classified road would need to be
reopened and reconstructed through the opening of gates, removal of barricades, installation of
culverts, and normal road maintenance. They would be gated, water-barred and/or barricaded
after operations are complete. These include NFS roads 3318-220/221/240/ 254/259/ 261/
264/ 265 and 280 and NFS road 1503-090.
Rock Quarry Development: The existing Prehistoric Butte rock quarry in T36S, R13W, Section 34
would be expanded by about one acre (120 feet by 350 feet) to provide gravel for the existing roads
proposed for use. This would expand the existing clearing to the northeast. Activities would include
clearing vegetation, ripping, and rock crushing. The quarry is within Late-Successional Reserve.
Trees from quarry expansion would be used for in-stream restoration projects.
Haul Routes: The primary haul routes are NFS roads 1503 and 3318 to the 3680 (Hunter Creek
Road). All haul routes would require normal road maintenance, as described above. Paving of two
bridge approaches on Hunter Creek would occur on NFS Road 3680.
Hazard (Danger) Tree Reduction: Hazard trees would be identified using standard Forest Service
practices. About 40 hazard trees could be felled along haul routes. No more than 10 trees per road
mile would be removed in spotted owl suitable habitat. No more than 5 trees would be felled within
a known or predicted owl nest site. Hazard trees cut in primary shade protection zones would
remain on-site or be used for restoration projects.
Helicopter Landings: There would be no landings in Riparian Reserve. Approximately six
helicopter landings would be needed on and along existing roads and would require the clearing of
about two acres. Landings which are not on road surfaces would be rehabilitated following
operations.
Treatments to Reduce Activity-Generated Fuels: Yarding with tops attached (YTA) would occur
in tractor and cable-yarded units. Fuels generated during harvest activities would be piled and
burned to the extent needed to decrease them to acceptable fuel-loading levels. Slash would be hand
piled and burned in Fuel Management Zones within 200 feet of NFS Roads 3318, 3680, and 1503.
Activity fuels greater than 10” diameter would remain on site. No pile burning would occur in
Riparian Reserves.
Equine Thin Project 2012 DN/FONSI
6
April 2012
Table 2-1. Summary of Selected Alternative Activities.
Activity
Canopy
Closure
Relative
Density
Trees per
Acre
Approx.
Quantity Unit
Variable-Density Thinning
Matrix 40-55% 30-45 60-100 458a Acres
Riparian Reserve 50-60% 40-60 100-150 92 Acres
Rock Quarry Expansion 1 Acre
Total Acreage 551 Acres
Estimated Timber Volume 12,100 MBF
Logging Systems
Skyline yarding 417 Acres
Tractor yarding 67 Acres
Helicopter yarding (requiring 6 landings and 2 acres of clearing) 66 Acres
Potential mechanical felling 71 Acres
Road Activities
New classified road construction 0.0 Miles
New temporary (unclassified) spur road construction & decommissioning 1.1 Miles
Reconstruction of closed temporary (unclassified) roads & decommissioning 1.8 Miles
Maintenance of open classified roads (haul route) 27.4 Miles
Reopening, maintenance, and closure of classified roads 3.2 Miles
Road decommissioning of open classified roads 1.3 Miles
Fuels Treatments
Yard-Tops-Attached (YTA) 484 Acres
Pile and burn 105 Acres
Hazard Tree Felling (on haul route) 40 Trees
a Includes about 17 acres in small openings (gaps) ¼ to 1 acre in size.
Equine Thin Project 2012 DN/FONSI
7
April 2012
Table 2-2. Selected Alternative - Unit Table.
Proposed
Treatment
Unit
Acres
within
Unit
Acres of
Riparian
Reserves
Treated
Proposed
Logging
System
Skyline
Yarded
Acres
Tractor
Yarded
Acres
Helicopter
Yarded
Acres
Acres of
Potential
Mechanical
Felling
Potential
Volume
(MBF*)
Fuel
Treatment
(Yard Tops
Attached
Acres)
Activity
Fuel
Treatments
(Pile and
Burn Acres)
Proposed
Reconstruction
of Unclassified
Roads (miles)
New
Proposed
Temporary
Construction
(miles)
1 2 0 Skyline 2 -- -- -- 44 2 -- 0.17 0.00
2 11 2 Skyline 11 -- -- -- 242 11 -- 0.00 0.12
3 13 1 Skyline 13 -- -- -- 286 13 -- 0.25 0.00
4 20 0 Skyline 20 -- -- 20 440 20 6 0.00 0.03
5 11 0 Tractor -- 11 -- -- 242 11 6 0.00 0.00
6 60 8
Skyline/
tractor 35 25 -- -- 1320 60 8 0.17 0.00
6A 9 1 Skyline 9 -- -- -- 198 9 -- 0.00 0.22
7 6 1 Skyline 6 -- -- -- 132 6 2 0.00 0.00
7A 3 0 Tractor -- 3 -- -- 66 3 3 0.00 0.00
8 6 1 Skyline 6 -- -- -- 132 6 4 0.00 0.00
9 18 2 Skyline 18 -- -- -- 396 18 8 0.00 0.00
10 34 10 Skyline 34 -- -- -- 748 34 4 0.00 0.00
11 108 31 Skyline 108 -- -- -- 2376 108 26 0.36 0.00
12 16 0
Skyline/
tractor 15 1 -- -- 352 16 -- 0.11 0.14
13 32 1
Skyline/
tractor 29 3 -- 31 704 32 -- 0.47 0.04
14 9 0 Tractor 9 -- 198 9 -- 0.19 0.00
15 33 5 Skyline 33 -- -- 20 726 33 13 0.00 0.00
16 33 2 Skyline 33 -- -- -- 726 33 10 0.06 0.28
17 28 0
Skyline/
tractor 13 15 -- -- 616 28 11 0.00 0.10
20 4 1 Skyline 4 -- -- -- 88 4 4 0.00 0.00
22 18 0
Heli-
copter -- -- 18 -- 396 -- -- 0.00 0.00
Equine Thin Project 2012 DN/FONSI
8
April 2012
Proposed
Treatment
Unit
Acres
within
Unit
Acres of
Riparian
Reserves
Treated
Proposed
Logging
System
Skyline
Yarded
Acres
Tractor
Yarded
Acres
Helicopter
Yarded
Acres
Acres of
Potential
Mechanical
Felling
Potential
Volume
(MBF*)
Fuel
Treatment
(Yard Tops
Attached
Acres)
Activity
Fuel
Treatments
(Pile and
Burn Acres)
Proposed
Reconstruction
of Unclassified
Roads (miles)
New
Proposed
Temporary
Construction
(miles)
23 36 14
Heli-
copter -- -- 36 -- 792 -- -- 0.00 0.00
24 8 1
Heli-
copter -- -- 8 -- 176 -- -- 0.00 0.00
26 15 5 Skyline 15 -- -- -- 330 15 -- 0.00 0.16
26A 4 1
Heli-
copter -- -- 4 -- 88 -- -- 0.00 0.00
29 11 5 Skyline 11 -- -- -- 242 11 -- 0.00 0.00
29A 2 0 Skyline 2 -- -- -- 44 2 -- 0.00 0.00
Rock
Quarry 1 0.0 N/A -- -- -- -- N/A1
N/A N/A N/A N/A
Totals 551 92 -- 417 67 66 71 12,100 484 105 1.8 1.1
Mechanical harvesting refers to the use of feller-bunchers to limb and stack logs for yarding.
* MBF = 1,000 board feet
N/A = not applicable
N/A1 = Logs from quarry expansion will be used for future restoration projects.
Equine Thin Project 2012 DN/FONSI
9
April 2012
Figure 1. Vicinity Map of Equine Thin Selected Alternative (modified Alt. 2).
Equine Thin Project 2012 DN/FONSI
10
April 2012
Figure 2. Map of Selected Alternative (modified Alt. 2) North Half.
Equine Thin Project 2012 DN/FONSI
11
April 2012
Figure 3. Map of Selected Alternative (modified Alt. 2) South Half.
Equine Thin Project 2012 DN/FONSI
12
April 2012
4. Rationale for the Decision I have carefully read and considered the effects discussed in the environmental assessment and the
comments received during scoping, as well as the comments received on the environmental
assessment. I also considered applicable laws, the Siskiyou LRMP, and how well each alternative
met the purpose and need for the project. The project record shows a thorough review of the
relevant scientific information, a consideration of responsible opposing views and the
acknowledgment of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty and risk.
I will discuss how the Selected Alternative addresses the Purpose and Need and issues in detail,
although there are a few topics that were of particular concern to some members of the public. I
have spent a considerable amount of time in-the-field with interested publics discussing their
concerns. I have also personally reviewed all the comments and have discussed them with the
planning team. When scoping comments were received, some members of the public were
particularly concerned about the economic efficiency of the proposed action. Others recommended
decommissioning a road and some expressed particular concern about habitat for snag dependent
species.
The selected alternative was developed to be economically efficient. We identified areas where
conventional logging methods could be used as well as some helicopter. The temporary roads are
relatively short but provide access for conventional logging methods.
When some members of the public suggested the decommissioning of NFS 3680-260, I reviewed the
proposal in the field with members of the planning team. The Selected Alternative incorporates
decommissioning of 1.3 miles that will improve riparian and hydrologic function in a key watershed.
The planning team and I spent a considerable amount of time discussing habitat for snag dependent
species (see Attachment A – Comment #16 Response). As described on EA pages 3-20 and 21, the
Equine Thin Project with Mitigation Measures, is in compliance with current guidelines for retention
of snags and large wood [the Siskiyou Supplement Guidelines for Harvest Prescriptions – Large
Woody Material, Green Tree, Retention, and Wildlife Reserve (Snag) Tree Retention (USDA, rev.
2001)]. In general, the Siskiyou Wildlife Reserve Tree Guidelines recognize that dense/mature
stands undergoing stem-exclusion typically have low large snag densities. The guidelines provide a
desired future condition as the stands develop. I felt it was important to develop a Wildlife Reserve
Tree Strategy that incorporates pre-harvest measures and post-harvest improvements in one
document (Attachment C). I believe the Selected Alternative takes proactive steps to identify
Wildlife Reserve Trees pre-harvest and outlines future improvements for habitat for snag
dependent species.
4.1 Response to Purpose and Need
By combining the activities in Alternative 2 and the road decommissioning in Alternative 3, the
Selected Alternative best meets the Purpose and Need. The Selected Alternative takes a proactive
approach to address overstocked stands, decommissions a road that will improve riparian and
hydrologic function and delivers a supply of timber products.
1. Actively manage stands and landscape features to improve stand conditions, diversity,
density, and structure to increase forest resiliency and health.
Equine Thin Project 2012 DN/FONSI
13
April 2012
The Selected Alternative will commercially thin 550 acres of overstocked stands, making the area
less susceptible to insect and disease outbreaks. Canopy closures after thinning will range from 40
to 60%, with the higher closures in riparian areas. As described in detail in the EA and Silviculture
Report, stand vigor will increase as released trees develop into larger trees sooner, which would
accelerate the development of some late-successional characteristics. Tree species, age, and
structure diversity would be improved. Forest conditions would be enhanced for plant and wildlife
species which benefit from forest diversity (such as a multi-layered canopy, larger trees, shrub
development, forest gaps and skipped areas).
2. Actively manage Riparian Reserves to become late-successional habitat, improve forest
health, and improve hydrological function.
The Selected Alternative will thin 94 acres of overstocked stands with small diameter trees. These
stands will more quickly acquire the desired vegetative characteristics needed to maintain or
restore Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives by promoting the development of large-diameter
trees, coarse woody debris, and structural heterogeneity. These conditions would increase forest
diversity for the benefit of aquatic and terrestrial species. The Selected Alternative will
decommission approximately 1.3 miles of NFS 3680-260 road thereby improving riparian and
hydrological function by allowing natural flow regimes to occur.
3. Provide for a sustainable supply of timber products.
Implementing the Selected Alternative will contribute to a sustained yield of timber harvest as
prescribed by the Siskiyou LRMP, as amended. The thinning would promote stand growth to
maximize timber yields and support future harvest. The timber sales would provide economic
benefits to local communities.
My decision includes the commitment to include the Mitigation Measures described in Attachment
B. These mitigation measures will ensure resource protection and compliance with all applicable
Standards and Guidelines.
4.2. Response to Issues
In choosing the Selected Alternative, I considered the key issues.
Key Issue #1: Thinning within Riparian Reserves and its effects on forest structure and
water quality
Concerns were raised that thinning in the Riparian Reserve would: 1) not produce mature/old-
growth conditions more quickly, and thereby affect travel/dispersal corridors for some species; 2)
reduce canopy cover, thereby increasing stream temperature; and/or, 3) remove suppressed trees,
thereby reducing snag development and wood recruitment to streams.
I have given a hard look at deciding whether to thin Riparian Reserves (see the EA, Key Issue #1
Section 3.2.1) . The effects of the Selected Alternative on Riparian Reserves would be a reduction in
tree densities to decrease competition for light and nutrients, thereby allowing the remaining trees
to grow larger more quickly and increase diversity in both the overstory and understory. Thinning
in these reserves would create a mature forest more quickly providing refugia, dispersal, and
connectivity for riparian species.
Equine Thin Project 2012 DN/FONSI
14
April 2012
Reducing relative densities to 40 to 60 would help curb current suppression mortality, allow crown
development, and speed diameter growth by reducing competition for light, water, and nutrients.
Larger live trees would generate larger wildlife trees in the future, as well as larger snag and down
logs that have distinct ecological roles because of their size (Franklin et al. 2002) (EA Section 3.2.1
page 3-5).
The thinned stands would achieve structural diversity and a multistory stand more quickly through
the stimulation of conifer and hardwood regeneration in the understory (Bailey and Tappeiner
1998). Thinning would also promote minor conifer species associated with streams, such as Port-
Orford-cedar. This diverse composition of vegetation in riparian areas would provide structural
characteristics that are important for survival and reproduction of many wildlife species (Kelsey and
West 1998) (EA Section 3.2.1 page 3-6). As the stands develop mature forest characteristics, they
would provide benefits to mature forest species both directly and indirectly, by promoting dispersal
and connectivity between other mature and old-growth stands.
Effects to streams would be avoided and minimized through the mitigation measures listed in EA
Appendix A, summarized in EA Section 2.3.1 and analyzed in EA Section 3.3.7. Those mitigations
are also included in this document as Attachment B. There would be no increase in stream water
temperature because the protection buffers (see EA Appendix D) would prevent substantially all
tree-cutting (20 trees or less) within the shade zone of streams. In addition, average canopy closure
within Riparian Reserves would remain above 50 percent. Also see the Hydrology Section 3.3.7 for
additional discussion on the effects of thinning on stream temperature and hydrological function.
Recruitment of small (< 15-inch diameter) snags and down wood would be decreased in thinned
areas, because suppression mortality would be diminished for several decades. Recruitment would
continue in protection buffers along the streams. This smaller dead wood confers benefits to some
wildlife species and is discussed in more detail in the Wildlife Section 3.3.9. Because the streams are
too small to allow down wood to flow to fish-bearing reaches downstream, there would be no effects
on in-stream wood recruitment (see Fisheries Section 3.3.8).
Thinning these riparian areas would maintain or restore Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives
(EA Appendix E), and move the stands towards a more complex forest to the benefit of fish and
riparian-dependent species. It would also help advance connectivity between watersheds and
promote the development of mature-forest more quickly.
Key Issue #2: Construction of new temporary roads and its effects on soil productivity
The principal concerns are whether new, temporary roads would compact soils, thereby reducing:
1) soil productivity; and/or, 2) soil infiltration capacity.
I recognize that the productivity of soils within the template of new temporary roads would be
reduced for several decades or more as compared to neighboring forest soils. However,
implementation of proper rehabilitation actions would promote a faster trajectory of recovery.
Implementation of the new temporary roads in the Selected Alternative would meet Forest Plan
Standards and Guidelines for the soil resource. At a spatial scale across the project area, the effects
on soil productivity and infiltration capacity from building new temporary roads would be localized
and minimal due to the implementation of effective mitigation measures and the small area
impacted. For more discussion on impacts to soils see the Soils Section 3.3.6 pages 3-44 & 3-45 of
the EA.
Equine Thin Project 2012 DN/FONSI
15
April 2012
Non-Key Issues – Within the scope of this project
Thinning within undeveloped areas and its effects to special resource values: This issue is
analyzed and summarized in the Undeveloped Areas Section 3.3.13 of the EA.
Create a viable sale and consider the cost of logging systems: This issue is analyzed and
summarized in the Economics Section 3.3.15 of the EA.
Retention of legacy trees, snags, dead wood, and deformed trees: This issue is summarized in
the Forest Stands Being Treated Section 3.3.1 and Snags and Down Wood Section 3.3.2 of the EA.
Design criteria and harvest prescriptions would protect these features to the greatest extent
practical. When felled to protect worker safety, they would remain on-site. This issue is covered
under the Response to Comments - DN Attachment A (Comment #16) and in DN Attachment C –
Strategy for Wildlife Reserve Trees.
Development and recruitment of large snags and down wood: This issue is summarized in the
Snags and Down Wood Section 3.3.2 of the EA. Harvest prescriptions would provide areas where
thinning is “skipped” in both riparian and upland forest, so natural suppression would continue to
occur in those areas. This issue is covered under the Response to Comments - DN Attachment A
(Comment #16) and in DN Attachment C – Strategy for Wildlife Reserve Trees.
Effects from thinning to sensitive wildlife species and their habitats: This issue is analyzed in
the wildlife biological evaluation and summarized in the Wildlife Section 3.3.9 of the EA.
Effects of the project from and to climate change: This issue is analyzed in the silvicultural
diagnosis report and summarized in the Air Quality Section 3.3.5 of the EA.
Decommissioning should occur on the 3680-260 road: The Selected Alternative includes the
decommissioning of a portion of the NFS road 3680-260 road (about 1.3 miles) which is no longer
needed to meet Forest objectives.
4.3. Response to New Information
I received new information on black-backed woodpeckers (Hanson 2010, Hutto 1995, Hutto 2008,
Marshall et al. 2003, and Siegel et al. 2012) from Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands, Oregon Wild and
Cascadia Wildlands. Because this information was not included in the Environmental Analysis, I
reviewed all five documents in detail prior to making my decision.
Ultimately, this new information was not a factor in my decision to choose the Selected Alternative
because black-backed woodpeckers on Gold Beach Ranger District are: (1) rare vagrants
(accidental), (2) nesting has not been documented within Curry County, and (3) the Equine Thin
project is not within the bird’s primary range (Marshall et al. 2003, Marshall 1992, Kalmiopsis
2009). Because of the low likelihood that black-backed woodpeckers are present, the ability to
measurably impact (or benefit) the species is extremely low. Also see Attachment A – Response to
Comments (Comment #12).
Woodpeckers, and other snag-dependent species, are analyzed as a group in the EA, and standards
and guidelines to provide for those species will be met. Specific to the black-backed woodpecker,
the Northwest Forest Plan categorized this species as an east-side (of the Cascades) bird (pg. C-45).
Recommendations for providing for a 100% population potential applied to higher elevations of the
Equine Thin Project 2012 DN/FONSI
16
April 2012
Cascade Range (p. C-46). I have included in this document Attachment C – Strategy for Wildlife
Reserve Trees to reiterate the value of snags and other wildlife trees.
I have determined that effects to black-backed woodpeckers were adequately disclosed and
analyzed in the EA and its supporting documents. The new information would not change my
determination that the species would be minimally impacted (EA page 3-93) and that species
viability would not be jeopardized (EA page 3-96). As a result, no supplementation of the EA is
needed.
I acknowledge that the new information is adding appreciably to our knowledge of the life history of
the black-backed woodpecker and could likely shape future land management practices. Regional
and landscape level planning will likely incorporate this information, as it develops. As information
advances and management recommendations develop, we will watch for opportunities to
incorporate them into our projects when they would benefit the species.
Below are responses to the topics of concern provided with the information submitted.
Black-backed woodpeckers are using a mix of burned and unburned habitat for home
ranges (Siegel et al. 2012): The information in Siegel et al. provides interim information
on black-backed woodpecker home range size, habitat elements within home ranges, and
forage habitat selection in California. Because the data is preliminary, the authors are not
yet making specific management recommendations for sustaining black-backed
woodpeckers (page 4). As such, it would be premature to make a decision on a project
based on this information, especially in a region where nesting has not been confirmed.
Thinning a forest before a fire substantially reduces black-backed woodpecker
occupancy if the forest burns later (Hutto 2008): Because black-backed woodpeckers are
currently rare and historically accidental within the project area, impacts are unlikely to
occur with future fires.
The size, number, and basal area of trees being removed determine impacts to black-
backed woodpecker (Siegal et al. 2012, Hutto 2008): Because black-backed
woodpeckers are accidental within the project area, measurable impacts are unlikely to
occur from tree removal. Also see Attachment A – Response to Comments (Comment #5).
5. Other Alternatives Considered Alternative 1 - No-Action
This alternative was not selected because with No-Action, these natural stands would continue to
grow but at a slower rate than if stands were thinned (Latham and Tappeiner 2002, Sensenig 2002).
Because the stands are fairly uniform, opportunities for other species to become established or for
increased structural diversity through natural processes would remain low for many years, unless
the stands experienced major disturbance events such as stand-replacement fires.
This alternative provides no opportunity to accelerate development of complex, mature forest
conditions. The No-Action Alternative promotes the existing condition which is lacking in desired
habitat elements such as large-diameter trees, snags, and downed woody material.
Equine Thin Project 2012 DN/FONSI
17
April 2012
Under this alternative, the Forest would forego the opportunity to contribute commercial timber to
the Forest Probable Sale Quantity from dense natural stands. Additional benefits, such as the
improvement of wildlife habitat in Riparian Reserves, would not be realized.
This alternative would not meet the Purpose and Need (EA Section 1.4, page 1-7) because it would
not actively manage stands to improve stand conditions, diversity and structure which would in turn
increase forest health and resiliency. No action would fail to control stocking to improve forest
health and hydrologic function in Riparian Reserves. This alternative would not contribute forest
products to the National Forest’s probable sale quantity (PSQ) on Matrix lands, which were
primarily designated for this purpose. This alternative does not satisfy the need for action;
therefore, it was not selected.
Alternative 3
The decommissioning component of Alternative 3 was incorporated into the Selected Alternative
because it would improve riparian and hydrological function by allowing natural flow regimes to
occur.
The remainder of this alternative was not selected because (EA page 2-16, Table 2-5):
fewer acres would be treated to promote stand health and forest resilience
no acres would be actively managed in Riparian Reserves to develop late-successional
characteristics and improve forest health
considerably less timber products would be provided for a sustainable supply of timber
products
6. Public Involvement The Equine Thin project proposal was first introduced to the public through the Forest Service’s
Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on July 1, 2007. Two 30-day public scoping periods occurred
for Equine Thin: May 2008 and November 2010. All scoping documents are in the administrative
record at Gold Beach Ranger District.
2008 Proposed Action and Scoping: Formal scoping of the 2008 proposed action (984 acres) was
initiated with publication of legal notice of scoping in the newspaper of record on May 7, 2008. At
that time, a scoping letter was sent to approximately 203 entities. In addition, a public field trip
occurred on November 7, 2008. Responses were received from three individuals/organizations.
2010 Proposed Action and Scoping: The 2010 proposed action (Alternative 2 in this EA) was
developed to incorporate the results from field surveys and in response to issues identified during
the 2008 scoping effort. In general, treatment units were eliminated or reduced in acreage due to:
the presence of sensitive wildlife species or their habitat (primarily murrelets, owls, red tree voles,
and salmonids); stand conditions which would minimally benefit from thinning (such as low relative
densities or the presence of numerous larger, older trees); units with extensive riparian areas; areas
with hardwoods and low densities of conifer; and areas which were not economically feasible or
could not be harvested with conventional logging systems.
Public scoping of the 2010 proposed action began on October 12, 2010, with the mailing of a scoping
letter to 14 individuals, organizations, agencies, and tribes. It was followed by publication on
October 20, 2010, of legal notice of the initiation of public scoping in the newspaper of record.
Equine Thin Project 2012 DN/FONSI
18
April 2012
Responses were received from four individuals/organizations, some of which had also responded in
2008. A public field trip occurred to the project area on October 29, 2010.
2012 Environmental Assessment Published
After considering scoping comments and information from field surveys by specialists, two action
alternatives were developed and analyzed. The EA summarized the analysis and was published
February 2012. A Legal Notice was published in Brooking’s Curry Coastal Pilot and Gold Beach’s
Curry County Reporter newspapers February 8, 2012. The notice established a Comment Period
under 36 CFR 215. The EA was available for public review and comment for 30 days. Three
comment letters were received. Comments were grouped based on content and the Response to
Comments is included in Attachment A.
7. Consistency Findings Based on the information and evidence contained in the February 2012 EA, and as further
documented within this Decision Notice, I find that my decision to implement the Selected
Alternative is consistent with the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as
amended by the Northwest Forest Plan; other amendments and other laws, regulations and
agreements applicable to the management of National Forest System lands and resources. My
decision does not retard or prevent attainment of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Aquatic
Conservation Strategy (ACS). I find my decision to be compliant with the 1994 ROD for the
Northwest Forest Plan regarding ACS consistency because the EA and its appendices clearly
documents a description and analysis of the current condition for each affected fifth-field watershed,
a description and analysis of current stand conditions, and how the project will maintain the existing
condition or will move (i.e., restore) conditions toward the desired conditions (EA sections Riparian
Thinning 3.2.1 and Hydrology 3.3.7).
The ACS contains four components: riparian reserves, key watersheds, watershed analysis and
watershed restoration. Under current policy and legal direction, the Northwest Forest Plan requires
a determination of consistency with ACS with specific reference to the nine ACS Objectives.
Appendix E of the EA explains the consistency with the elements and components of the Objectives.
Therefore, as an overall (ultimate) conclusion associated with my decision, I find that none of the
impacts associated with my decision, either directly, indirectly, individually or cumulatively, will
prevent attainment of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, nor the nine ACS Objectives, at the stand,
watershed or landscape scales.
My decision is also consistent with the Record of Decision and Land and Resource Management Plan
Amendments for Management of Port-Orford-Cedar in Southwest Oregon, Siskiyou National Forest
(March 2004), the Record of Decision for the Pacific Northwest Region, Invasive Plant Program
(October 2005), and the Decision Notice for the Forest Plan Amendments for Use of Wildland Fire on
the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (October 2010) because the project meets the objectives
associated with these decisions and will employ Project Design Criteria, Mitigation Measures and
Best Management Practices, as required by these amendments. This action has been analyzed and
designed under other laws, regulations and agreements applicable to the management of National
Forest System lands and resources, including: 16 USC 1604 (g)(3), 36 CFR 219.14, 36 CFR 219.27
(b). I find this decision to be consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA),
the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA, 40 CFR 1500-1508, July
Equine Thin Project 2012 DN/FONSI
19
April 2012
1, 1986, the Multiple-use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, and the National Forest Management Act of
1976. I also find this project is in compliance with the Endangered Species Act 1973 as amended,
and the Historic Preservation Act.
8. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) The significance of environmental impacts must be considered in terms of context and intensity.
This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as
a whole (human and national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality.
Significance varies with the setting of the Selected Alternative. In the case of a site-specific action,
significance usually depends upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole.
Intensity refers to the severity or degree of impact. (40 CFR 1508.27)
8.1 Context and Intensity
The context and intensity of effects was considered in terms of the following:
1. I find that there are no known significant irreversible resource commitments or irretrievable
losses of vegetation, wildlife habitats, soil productivity, or water quality.
2. I find that implementation of my decision will not create significant resource commitments or
any significant irretrievable losses of vegetation, soils, water, or wildlife and fish habitats.
3. I find that soil productivity will be lost to some degree on temporary roads, skid trails, cable
corridors. The amount of lost soil productivity will fall within and be in compliance with the
SNF-LRMP Standards and Guidelines. 100 percent recovery for forest productivity on temporary
roads, skid trails, and landings will not be anticipated. The losses in productivity will occur on a
small part of the Project Area, about 7.9% (approximately 10.6% if the pre-bunching option
were implemented). These changes are not considered significant. (EA Chapter III,
Environmental Consequences) The project design incorporates mitigation measures and Best
Management Practices, to achieve consistency with Standards and Guidelines for Riparian
Reserves and ACS Objectives.
4. I find that there are no significant effects on public health and safety. Project safety on Forest
Service managed lands is guided by FS Handbook 6709.11 (Health and Safety Code Handbook).
Proper signing for safety will follow the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets
and Highways (MUTCD) and any helicopter operations will be restricted when flying external
loads over roadways and private property. (EA Chapter III, Environmental Consequences)
5. I find that there are no unique characteristics of the geographical area that will be significantly
affected by the selected action. There are no known unique features within or adjacent to the
treatment areas (such as historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands,
wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas) that may experience any impacts from my
decision. (EA Chapter III, Environmental Consequences)
6. I find that the environmental analysis revealed no effects on the human environment that are
highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. Activities proposed and analyzed in the EA
do not involve uncertain risks. No uncertain or unique/unknown risks were identified because
the Forest Service has extensive past experience with commercial density management on
Equine Thin Project 2012 DN/FONSI
20
April 2012
overly dense natural stands, its connected actions and with the environmental effects associated
with these actions. (EA Chapter III, Environmental Consequences)
7. I find that the effects of this action on the human environment are not highly controversial.
There have been discussions and disagreement over the question of whether and where to thin
trees and the anticipated impacts and benefits of thinning and the associated activities. This
action will reduce stand densities within matrix and riparian reserve lands and will meet the
Purpose and Need of the project.
8. I find that this action is not precedent setting. This action does not establish a precedent for
future actions which may have a significant effect on the environment. It does not represent a
decision in principle about a future consideration. This is not a major action within the context
of the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, nor is it a substantial
change from the historical levels of management activity in the area. (EA Chapter III,
Environmental Consequences)
9. I find that there are no known significant cumulative effects between this and other actions
ongoing or proposed in the affected watersheds. All known actions, which are likely to occur in
the reasonably foreseeable future, were analyzed, including direct, indirect, and cumulative
effects. These actions were identified in the EA. (Chapter III, Environmental Consequences)
10. I find that there are no significant effects on cultural (heritage) resources. Surveys for
archaeological and historical resources have been completed within the Equine Thin area.
Identified cultural resources will remain unaffected by implementation of the Selected
Alternative. (EA Chapter III, Environmental Consequences)
11. Inventory, habitat analysis and surveys to locate Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species
in compliance with the Endangered Species Act have been accomplished. Appropriate
conferencing and consultation has been conducted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
accordance with the Endangered Species Act. This project is included with the most recent
programmatic consultation for timber sales as documented in the August 27, 2009 Formal
Consultation Letter Biological Opinion (Formal Consultation # 13420-2009-F-0146).
Information and Project Design Criteria contained in the referenced document was used in the
subsequent determination of effects of Threatened and Endangered species in this project. See
Attachment B (EA Appendix A) for the list of required Project Design Features, Design Criteria,
and Mitigation Measures for terrestrial wildlife and habitat. This decision and its activities are
not likely to be in conflict with the Final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USDI FWS
2008a). While the Selected Alternative would adversely affect species covered by the BO, the
impacts are within limits set by the BO.
12. The Selected Alternative includes quarry expansion and the quarry expansion is considered a
“May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect” (LAA) for the marbled murrelet because 1 acre of
potential nesting habitat will be removed. In the Service's biological opinion this proposed
action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the murrelet. No incidental take of
murrelets would occur. Effects are of low intensity because surveys did not indicate nesting was
occurring in the area, activities will not occur during the nesting season, and the nearest
occupied habitat is slightly over one mile away.
Thinning stands with approximately 90 acres of potential murrelet nesting structure is
considered “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” (NLAA) because surveys determined
this potential habitat not occupied. A Limited Operating Period prevents harassment of
Equine Thin Project 2012 DN/FONSI
21
April 2012
potentially nesting murrelets adjacent to operating areas. Some hazard trees may need to be
removed along the haul route for safety, the extent of the effects associated with hazard tree
felling is estimated at up to 5 acres of habitat maintained. Over the long term, the thinning
should allow the remaining trees to reach a larger diameter and develop larger branches sooner
than would be possible if no thinning occurred. The planned major haul route is on roads
already open to public use suggesting a murrelet tolerance to motorized traffic on these roads,
including road maintenance and road improvement activities.
13. The Selected Alternative is considered “May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect” (LAA) to
marbled murrelet critical habitat because quarry expansion removes 1 acre of suitable habitat
within Critical Habitat Unit (CHU) #OR-97-b. This removal is substantially less than one percent
of the available habitat within the CHU. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service found this amount of
loss is not likely to substantially reduce the function of this CHU as nesting habitat. Thinning
operations will not affect critical habitat because no units are in murrelet CHU. Some hazard
trees may need to be removed along the haul route for safety within CHU, the extent of the
effects associated with hazard tree felling is estimated at up to 1 acres of habitat affected but
maintained.
14. This action “May Affect is Likely to Adversely Affect” (LAA) the northern spotted owl because
of the loss of one acre of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat during rock quarry expansion.
In the Service's biological opinion this proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the spotted owl. No incidental take of owls would occur. The quarry is within a
projected owl home range (EA page 3-72). Within that home range, the removal of one acre of
NRF habitat is substantially less than one percent of currently available NRF (1358 acres).
Effects are of low intensity because surveys did not indicate nesting, quarry activities will not
occur during the nesting season, and removal of one acre of NRF would not measurably reduce
the function of the affected home range.
15. This action does not threaten a violation of Federal, State, or local laws or other legal
requirements imposed for protection of the environment. This action, as planned, does not
threaten a violation of Federal, State or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of
the environment. No violations of any State, Federal or local laws or other legal requirements
are anticipated (EA Chapter 3, Environmental Consequences). Consideration of both context and
intensity were used to determine significance of the effects of this action, as described in 40 CFR
1508.27. Sufficient information is available to make a reasoned choice among alternatives based
on analysis information in the Environmental Assessment and past actions of similar context
and intensity in this area. The relationship of individually insignificant actions that have
cumulatively significant effects (1508.27[b][7]) was part of the analysis for the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Siskiyou National Forest’s Land and Resource
Management Plan.
Equine Thin Project 2012 DN/FONSI
22
April 2012
9. Implementation of this Decision Authorization of my decision is based on this Decision Notice and the February 2012 Environmental
Assessment. The Equine Thin Project will not take place prior to 50 days following the publication of
a legal notice announcing this decision in Gold Beach’s Curry County Reporter. When appeals are
filed, implementation may occur on, but not before, the 15th business day following the date of the
last appeal disposition.
10. Right to Administrative Review This decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 36 CFR part 215. The appeal
must be filed with Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Forest Supervisor, Appeal Deciding Officer,
using any one of the delivery options listed below:
Postal address:
Rogue River–Siskiyou National Forest
3040 Biddle Road
Medford, Oregon 97504
Hand-delivery or express delivery:
Forest Supervisor’s Office
3040 Biddle Road
Medford, Oregon 97504
Facsimile (FAX): (541) 618-2400
Electronic mail: appeals-pacificnorthwest-rogueriver-siskiyou@fs.fed.us
The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered or express delivery appeals are 8:00
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Appeals filed through electronic mail
must be submitted, in a format such as an e-mail message, plain text (.txt), rich text (.rtf) or Word
(.doc), by midnight on the last day of the appeal time period. In cases where no identifiable name is
attached to an electronic message, a verification of identity will be required. A scanned signature is
one way to provide verification.
After considering the effects of the actions analyzed, in terms of context and intensity, I have
determined that these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human
environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared.
Alan Vandiver April 13, 2012 District Ranger
Equine Thin Project 2012 DN/FONSI
23
April 2012
References
Baily, John D., Tappeiner, John C., 1998. Effects of thinning on structural development in 40- to
100-year-old Douglas-fir stands in western Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management. Vol.
108, Issues 1-2, pages 99-113.
Hanson, C. 2010. The myth of “catastrophic wildfire”: A new paradigm of forest health. John
Muir Project Technical Report 1. www.johnmuirproject.org
Hutto, R.L. 1995. Composition of bird communities following stand-replacement rires in
Northern Rocky Mountain (U.S.A.) Conifer Forests. Conservation Biology 9:5 pp. 1041-
1058.
Hutto, R.L. 2008. The ecological importance of severe wildfires: Some like it hot. Ecological
Applications 18(8) pp. 1827-1834.
Kalmiopsis Audubon Society, 2009. A checklist to the birds of Curry County, Oregon. Port
Orford, OR. http://www.kalmiopsisaudubon.org/docs/Curry_Bird_Checklist__2009_.pdf
Latham and Tappeiner, 2002 P. Latham and J. Tappeiner Jr., Response of old-growth conifers to
reduction in stand density in western Oregon forests, Tree Physiol. 22 (2002), pp. 137–146.
Marshall, D.B. 1992. Status of the black-backed woodpecker in Oregon and Washington.
Unpublished report. Audubon Society of Portland, Portland, OR.
Marshall, D.B., M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, Eds. 2003. Birds of Oregon: A general reference.
Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. Pp. 368-370.
Sensenig, T. S. 2002. Development, fire history and current and past growth of old-growth and
young-growth forest stands in the Cascade, Siskiyou and mid-coast mountains of southwestern
Oregon. Ph.D. dissertation. Oregon State University, Corvallis. OR.
Siegel, R.B. , MW. Tingley, R.L. Wilkerson and M.L. Bond. 2012. Assessing home range size and
habitat needs of Black-backed Woodpeckers in California: 2011 Interim Report. The Institute for
Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA. www.birdpop.org
Stephens, S. L., and J. J. Moghaddas. 2005a. Silvicultural and reserve impacts on potential fire
behavior and forest conservation: 25 years of experience from Sierra Nevada mixed conifer
forests. Biological Conservation 25:369–379.
Stephens, S. L. and J. J. Moghaddas. 2005b. Experimental fuel treatment impacts on forest structure,
potential fire behavior, and predicted tree mortality in a mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecology and
Management 215:21–36.
USDA (USDA Forest Service). 1989. Land and Resource Management Plan - Siskiyou National Forest,
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Grants Pass, OR.
USDA (USDA Forest Service). 2004. Record of Decision – Biscuit Fire Recovery Project (matrix &
LSR) Rogue River- Siskiyou National Forest. Medford, OR.
Equine Thin Project 2012 DN/FONSI
24
April 2012
USDA (USDA Forest Service). 2004a. Record of Decision and Land and Resource Management Plan
Amendment for Management of Port-Orford-Cedar in Southwest Oregon, Siskiyou National
Forest. Medford, OR. (http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/rogue-siskiyou/projects/foresthealth/poc/poc-rod-
fs.pdf).
USDA (USDA Forest Service). 2005. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Preventing
and Managing Invasive Plants Record of Decision. Portland, OR. URL:
<http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/FEIS/ROD/ROD-R6-NR-FHP-PR-02-05.pdf>.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008a. Final Recovery for the Northern Spotted Owl, Strix
occidentalis caurina, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon xii + 142 pp.
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/NSORecoveryPlanning.htm