record of decisiona123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… · phone:...

United States Department of Agriculture

RECORD OF DECISION

Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region DECEMBER 2005

BIG BUTTE SPRINGS TIMBER SALES

Butte Falls Ranger District Cascade Zone Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

Record of Decision Big Butte Springs Timber Sales

RECORD OF DECISION

BIG BUTTE SPRINGS TIMBER SALES

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Butte Falls Ranger District Cascade Zone

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Jackson County, Oregon

December 2005

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

Responsible Official: Scott Conroy, Forest Supervisor

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest For Further Information Joel King, District Ranger or Contact: Don Boucher, Project Leader

Cascade Zone 47201 Highway 62 Prospect, OR 97536 Phone: (541) 560-3400 email: [email protected]

Record of Decision Big Butte Springs Timber Sales

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ ROD – 1 Background of Project Proposal ................................................................................................................ ROD – 1 THE DECISION.......................................................................................................................................... ROD – 2 DESCRIPTION OF DECISION ................................................................................................................. ROD – 2 Summary – Modified Alternative 3 ............................................................................................................. ROD – 3 Required Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................. ROD – 3 Monitoring ................................................................................................................................................. ROD – 3 REASONS FOR THE DECISION ............................................................................................................. ROD – 4 Response to Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................... ROD – 4 Response to Significant Issues ................................................................................................................. ROD – 5

IMPACTS TO SOILS ...............................................................................................................................................................ROD – 5 IMPACTS TO WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................................................................ROD – 6 IMPACTS TO VEGETATION CONDITIONS ..........................................................................................................................ROD – 6 IMPACTS TO BIG GAME THERMAL AND HIDING COVER, AND FORAGE .......................................................................ROD – 7 IMPACTS TO BIG GAME TRAVEL CORRIDORS AND MIGRATION ROUTES ...................................................................ROD – 7 IMPACTS FROM ROADS AND ROAD DENSITY ..................................................................................................................ROD – 8 IMPACTS TO LATE-SUCCESSIONAL HABITAT – FRAGMENTATION AND CONNECTIVITY ..........................................ROD – 8 IMPACTS TO SEMI-PRIMITIVE UNROADED AREAS ..........................................................................................................ROD – 8 IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH HUMAN ECONOMIC VALUES ...........................................................................................ROD – 9 IMPACTS TO ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ...................................................................................................... ROD – 9

Other Issues............................................................................................................................................... ROD – 9 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .............................................................................................................. ROD – 9 ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................. ROD – 12 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................................................... ROD – 12 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................. ROD – 13 Forest Plan Consistency (NFMA) .............................................................................................................. ROD – 13 Forest Plan Management Direction ............................................................................................. ROD – 13 Other Legal Requirements and Policies .................................................................................................... ROD – 14 IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................................................. ROD – 15 Process for Change During Implementation ............................................................................................. ROD – 16 RIGHT TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW (APPEAL) ................................................................................ ROD – 16 ATTACHMENTS A Implementation Plan B. Required Mitigation Measures C Monitoring Plan

Record of Decision ROD - 1 Big Butte Springs Timber Sales

INTRODUCTION This Record of Decision (ROD) documents my decision and rationale for the selection of a course of action to be implemented for Big Butte Springs Timber Sales. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was issued December 23, 2005 and includes analysis and disclosure of a proposal to manage vegetation and accomplish other ecosystem objectives within the Upper Big Butte Springs Watershed. These projects are located on lands managed by the USDA Forest Service, within the Butte Falls Ranger District of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Jackson County, southwest Oregon. The overall purpose of the Proposed Action for Big Butte Springs Timber Sales is to implement management direction from the Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (RRNF LRMP) as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan. Specifically for the Big Butte Springs Study Area; needs include:

Improvement of Forest Health Existing forested stands have high tree densities with a resulting high incidence of insect infestations, root rot, dwarf mistletoe and other diseases. Improvement to overall forest health is accomplished by managing high risk insect and disease areas to encourage more stable and resilient forest vegetation conditions. Management of high risk areas includes the manipulation of stand densities, species composition, and stand structure in overstocked natural and created sapling, pole, and mature stands. Contribution of Commercial Timber to the Probable Sale Quantity The Study Area has a high proportion of lands allocated to Management Strategies that are scheduled for the production of commercial timber volume (e.g., Matrix lands), as part of the overall Rogue River National Forest. Probable Sale Quantity is the estimated output of commercial timber and other commodities assigned to the Forest under the Northwest Forest Plan.

This decision occurs on National Forest System Lands located within the Upper Big Butte Springs watershed (within the Rogue River Basin). The legal description of the Project Area associated with my decision is: T 35 S, R 4E, sections 7-35; T 35 S, R 3 E, sections 25-36; T 36 S, R 4 E, sections 3-8; 16-21, & 28-33; & T 36 S, R 3 E, sections 5, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 21, 25, & 27; Willamette Meridian; Jackson County, Oregon. Background of Project Proposal The Butte Falls Ranger District has utilized an ecosystem- and landscape-based approach in identifying the Big Butte Springs Study Area for consideration of proposed management actions. This process considered the current conditions of the various sub-watersheds within the Big Butte Springs fifth-field watershed in terms of the need for vegetation management, the need for restoration and road management, and implementing land management direction, including the potential to provide commodities. The Big Butte Springs Study Area was identified as having the highest level of need and the highest potential to provide commodities of all/other logical groups of sub-watersheds on the Butte Falls Ranger District. Other areas on the District do not have the same priority for management needs and restoration. Further, to ensure that adequate analysis is conducted and that sound decisions are made, several previously planned areas and potential timber sales (without a final decision) are incorporated into the broader landscape and Study Area identified as Big Butte Springs. This was also done to maximize efficiency for the interdisciplinary team and capitalize on analysis already accomplished. One EIS was prepared instead of several Environmental Assessments, as has typically been done in the past. Previous areas and study efforts will be identified or referenced throughout this analysis. A Notice of Intent for an EIS was published in the Federal Register (FR) on April 12, 2004 (FR page 19151-19153). A Draft EIS was prepared with an initial 45-day public comment period for Big Butte Springs Timber Sales beginning on March 19, 2005. The comment period concluded on May 2, 2005. Based on comments and input received on the draft, a FEIS was prepared. The FEIS was designed as complete final documentation of the analysis of this project, in conjunction with this Record of Decision.


THE DECISION In accordance with the RRNF LRMP (Forest Plan), the Forest Service will implement activities including, in part, several commercial timber sales involving approximately 6,184 acres of harvest units. Silvicultural prescriptions include density management of overstocked stands and treatment of mature stands with small-group selection or even-aged management systems. Other associated projects include road decommissioning, aspen stand treatments, snag creation, and road maintenance level changes. Limited road reconstruction and temporary roads will facilitate access to harvest units. No new system road construction will occur. As the Responsible Official, it is my decision to select Alternative 3 as described in the FEIS for implementing ecosystem management objectives in the Study Area (FEIS pages II-29 through 33, and including all mitigation and monitoring described on pages II-48 through II-61), with the following modifications:

Modification 1: Add density management Units 23, 24, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, and 148 (from Alternative 2).

Modification 2: Change logging systems on Units 4, 10, 23, 33, 36, 39, 46, 47,59, 63, 68, 73, 86, 104, 106, 155, and 157 from tractor, to harvester-forwarder (analyzed under Alternative 4).

Modification 3: Modify unit boundaries to additionally exclude Landslide Hazard Zone 2 areas. Modification 4: In areas where past management has resulted in a lack of large snags needed for cavity nesting

species, snags will be created from live trees. These areas of snag creation include Units 17, 20, 21, 22, 34, 37, 38, 87, 88, 89, 90, 97, 108, 110, 113, 119, 122, 123, 125, 126, 129, 132, 135, 142, 150, and 151 from Alternative 5.

Modification 5: The design element regarding deferment of trees larger than 25 inches in diameter is dropped.

DESCRIPTION OF DECISION This ROD (including its attachments) documents my decision as follows: the extent and location of areas to be treated in the Study Area; treatment prescriptions and methods for implementation of vegetation management and other ecosystem projects; mitigation and monitoring requirements and opportunities; and scheduling of project implementation. The function of Alternative 3 is described in Alternatives Considered, in this ROD (page 11). My decision to select and modify Alternative 3 in this ROD authorizes the implementation of vegetation management activities on approximately 6,184 acres with a variety of silvicultural treatments. The total of these treatments will yield an estimated 40,696 thousand board feet (MBF) or 40.7 million board feet (MMBF) (gross) of commercial volume. A combination of logging systems will be utilized to harvest the trees. Ground-based systems (tractor or rubber-tired skidder) will be used on approximately 4,466 acres, or 73% of the treated area. As a premium for soil protection, a harvester/forwarder system will be used on approximately 1,410 acres, or 23% of the treated area. Skyline systems will be used on approximately 202 acres, or 3% of the treated area. A combination of both tractor and skyline systems will be utilized on an additional 106 acres, or 1% of the treated area. These are units with a combination of terrain where portions of the unit will be harvested with ground-based systems and a portion with a skyline system. A combination of fuels treatments will be utilized to treat created slash. Jackpot burning, roadside handpiling and burning, or lop and scatter are examples of activity fuel treatments that will occur. To recognize the impacts associated with system road construction, and the eventual maintenance of roads, my decision does not have any new system road construction. To facilitate included commercial harvest systems, approximately 3.2 miles of road reconstruction is included. Some temporary road construction (up to 2.0 miles with no individual segment exceeding 1,000 feet and none crossing Riparian Reserve) will also be authorized.


My decision includes commercial tree harvest and removal that will be accomplished by private contractors, via Forest Service contracts. Contracts for commercial harvest operations will require certain provisions and mitigation measures to be incorporated as contract requirements. The Forest Service has long-standing experience in applying mitigation measures under traditional timber sale contracts; Forest Service contract administrators are responsible for enforcing the implementation of contract provisions. Under my decision, execution of commercial actions will be accomplished via several timber sale contracts, to be offered over several years, to various high bidders (purchasers) of sales. A summary of actions authorized under my decision is displayed below. Complete details of actions authorized with this ROD are identified in Attachment A, Implementation Plan.

Summary - Modified Alternative 3

Modified Alternative 3 will authorize the following ecosystem management actions:

6,184 acres of commercial silvicultural timber harvest treatments (in several separate timber sale contracts), on 99 Units,

producing approximately 40.7 million board feet of commercial volume;

Reconstruction of 3.2 miles of existing system road; Construction and use of up to 2.0 miles of temporary roads;

Decommissioning of 32 miles of existing system roads (in 111 segments), road maintenance

level changes on 20.7 miles of existing system roads; and

Implementation of several other restoration and enhancement actions. Required Mitigation Measures The Forest Service is required by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA to identify all relevant, reasonable mitigation measures that could improve the project. Mitigation, as defined in the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1508.20) includes: 1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, 2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, 3) Rectifying or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action, 4) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments, and 5) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment. Mitigation measures identified herein are specific to the decision to implement specified actions identified in this Record of Decision and are based on those described in FEIS (pages II-73 through II-87). Standards and Guidelines and mitigation measures identified in the RRNF Land and Resource Management Plan as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan are also incorporated by reference as required measures. Required Mitigation Measures made a part of my decision are identified and detailed in Attachment B to this Record of Decision and will be enacted for the authorized ecosystem management activities. Mitigation, identified during the planning and decision making phase, will be employed during the implementation phase, and will continue with ongoing maintenance and attention to any problematic sites or conditions. Monitoring Monitoring is important for tracking the implementation of a project, ensuring activities are implemented as planned as well as to measure success in meeting the stated project goals and objectives. Project activities will be monitored during and following implementation to ensure design features and mitigation measures are implemented as specified under my decision. This aspect of monitoring is referred to as implementation monitoring. The progress and findings of implementation monitoring will be documented as it occurs during project implementation.


Monitoring will be required on representative units to evaluate the effectiveness of authorized activities, including standard practices and mitigation measures, in achieving the desired project outcomes. Plans for inclusion of additional units for effectiveness monitoring will be contingent on available financing. Data for vegetation soils, coarse woody material and fuels conditions will be collected following a permanent and nonpermanent sampling approach. Detailed discussion on monitoring methodology is documented in ROD Attachment C, Monitoring Plan (Version 1.1) for the Big Butte Springs Timber Sales. If ongoing monitoring indicates that laws, regulations, standards and guidelines or critical project objectives are not being met, the project will be modified. Knowledge and experience gained, and lessons learned from monitoring and evaluation will also be incorporated into future planning efforts. REASONS FOR THE DECISION My decision is a solution that meets law and attempts to find balance with agency direction, human needs, forest needs, scientific analysis, and social acceptance. I have made this decision based on extensive public involvement that I actively sought and received. Modified Alternative 3 emphasizes protection of big trees, clean water, forest scenes, fish, big game, mushrooms, and forest jobs. I know that some participants are against all commercial activity on public lands. Some people are concerned about commercial activity on public lands and about people making a profit at the expense of the forest. I understand these concerns and I realize that Modified Alternative 3 contains commercial activity. I choose Alternative 3 because it can be accomplished economically and will improve the forest. I choose to implement some of this activity through commercial means to improve the forest in a manner that also allows the private sector to assist. I see nothing wrong in this approach. Many of the comments received during the Draft EIS Comment Period focused on oposition to new road construction, the need to maintain semi-primitive unroaded areas, the need for soils and water quality protection, the need to provide drinking water, the need for treating dense stands, and the effects of logging systems. This decision responds in a positive manner to these comments. Under my decision, the risk of large scale high-severity wildland fire will be reduced, the overcrowding of young trees will be reduced, old-growth forests will be preserved, no new system roads will be constructed, overall road density and road maintenance costs will be reduced, the resulting timbered stands will not be a monoculture, and many stands of trees will exist and continue to grow and thrive under healty forest conditions. Large trees will be maintained and will grow even bigger. Existing large tree structure will remain. Semi-primitive unroaded areas will remain roadless. My decision meets the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by responding to the Purpose and Need, responding to the Significant Issues identified in the planning process, and responding to comments received from the public during the Draft EIS Comment Period provided. Response to Purpose and Need The stated purpose for this project is “Implement management direction from the Rogue River National Forest LRMP, as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan ” (FEIS page I-4 and ROD -1). Alternative 3 as modified is designed to meet this Purpose and does so at a comparable level to the other action alternatives. The No-Action Alternative does not meet the stated Purpose.


The stated needs include: Improvement of Forest Health

Alternative 3 as modified will result in substantially improved forest health conditions. Its attainment of need are similar to Alternative 4. Because it treats more area in certain stands, it is predicted to result in more healthy forests than under Alternative 5. Its total amount of vegetative treatment is less in area than Alternative 2.

Contribution of Commercial Timber to the Probable Sale Quantity

All action alternatives would result in a yield of commercial timber and other commodities. The variable amount is relative to the extent and type of vegetation management treatments. Alternative 2 has the greatest amount of commodity production, and concurrenty, has the greatest risk for adverse resource impacts. Alternative 3 as modified includes yields that are less than Alternative 2 , but similar to Alternatives 4 and 5.

Under my decision, and as documented in the Final EIS, there is much evidence of sustainability of the forest, i.e., clean water, improved wildlife habitat, conservation of old-growth stands, maintained fish habitat, and current commodity production with the potential for commodities in the future. Utilization of Best Management Practices, no additional system road construction and no commercial activity within Riparian Reserves will maintain clean water for fish and other beneficial uses, including a Municipal water supply. Prescribed treatments will typically result in the harvest of trees smaller than 25 inches in diameter except in situations where there is a biological need such as development of optimal thermal cover, sanitation of diseased or damaged trees, or white fir encroachment of ponderosa pine. Prescribed treatments will emphasize the growth of big trees, especially in the scenic corridors. Big game habitat will be improved through the development of optimal thermal cover and production of forage. Under my decision, there will be treatments within the visual corridor along County Road 821. All units located in the Foreground Retention area (MA-6), are designed to meet and are in compliance with the Northwest Forest Plan and Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) allocated Visual Quality Objectives. Density management units within the immediate foreground of County Road 821 will result in long-term scenic resource benefits of visual penetration into the forest, overall forest health, and enhancement of the “big-tree” character (FEIS Page IV-82). The rationale for my decision to implement a modified Alternative 3 is further presented in this ROD by focusing on the Significant Issues regarding soils, water quality, vegetation conditions, wildlife, human social values, and human economic values. The following presents a brief description of consequences predicted to result from my decision, and my reasons for selecting and modifying Alternative 3. Response to Significant Issues IMPACTS TO SOILS Alternative 3 as modified will minimally impact soils in the short term (similar to Alternative 4) by minimizing soil disturbance, limiting removal of vegetation, maintaining trees with the greatest root strength for slope stability, and by decreasing road density (FEIS Page IV-11). The harvester-forwarder logging system will be utilized under modified Alternative 3 on approximately 1,410 acres (Modification 2). This system, when used under the appropriate conditions, minimizes soil compaction and virtually eliminates detrimental displacement or erosion (FEIS Page II-12). In addition, approximately 202 acres will be harvested using skyline logging systems. These systems will further reduce the amount of area detrimentally impacted over alternative methods considered. Under modified Alternative 3, no soils will be detrimentally burned as a result of activity. Overall, soil/site productivity of the lands within the Study Area will increase slightly over time, due to active and passive recovery from detrimental compaction and puddling, and due to natural weathering, root expansion and colonization, and increase in levels of organic matter.


To help accomplish the overall objectives for soils management, under my decision, any areas that contain soils rated as most sensitive to erosion will not be entered due to the unstable nature of the terrain. No Landslide Hazard Zone 1 areas are treated under Alternative 3 and only 4.3 acres of Landslide Hazard Zone 2 areas would be treated (FEIS Page IV-6). To better manage the soil resource and further reduce this slight risk, I have modified Alternative 3 to defer the 4.3 acres of Landslide Hazard Zone 2 areas (Modification 3). My decision will therefore result in no treatment within Landslide Hazard Zones 1 or 2. The harvester-forwarder system in modified Alternative 3 will be used where an adequate amount of vegetation and resulting slash is present to provide a buffer to additional soil compaction and disturbance. The harvester-forwarder system will not be used on areas extensively impacted by past actions, and where the trails used by the harvester will not be compatible with the existing skid trail system. This system will not be used where it may exacerbate existing root disease conditions. It is also important to note that stand-replacement fires will also impact soil and site quality, and would greatly reduce ecosystem services in the short-term, and some truly large scale high-severity wildland fire events, when they burn exceptionally hot, will alter soil chemistry and physical properties in ways that limit future productivity for many centuries. Thus, the activities identified in Alternative 3 as modified will help prevent or ameliorate such occurrences and will tend to maintain and maximize the provision of ecosystem services over time (FEIS Page IV-99). IMPACTS TO WATER QUALITY Modified Alternative 3 has no commercial treatments or new system road construction within Riparian Reserves (ROD-2). Further, authorized temporary roads will not cross Riparian Reserves (ROD-2). These activities, in combination with road decommissioning, will result in maintained and trend toward improved conditions over the current condition (No-Action). The cumulative watershed effects rating is low (FEIS Page IV-24) due to the amount of existing roading, timber harvesting, and other activities in the past and present on all land ownerships. An independent study entitled Big Butte Springs Geohydrologic Report, commissioned by the Medford Water Commission and US Forest Service in March 1990, stated the “water quality in streams on the Forest is generally excellent. Management activities, while generally not enhancing water quality, can be conducted in a manner that minimized their impact on the water resources. The previous and current management practices used by the Rogue River National Forest have not affected the water quality produced at Big Butte Springs.” This observation is evident in the water sampling over the past 50 years at Big Butte Springs. My decision results in even less impact than that envisioned in the 1992 observations. Due to the approximately 32 miles of road decommissioning, no new system road construction, no commercial harvest within Riparian Reserves, and the large proportion of density management treatments, this watershed should be more resilient to disturbances. IMPACTS TO VEGETATION CONDITIONS Activities associated with modified Alternative 3, (location, extent, and type of treatments) will beneficially affect the long-term health of forested stands, as well as the current levels of root diseases, insect populations, blister rust, and Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe. A number of stands have insect and disease pathogens, as well as mistletoe and other diseases that threaten the capability of achieving management objectives for those stands. Without silvicultural treatments, many other stands could potentially be in this situation. Several significant pathogen epicenters of laminated root rot (caused by the fungus Phellinus werii), and Armillaria root disease (caused by the fungus Armillaria ostoyae), have been identified and are planned for treatment (FEIS IV-33). In general, the more acres treated, the more likely management objectives for growth, vigor, and habitat development will be met. Careful design and implementation of protective measures can minimize potential tree or stand losses from disease agents. Variation in age and distribution patterns combined with regeneration systems and prompt reforestation that uses a mixture of species will provide a broad base of ecosystem resilience to changing environments and threats from insect and disease.


Under my decision, modifications are made to Alternative 3 as identified in the FEIS. Density Management Units 20, 22, 23, 24, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, and 148, as identified in Alternative 2 (and other action alternatives) are added (Modification 1). This was done to extend the attainment of overall Purpose and Need, on units that do not contain elements of adverse effects in relation to Significant Issues. I have decided to include snag creation treatments (Units 17, 20, 21, 22, 34, 37, 38, 87, 88, 89, 90, 97, 108, 110, 113, 119, 122, 123, 125, 126, 129, 132, 135, 142, 150, and 151) that were in Alternative 5 (Modification 4), I choose to treat the understory non-commercially in those stands to favor mistletoe resistant species. Where these resistant species are not present, the overstory can be girdled or blasted to control the mistletoe or resistant species can be underplanted within the units. This was done to extend the attainment of overall Purpose and Need while maintaining large structure and not generating adverse effects on Significant Issues. Modified Alternative 3 will reduce vegetative density on approximately 6,007 acres with commercial density management treatments. Modified Alternative 3 also treats 2,046 acres within insect and disease areas that will encourage more resilient forest vegetation conditions (FEIS Page IV-33). The resultant fire hazard and risk rating under modified Alternative 3 would be reduced over the current condition (FEIS Page IV-25). IMPACTS TO BIG GAME THERMAL AND HIDING COVER, AND FORAGE Under Alternative 3 as modified, many stands will develop winter range thermal cover characteristics within the next few decades. Assuming no timber harvest in future decades, thermal cover will increase for approximately 40 years after harvest, when it would level out at 50 to 60%. All thermal cover analysis blocks that currently meet Standard and Guideline levels of thermal cover in both summer and winter range, will continue to meet these levels. On summer range, thermal cover values improve through changed prescriptions and fewer harvest units, over Alternative 2. Treatments will maintain thermal cover through the majority of the stands, while creating structure needed for the development of optimal thermal cover. Maintaining shade cover provides thermal cover islands in the midst of large summer forage areas created by past harvest. IMPACTS TO BIG GAME TRAVEL CORRIDORS AND MIGRATION ROUTES There are three major travel corridors in the Big Butte Study Area (see complete descriptions in FEIS Chapter III). The following discussion provides more detail on the effects of modified Alternative 3 on these travel corridors. Fourbit Creek Corridor Because the Fourbit Corridor is dominated by younger stands, no optimal thermal cover would be lost. There would be no new road construction and 3.5 miles of current roads would be decommissioned, resulting in a net reduction of road density in the corridor. Only 6.6% of the thermal cover would be lost under modified Alternative 3 (125 acres). Because of road patterns, the 3.3 miles of roads selected for decommissioning would greatly enlarge the patches of forest where elk can move with reduced disturbance from vehicles and hunters. Willow Creek Corridor There would be no new system roads developed, resulting in a net loss of 3.5 miles of hunter road access after road decommissioning. These mainly consist of short spur roads that originally accessed landings for past logging activities. One cluster of spurs off Road 3050 eliminates nearly 1.5 miles of road in a single section that currently contains more than 5 miles of roads. Skeeter Creek Corridor There would be no new system road construction under modified Alternative 3, maintaining the integrity of the corridor at its current level. Approximately 1.4 miles of roads would be decommissioned within this corridor. Most of these consist of short spurs, but two segments total nearly 0.4 miles each. Reduced road densities lead to reduced stress on big game.


IMPACTS FROM ROADS AND ROAD DENSITY Under modified Alternative 3, approximately 32 miles of road will be decommissioned, removing them from the Forest Service road system. Most of these roads currently classified as Maintenance Level 1 and may or may not be closed. Because of the distribution of these roads, hunter and vehicle access will not be reduced across the Study Area. The benefits for big game include increased travel distances without having to cross an active road, increased forage on roadbeds that are seeded as a part of closure, and increased number of areas where animals can get away from traffic stress. Under modified Alternative 3, no new system roads will be constructed. This, in combination with the proposed road decommissioning will provide the greatest benefit to wildlife among all action alternatives. The lack of road building prevents additional fragmentation of forested habitats, and eliminates new access routes for hunters, predators, and invasive species. At the same time, road decommissioning, with associated vegetative planting, increases areas with reduced human disturbance from vehicles and walking, increases foraging habitat, and eliminates access routes as the forests eventually encroach on the roadbed (FEIS Page IV-95). IMPACTS TO LATE-SUCCESSIONAL HABITAT – FRAGMENTATION AND CONNECTIVITY Modified Alternative 3 has the same effect on interior habitat for late-successional conditions as Alternative 5. Modified Alternative 3 results in a 1.6% decrease in late-successional conditions across the Study Area from current conditions (FEIS Page IV-31). Seasonal operating restrictions will be placed on all logging activity and associated activities in identified units (see Required Mitigation Measures, Attachment B). These restrictions will allow normal breeding activity for adjacent spotted owl pairs, increasing their chances for successfully raising young. Green Tree Retention (GTR) patches will be left in commercially thinned stands to provide diverse conditions. These GTRs will protect any components of mature forest characteristics that may exist (concentrated snags or downed wood, understory structure, etc.). GTR patches provide dispersal and foraging habitat pockets between Late-Successional Reserves for spotted owls and other late-successional forest associated species (NWFP). One of the Standards and Guidelines applicable to Matrix lands (NWFP, p. C-44) is the retention of late-successional forest throughout the landscape. Analysis shows that for the fifth field level watershed (Upper Big Butte Springs watershed), approximately 26.5% is currently in late-successional forest condition; this includes all Federally managed lands. The Northwest Forest Plan requires that fifth field watersheds must retain late-successional forest conditions at a minimum of 15%. Modified Alternative 3 will result in maintaining 26.2% of late-successional forest conditions; a change of 0.3 of one percent. Even more importantly, it will maintain the large structure present in the shelterwood units to provide structure for future habitat. IMPACTS TO SEMI-PRIMITIVE UNROADED AREAS There are no inventoried roadless areas within the Big Butte Springs Study Area. The Big Butte Springs Study Area does contain areas that possess some semi-primitive unroaded character and values, not inventoried under RARE II. To identify those areas that had “roadless” characteristics, a set of criteria was developed that was applied to the Study Area in order to identify and map areas having those characteristics (see FEIS Chapter III, Section D, 4). These criteria were developed based on input received during scoping and discussion of this issue which has taken place on the National level and included consideration of size, configuration, distance from existing roads, existing vegetation, and past management activities. Values associated with late successional or old-growth vegetative conditions are difficult to describe in detail. These values are dependent on many factors such as a person’s background, personal beliefs, spiritual background, etc.


Modified Alternative 3 is designed to maintain the integrity of semi-primitive unroaded areas; it will not construct new system roads within and along these areas. In addition, no regeneration harvest will occur within areas identified as semi-primitive unroaded, however 1,480 acres of density management will occur within these areas. Total impact is 19% change (FEIS page IV-86). These actions will focus on smaller diameter trees to promote forest health and late seral conditions, and reduce the current fuels loading and subsequent risk in these areas. My intent is to thin from below and treat disease pockets, develop thermal cover, and maintain a diversity of species, including pine, without diameter limitations (Modification 5. IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH HUMAN ECONOMIC VALUES Although Alternative 3 has one of the lowest benefit cost ratios of any action alternative (FEIS Page IV-98), it remains economically feasible to implement. The net benefit per acre is the second lowest, but it is a positive number. The reduction in the value of Alternative 3, compared to Alternative 2, 4 and 5, is compensated for by the following: the protection of the soils resource, the lack of new system road impacts, and reduction of impacts to interior late-successional forests. The economic value of Alternative 3 is greater than Alternative 5, mainly due to the treatments designed to produce optimal thermal cover for elk on the winter range. My modification to Alternative 3 does not measurably change these economic relationships. IMPACTS TO ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Many of the actions in Alternative 3 as modified, to the extent that they are restorative or in the maintenance of an already established unnatural condition (a plantation of trees planted after a harvest in past decades) are specifically designed to bring about an increase in the overall provision of ecosystem services (or benefits supplied to human societies by ecosystems). These include: water quality, flood control, soil productivity, maintenance of biodiversity and, under the general topic of “the provision of aesthetic beauty and intellectual stimulation that lift the human spirit”, recreational opportunities, scenic quality, heritage resources and the protection of semi-primitive unroaded areas. In addition, modified Alternative 3 will include the harvest of sustainable commodities in a non-damaging manner, such as those practiced by indigenous pre-technological societies, as well as special forest products, like mushrooms, fence posts, firewood, managed berry stands, fish, and big game (FEIS Page IV-99 - 100). Other Issues Beyond the above listed Significant Issues, Other Issues were also taken into account in my decision. These additional issues are based upon public and agency comments received during the scoping and analysis process. The FEIS documents discussion of additional issues and effects that were identified during the process but were not found to be significant issues key to designing alternatives (FEIS Chapter IV, Environmental Consequences). Other Issues as used in this environmental analysis are those that have been determined to be relevant, are used to disclose consequences, may affect design or prescribe mitigation measures, or whose disclosure of environmental effects are required by law or policy. Other Issues as used in this environmental analysis differ from Significant Issues in that they are not used to formulate alternatives or drive alternatives themes. In addition, these issues often describe minor and/or consistent consequences among alternatives considered in detail. Because of this, these issues will not be further discussed in this decision document. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four action alternatives and a No-Action Alternative were analyzed in the FEIS. The Alternatives Chapter in the FEIS identifies and compares a range of actions and alternatives for implementation of a site-specific project proposal to commercially harvest and regenerate timber, and to construct, reconstruct, and decommission roads. The FEIS is prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the regulations for implementing its procedural provisions.


The range of alternatives has been developed in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations to provide the decision-maker and the public with a clear basis for choice (40 CFR 1502.14). This range includes all aspects of actions and alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study, as well as those actions and alternatives considered in detail. The specific alternatives considered in detail have been designed to respond to the Purpose and Need for this Proposed Action and the identified Significant Issues. They are summarized below. For additional detail, see FEIS Chapter II. Alternative 1 (No-Action) Alternative 1 identifies and describes the baseline conditions of the physical, biological, social and economic environments within the present Big Butte Springs Study Area. The term “No-Action” means no change to present conditions; the current set of previously authorized restoration and management activities will continue, with none of the proposed activities under the Big Butte Springs Timber Sales Proposed Action occurring. Alternative 1 is not designed to address the stated Purpose and Need. With this alternative, it is assumed that present management direction would be maintained and that the current conditions would remain. Since no activity is planned, no additional mitigation measures or management requirements and constraints are necessary. This alternative would not preclude future vegetation and restoration treatments within the Big Butte Springs Study Area for actions considered with this analysis. Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) The Proposed Action was developed through an evolving process examining important resource opportunities, values and environmental parameters. Initially, all vegetative needs and opportunities, such as candidate stands and silvicultural options (commercial and non-commercial) were identified within the entire Study Area (within stated land allocations). Then, each candidate stand was analyzed against the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and other laws and policies. Only candidate stands that could be treated in compliance with the Standards and Guidelines were carried forward. This alternative is designed to address and optimize attainment of the Purpose and Need. This alternative is designed to improve overall forest health by stimulating natural processes that encourage more stable and resilient forest vegetative conditions, manage stand densities and species composition, and provide for a sustainable yield of commercial timber and other commodities. This alternative would treat approximately 8,725 acres with a variety of silvicultural treatments. These treatments are detailed in FEIS Table II-3 and displayed on FEIS Map II-4. The proposed treatments include a combination of silvicultural methods within individual units to account for variations in stand conditions and to meet multiple objectives. The total of these treatments would yield an estimated 71,848 thousand board feet (MBF) or 71.8 million board feet (MMBF) (gross) of commercial volume. A combination of logging systems would be utilized to harvest the trees. These systems include ground-based systems (tractor and/or rubber-tired skidders), and skyline systems. A combination of fuels treatments would be utilized to treat created slash. New road construction is proposed to access some units under this alternative. Approximately 8.4 miles of new road construction would be needed, as well as 3.2 miles of reconstruction of existing roads. Temporary road construction (approximately 1.5 miles in several segments, none exceeding 1,000 feet) would also be necessary. Alternative 3 This alternative was developed to address the Significant Issues of non-inventoried “roadless” areas and the values associated with late-successional, or old-growth vegetative conditions. To identify those areas that had “roadless” characteristics, a set of criteria was developed that was applied to the Study Area in order to identify and map areas having those characteristics (see FEIS Chapter III, Section D, 4). These criteria were developed based on input received during scoping and discussion of this issue which has taken place on the National level and included consideration of size, configuration, distance from existing roads, existing vegetation, and past management activities. For the purposes of designing this alternative, trees larger than 25 inches in diameter were deferred from treatment.


This alternative would treat approximately 4,782 acres with a variety of silvicultural treatments. The proposed treatments include a combination of silvicultural methods within individual units to account for variations in stand conditions and to meet multiple objectives. The total of these treatments would yield an estimated 31,930 thousand board feet (MBF) or 31.9 million board feet (MMBF) (gross) of commercial volume. A combination of logging systems would be utilized to harvest the trees. These systems include ground-based systems (tractor and/or rubber-tired skidders), and skyline systems. A combination of fuels treatments would be utilized to treat created slash. No new road construction is proposed under this alternative. Approximately 3.2 miles of reconstruction of existing roads would be needed. Temporary road construction (approximately 2.0 miles in several segments, none exceeding 1,000 feet) would also be necessary. Alternative 4 This alternative was designed to address the Significant Issues of detrimental soil impacts and the cumulative effect of past management activities in key areas, within certain units of the Proposed Action (Alternative 2). While the actions proposed in Alternative 2 are consistent with the Standards and Guidelines in the Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, this alternative would further protect certain areas that have been detrimentally impacted by past management activities, either by deferring key soil impacted areas or by modifying the logging and harvest systems (from those identified in Alternative 2), to create less additional soils impacts, as a premium over compliance with Standards and Guidelines attained under Alternative 2. This alternative proposes to treat approximately 6,689 acres with a variety of silvicultural treatments. The total of these treatments would yield an estimated 62,203 thousand board feet (MBF) or 62.2 million board feet (MMBF) (gross) of commercial volume. A combination of logging systems would be utilized to harvest the trees. These systems include ground-based systems (tractor, rubber-tired skidders, or a harvester-forwarder), and skyline systems. A combination of fuels treatments would be utilized to treat created slash. New road construction is proposed to access some units under this alternative. Approximately 8.4 miles of new road construction would be needed, as well as 3.2 miles of reconstruction of existing roads. Temporary road construction (approximately 0.8 miles in several segments, none exceeding 1,000 feet) would also be necessary. Alternative 5 This alternative was designed to address the significant issues relating to big game habitat, wildlife travel corridors and migration routes, and late-successional habitat connectivity. This alternative considers options in key terrestrial wildlife areas (from those identified in Alternative 2), to lessen additional wildlife impacts. There are several areas within the Study Area that are used by big game to migrate from the upper elevations (summer range) to the lower elevations on the western side of the Study Area (winter range). Although these migratory corridors have no formal management designations, their heavy use during certain times of the year make them important for big game. Alternative 4 was designed to lessen impacts to these areas by either deferring treatments, or modifying the treatment from those identified in Alternative 2, in order to retain the characteristics that make them favorable travel routes. Under this alternative, the further fragmentation of large blocks of contiguous late-successional habitat (outside of Riparian Reserves) would be minimized (over the effects of Alternative 2) by deferring or modifying treatments of stands that provide additional connectivity. This alternative proposes to treat approximately 6,952 acres with a variety of silvicultural treatments. The total of these treatments would yield an estimated 55,825 thousand board feet (MBF) or 55.8 million board feet (MMBF) (gross) of commercial volume. A combination of logging systems would be utilized to harvest the trees. These systems include ground-based systems (tractor and/or rubber-tired skidders), and skyline systems. A combination of fuels treatments would be utilized to treat created slash. New road construction is proposed to access some units under this alternative. Approximately 5.9 miles of new road construction would be needed, as well as 3.2 miles of reconstruction of existing roads. Temporary road construction (approximately 1.5 miles in several segments, none exceeding 1,000 feet) would also be necessary.


ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE It is required by law that one or more environmentally preferable alternatives be disclosed. The environmentally preferred alternative is not necessarily the alternative that will be implemented and it does not have to meet the underlying Purpose and Need for the project. It does however, have to cause the least damage to the physical and biological environment and best protects, preserves and enhances historical, cultural, and natural resources (Section 101 NEPA; 40 CFR 1505.2(b)). I have determined that FEIS Alternative 3 has the least impact in terms of protecting preserving, and enhancing the environment of the alternatives considered that propose ecosystem management action. The No-Action alternative, in and of itself, does not propose action, but has a consequence of inaction for maintenance of healthy forest stand conditions that would result in greater impact than any of the action alternatives considered in the long-term. My decision (Modified Alternative 3) has slightly more impacts than FEIS Alternative 3 and remains less impactive than FEIS Alternatives 2, 4 or 5. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT A Notice of Intent for an EIS was published in the Federal Register (FR) on April 12, 2004 (FR page 19151-19153). A 45-day public comment period for the Big Butte Springs Timber Sales Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) began on March 19, 2005 (A Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register on March 18, 2005). The comment period concluded on May 2, 2005. Approximately 50 copies of the DEIS were distributed. Copies of the full DEIS were distributed to Federal and State agencies, local governments, elected officials, and libraries throughout the region, as well as to individuals, organizations, and businesses that had specifically requested it. The Responsible Official decided, based on the level and content of comments received during the Comment Period, to go forward with a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Forest Service response to substantive comments received on the Draft EIS is contained in Appendix A to the FEIS. In addition, the following also occurred in support of the public involvement (scoping) process: • Government to Government consultation letters mailed on November 19, 1999, and January 19, 2000; Klamath

Tribes, Chiloquin Oregon, and to Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians; • Informal meetings and discussion with Tribal Natural Resource representatives; • Listing in the Forest’s quarterly Currents newsletter under the “Schedule of Proposed Actions” beginning in

Summer 1999; • Consultation and Briefings with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); • Local Media briefings; • Scoping letters to known interested parties from project mailing lists, • Scoping notices and news articles on the RRNF Internet Web Page, and • Two public scoping meetings at Butte Falls (latest December 2004). Following release of the DEIS there were 3 public meetings: a meeting with Jackson County Commissioners, a workshop at the Butte Falls School, and a field trip for interested individuals. Notes and comments gathered from these meetings are part of the Analysis File and are available upon request. The purpose of the workshop was to share information and to listen to comments and concerns expressed by the public. The Forest Service actively sought information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes, and other groups, organizations, and individuals. The public was provided and responded to numerous opportunities to participate in the proposed project via the Environmental Impact Statement. The project was developed with extensive public participation.


FINDINGS Forest Plan Consistency (NFMA) Pursuant to 40 CFR 1502.20, the National Forest Management Act requires a specific determination of consistency with the Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and its Standards and Guidelines. Alternative 3, including modifications has been developed to be in full compliance with NFMA. Conformance with the key management direction defined in Chapter 1, Section F is analyzed below; resource-specific management direction is addressed under individual resource topic areas. Overall, while there will be varying levels of impacts, with appropriate mitigation, I find that Alternative 3 as modified will be in compliance with applicable management direction. FOREST PLAN MANAGEMENT DIRECTION The 1994 Northwest Forest Plan amended the Rogue River Forest Plan and provided new goals, objectives, Standards and Guidelines for resource management, as well as new land allocations of Administratively Withdrawn, Matrix, Riparian Reserve, and late-Successional Reserve. With mitigation, Modified Alternative 3 will be in conformance with applicable Northwest Forest Plan management direction.

Administratively Withdrawn: these areas include specially designated areas from the LRMP where management emphasis precludes scheduled timber harvest. Administratively Withdrawn areas in the Big Butte Springs Study Area include campgrounds, managed as Developed Recreation (MA-4). There are no actions directly associated with this allocation; actions on adjacent Matrix lands could have some minor, short-term indirect impacts in terms of visual impacts or traffic impacts during commercial activities. These impacts can be mitigated and actions will be in compliance with management direction for this and adjacent allocations.

Matrix: lands allocated under the Northwest Forest Plan that include all areas not otherwise designated to a more protective status. The Big Butte Springs Study Area also includes some lands allocated to Matrix, with Visual Management strategy emphasis (MA-6 and 7), or with a Big Game Winter Range strategy (MA-14), as carried forward from the 1990 RRNF LRMP. The primary activities proposed under modified Alternative 3 (i.e., commercial timber harvest and connected actions) will occur in Matrix lands. Actions have been carefully designed to mitigate impacts to be within and maintain compliance with the associated Standards and Guidelines for Matrix. These impacts are discussed thoroughly in FEIS Chapter IV and Mitigation Measures are discussed in Chapter II. Visual allocations within Matrix are also discussed in Chapter IV; actions are designed to minimize short-term impacts in order to obtain a long-term benefit to the management of scenic allocations. Actions will occur within Matrix, managed as Big Game Winter Range. All actions resulting from implementation my decision will result in conditions that will be in compliance with Standards and Guidelines associated with the 1990 LRMP. Late-Successional Reserves (LSRs): are areas to be managed to protect and enhance old-growth forest ecosystems. LSRs are intended to provide habitat for species such as the northern spotted owl, which live in late-successional forests. The Big Butte Springs Study Area includes lands allocated to LSR but no commercial timber harvest management actions are being proposed within LSR; restoration actions (e.g., road decommissioning) will be implemented under my decision. No impacts to current late-successional values will occur in LSRs; restoration actions will have short and long-term benefit to the Late-Successional Reserves. Riparian Reserves: are areas where special Standards and Guidelines apply to streams and wetlands, with the objective of protecting aquatic and riparian species and other species that utilize riparian areas. These reserves are established as part of the overall Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) for maintaining and restoring ecosystem health at the project, watershed and landscape scales.


Riparian Reserve widths as identified in the Northwest Forest Plan would be maintained along all streams under all alternatives. There would be no commercial treatments in any of the Riparian Reserves under my decision. All fish bearing streams are buffered by Riparian Reserves of 312 feet on each side of the streams. All non-fish-bearing streams have Riparian Reserves of 156 feet on each side of the streams. None of the impacts associated with my decision, either direct, indirect, individually or cumulatively, will prevent attainment of ACS objectives on the project, watershed (fifth-field) or landscape scale. Specific mitigation will be applied to reduce impacts to Riparian Reserves on a site-specific basis.

Other Legal Requirements and Policies In reviewing the FEIS and actions involved in Alternative 3, including my modifications, I have concluded that my decision is consistent with the following laws, requirements and current or proposed policies: The National Historic Preservation Act: The numerous past cultural resource surveys of the Study Area have been adequate to locate the “findable,” significant cultural resources (i.e., eligible or potentially eligible to the National Register of Historic Places, or NRHP) that might be located in or near to project units. All of these resources have been inventoried, and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office has reviewed the Forest Service’s documentation during the Section 106 compliance process. All significant and potentially significant resources have been or will be recognized in the layout of proposed project treatment-unit boundaries. These resources are or will be excluded from project units and they will experience no effects from the various projects. Any new sites discovered during operations will be protected through contract provisions (FEIS page II-61). The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1969: NEPA establishes the format and content requirements of environmental analysis and documentation, such as the Big Butte Springs Timber Sales. The entire process of preparing an environmental impact statement was undertaken to comply with NEPA. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended: Biological Evaluations and Assessments have been conducted and the FEIS documents possible effects of activities on endangered and threatened species in the Big Butte Springs Study Area. Appropriate coordination, conferencing, and consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service was completed. Clean Air Act Amendments, 1977: My decision is designed to meet the National Ambient Air Quality standards through avoidance of practices that degrade air quality below health and visibility standards. The Oregon State Implementation Plan and the Oregon State Smoke Management Plan will be followed to maintain air quality (FEIS page IV-34). The Clean Water Act, 1982: My decision will meet and conform to the Clean Water Act as amended in 1982. This act establishes a non-degradation policy for all federally proposed projects. My decision meets anti-degradation standards agreed to by the State of Oregon and the Forest Service, Region 6, in a Memorandum of Understanding (Forest Service Manual 1561.5). The analysis of effects to water quality documented in the FEIS Chapter IV, conclude, there is no risk for increase in water temperatures or bacteria, and the risk for increasing sedimentation is low. Any increase in sediment will likely not be measurable above baseline conditions. Monitoring of stream channel conditions is ongoing and the Monitoring Plan (Attachment D) describes monitoring plans for water quality. State Forest Worker Safety Codes: The Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Code for Forest Activities (OAR 437, Division 6) regulations will be met when the selected Alternative is implemented. Appropriate provisions will be included in all contracts for addressing State Forest Worker Safety Codes.


Managing Competing and Unwanted Vegetation: All actions proposed under this decision are consistent with the requirements of The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Invasive Plant Program - Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants (FEIS), and a Record of Decision (October 2005). My decision is also in compliance with the Decision Notice signed by J. Michael Lunn, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Supervisor on September 1, 1999 for the Environmental Assessment for Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan (Weed Plan) on the Rogue River portion of the National Forest. Vegetation management is prescribed and will be documented with certified silvicultural prescriptions and does not include the use of herbicides. Roadless Conservation: There are no lands inventoried as roadless within the Big Butte Springs Study Area. FSM Interim Directive No. 1920-2001-1 (Roadless Area Conservation Rule - Federal Register January 12, 2001) temporarily revised decision authority for certain projects in Inventoried Roadless Areas. The 2001 interim directive reserved to the Chief of the Forest Service, the decision authority for timber harvest projects in IRAs unless the project met one of the exception situations specified in the interim directive. Effective July 16, 2004, Federal Register (69 FR 42648), this Interim Directive (ID) was reinstated, with two changes, the direction previously issued in ID No. 1920-2001-1 to implement the Chief’s 1250/1920 letter of June 7, 2001, regarding Delegation of Authority/Interim Protection of Roadless Areas. This roadless area direction was reinstated because of the continued legal uncertainty of implementing the Roadless Area Conservation Rule at 36 CFR part 294 (66 FR 3244). The Big Butte Springs Timber Sales Study Area is not within, is not adjacent to, contiguous to, or near any area previously inventoried as roadless, resulting from the RARE II process and identified in Appendix C of the 1990 RRNF LRMP. The Big Butte Springs Study Area does contain several small areas that possess some semi-primitive unroaded character and values, not inventoried under RARE II (see FEIS pages III-113 through II-117). These areas are further discussed throughout the FEIS; note that areas identified under the Big Butte Springs analysis as having semi-primitive unroaded values have not been identified as an inventory (of unroaded areas) in conformance with the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation policy. Forest Service Road Management Policy: In January 2001, the Forest Service outlined details of the agency’s final Road Management Policy. The policy relies upon scientific analysis and public involvement at the local level. It is designed to help the Forest Service determine how to best manage the more than 380,000 miles of roads in the National Forest roads system. A six-step analysis process was developed and documented in August 1999 (Miscellaneous Report FS-643). Policy requires the Forest Service to undertake a “scientifically-based” road analysis procedure, at appropriate scales and coordinated with other ecosystem analyses, in order to make better decisions regarding road management. Roads Analysis at the forest-scale will generally provide a broad context for informing road management decisions. Site-specific projects may be informed by a project-scale Roads Analysis. An analysis was conducted as part of the 2003 Roads Analysis For the Cascade Mountain Area, summarized in January 2004. This analysis includes documentation that describes the process that was used to evaluate the current road system for current and future needs. Roads included in this analysis are those road segments managed by the USDA Forest Service within the Big Butte Springs Analysis Area boundary and those major routes that access this area.

IMPLEMENTATION Implementation of the actions associated with my decision on the Big Butte Springs Timber Sales may take place 50 days following the publication of a legal notice announcing this decision in the Newspaper of Record for the Butte Falls Ranger District, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest; Medford's Mail Tribune. This decision is expected to be implemented beginning in 2006 and continue with various contracts for 3-5 years subsequent to that.


Process for Change During Implementation Minor changes may be needed during implementation to better meet on-site resource management and protection objectives. Minor adjustments to unit boundaries may be needed during final layout for resource protection, to improve operational feasibility as determined through on-the-ground implementation and/or contract preparation, and to better meet the intent of my decision. Many of these minor changes will not present sufficient potential impacts to require any additional specific documentation or action to comply with applicable laws. Notable changes will be documented through implementation monitoring. Implementation and effectiveness monitoring conducted in association with management activities authorized by this Record of Decision, provide opportunity for adapting management techniques as needed to better meet the intent of the selected alternative as planned and approved. In some cases this may involve minor modifications or corrections during implementation. Project monitoring could result in the need to propose changes to authorized project actions; these changes will be subject to the requirements of the NEPA and other laws concerning such changes. In determining whether and what kind of further NEPA action is required, the Responsible Official will consider the criteria in 40 CFR 1502.9(c) and FSH 1909.15, sec. 18, and in particular whether the proposed change is a substantial change to the selected alternative as planned and already approved, and whether the change is relevant to environmental concerns. The cumulative impacts of these changes will also be considered. RIGHT TO ADMINSTRATIVE REVIEW (APPEAL) This decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 36 CFR 215. The 45-day appeal period begins the day following the date the legal notice of this decision is published in Newspaper of Record for the Butte Falls Ranger District, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Medford's Mail Tribune. The Notice of Appeal must be filed with the Appeal Deciding Officer:

Appeal Deciding Officer: Regional Forester Pacific Northwest Region

Attn: 1570 Appeals P.O. Box 3623

Portland, OR 97208-3623

Appeals can also be filed electronically at: [email protected] or hand delivered to the above address between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday except legal holidays. Appeals can be faxed to (503) 808-2255. The appeal must be postmarked or delivered within 45 days following the date the legal notice for this decision appears in Medford’s Mail Tribune newspaper. The publication date of the legal notice in the Mail Tribune newspaper is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal and those wishing to appeal should not rely on dates or timeframes provided by any other source. Electronic appeals must be submitted as part of the actual e-mail message, or as an attachment in Microsoft word (.doc), rich text format (.rtf), or portable document format (.pdf) only. E-mails submitted to email addresses other than the one listed above or in other formats than those listed or containing viruses will be rejected. Only individuals or organizations that submitted substantive comments during the comment period may appeal. It is the responsibility of those who appeal a decision to provide the Appeal Deciding Officer sufficient written evidence and rationale to show why my decision should be changed or reversed. The written notice of appeal must:

The Appellant’s name, address, and if possible, a telephone number of the appellant; Signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for electronic mail may be

filed with the appeal); When multiple names are listed on an appeal, identification of the lead appellant (215.2) and verification of

the identity of the lead appellant upon request;

Identify the decision document by title and subject, date of the decision, and name and title of the Responsible Official;

Identify the specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks or portion of the decision to which the appellant objects; and the rational for those changes;

Identify any portion(s) of the decision with which the appellant disagrees, and an explanation for the disagreement;

State how my decision fails to consider substantive comments previously provided, either before or during the comment period specified in Title 36 CFR 215.6 and, if applicable, how the appellant believes the decision violates law, regulation, or policy.

Joel King, District Ranger, or Don Boucher, Project Leader Cascade Zone Prospect Ranger District 47201 Highway 62 Prospect, OR 97536 (541) 560-3400


record of decisiona123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… · phone:...

Documents