Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant...

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


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.


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


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


1

April 2012

DECISION NOTICE

AND

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Equine Thin Project 2012

USDA Forest Service

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest


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.

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=21680


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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.


9

April 2012

Figure 1. Vicinity Map of Equine Thin Selected Alternative (modified Alt. 2).


10

April 2012

Figure 2. Map of Selected Alternative (modified Alt. 2) North Half.


11

April 2012

Figure 3. Map of Selected Alternative (modified Alt. 2) South Half.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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.


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: [email protected]

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


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.


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

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/rogue-siskiyou/projects/foresthealth/poc/poc-rod-fs.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/rogue-siskiyou/projects/foresthealth/poc/poc-rod-fs.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/NSORecoveryPlanning.htm

Date post:	06-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant...

Documents