Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact...

Applegate River – McKee Bridge Legacy Roads Project Page DN - 1 Decision Notice and FONSI

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

Applegate River – McKee Bridge Legacy Roads

USDA Forest Service Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District, Rogue River – Siskiyou National Forest

Jackson County, Oregon

T39S to T40S and R2W to R4W

I. Introduction This Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) document describes my decision and the reasons behind my decision regarding the Applegate River – McKee Bridge Legacy Roads Project within the Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District of the Rogue River – Siskiyou National Forest. My decision and findings are based on the Environmental Assessment (EA) – Applegate River – McKee Bridge Legacy Roads Project dated October 2009, which documents the results of an environmental analysis of Alternative A (Preferred Action), Alternative B (Public Response), and Alternative C (No Action). The document is available on the Rogue River – Siskiyou National Forest website: www.fs.fed.us/r6/rogue-siskiyou/projects/planning/index.shtml.

The project is being initiated at this time because funds have become available through the Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Initiative (Legacy Roads). The project will take place within the 52,301 acres of the Applegate River – McKee Bridge 5th field watershed. The overall Need (EA page I-7) for action is to implement watershed restoration direction from the Northwest Forest Plan (B-31), which lists control and prevention of road-related runoff and sediment production as one of the most important components for watershed restoration.

The Purpose (EA page I-7) of the action is to aid in the recovery of water quality in the Applegate River-McKee Bridge 5th field watershed by reducing road and trail related runoff and sediment production in the watershed. Specifically to:

Retain roads required for public access and land management while providing those roads with much needed maintenance;

Decommission or close roads that are no longer required;

Reduce sediment input to stream channels;

Maintain a 5th field transportation system that serves the needs of users in an environmentally sound manner; and

Provide for important ecological functions such as aquatic organism passage, hydrologic function and sediment regime while remaining consistent with state and federal regulations.


II. The Decision As the Responsible Official, it is my decision to implement Alternative B with eleven modifications. Under my decision the Rogue River – Siskiyou National Forest will decommission roads on 28.33 miles, close roads on 6.86 miles, and stormproof 44.15 miles within the Applegate River – McKee Bridge 5th field watershed within the Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District. Elements of the selected action, Alternative B with modifications, are listed by road number with treatment type (decommissioning, closure or stormproofing) as stated in Table 1 and displayed in Maps 1, 2, and 3. The Alternative B with modifications changes a portion of Alternative B actions from decommissioning to either closure, stormproofing or no action. The definition of the activities within the project area may be found in EA I-7 and EA I-10-12. The following Table 1 displays Alternative B with modifications (texted in bold and italic font) and the associated current operational maintenance level and road length.

Table 1. Alternative B with Modifications

Road Number Road Name

Current Operational Maint. Level

Current Road Length

(miles) Alternative B

with Modifications in bold/italic

1000600 Water Gulch/ Applegate R

2 1.98 Stormproof

1000605 Water Gulch/ Applegate R

2 0.80 Closure

1010300 Palmer Ck 2 1.21 Decommission

1010500 China Gulch 2 2.75 Decommission 2.20 mi; Leave As Is 0.55 mi

1010545 China Gulch 2 0.10 Decommission 1010550 Flume Gulch 2 0.34 Decommission

1010558 China Gulch 2 0.55 Decommission

1090200 Flume Gulch 1 1.41 Stormproof 1090250 Flume Gulch 1 1.00 Decommission

1090280 Across from Jackson CG

3 0.05 Alt. C (No Action) instead of decommission; recreation needs - paved picnic area road.

1090400 Kinney Ck 2 0.31 Stormproof 1090500 Kinney Ck 2 1.14 Decommission

1090800 Kinney Ck 2 1.16 Alt. A (Closure) instead of decommission;

vegetation management needs. 1095000 Palmer Ck 2 7.57 Stormproof

1095301 Lower Palmer

Ck Non-system

road 0.50 Stormproof

1095350 Sourdough

Gulch 2 1.19 Decommission

1095500 Lime Gulch 2 3.92 Stormproof

1095525 Sourdough

Gulch 2 0.23 Stormproof

1095528 Sourdough

Gulch 2 0.47 Stormproof




Current Road Length


with Modifications in bold/italic 1095530 Flume Gulch 2 0.59 Stormproof 1095650 Bailey Gulch 2 1.47 Closure 1095655 Bailey Gulch 1 0.99 Closure 1095657 Bailey Gulch 2 0.67 Decommission 1095665 Bailey Gulch 2 0.27 Closure 1095750 Dark Canyon 2 1.13 Decommission 1095760 Palmer Head 2 0.88 Decommission

1095770 Nine Dollar


1095800 Dark Canyon 2 0.52 Decommission 1095860 Dark Canyon 2 0.66 Decommission

2000839 Pete's Camp 2 0.51 Alt. A & C (Leave As Is/No Action) instead of decommission; vegetation management needs.

2000843 Beaver Head 1 0.46 Decommission

2000850 Upper Beaver

Ck 2 1.43 Stormproof


Ck 2 0.93 Stormproof

2000860 Pete's Camp 2

2.25 (decom 0.25 m and

stormproof 2.0 m)

Decommission 0.25 miles (after private land access) and stormproof 2.0 miles


Ck 2 0.23 Decommission

2000865 Pete's Camp 1 0.31 Alt. C (No Action) instead of decommission);

vegetation management needs. 2000867 Pete's Camp 1 0.54 Decommission 2000868 Pete's Camp 2 0.73 Stormproof 2000873 Pete's Camp 2 0.32 Stormproof 2000880 Pete's Camp 2 0.83 Stormproof 2000889 Pete's Camp 2 0.03 Decommission

2000890 Pete's Camp 2 2.88 Decommission to NFSL boundary mm 56+80 to

139+00

2000904 Haskins Gulch 2 0.22 Alt. C (No Action) instead of decommission;

vegetation needs. 2000905 Haskins Gulch 2 1.29 Stormproof 200906 Haskins Gulch 2 0.90 Decommission 2000907 Haskins Gulch 1 1.13 Decommission 2000910 Haskins Gulch 2 0.27 Decommission

2000915 Armstrong


2000920 Armstrong

Gulch 2 2.42

Alt. C (No Action) instead of decommission; recreation, range, fire, and vegetation

management needs.

2000926 Armstrong

Gulch 2 0.45

Alt. C (No Action) instead of decommission; recreation, fire, range, and vegetation

management needs.

2000940 Charlie Buck 2 3.27 Decommission 0.75 miles and stormproof 2.52

miles




Current Road Length


with Modifications in bold/italic 2000943 Charlie Buck 2 1.40 Stormproof 2010000 Squaw Mtn 2 11.62 Stormproof

2010001 Hanley Gulch Non-system

road 0.15 Decommission

2010100 Hanley Gulch 2 1.97 Alt. A (Stormproof) instead of decommission;

vegetation management needs.

2010140 Hanley Gulch 2 1.32 Alt. A (Closure) instead of decommission;


2010142 Hanley Gulch 2 0.85 Alt. A (Closure) instead of decommission;

vegetation management needs. 2010200 Hanley Gulch 2 2.20 Decommission 2010220 Hanley Gulch 2 0.43 Stormproof

2010250 Hanley Gulch 2 0.89 Decommission (at junction w/ road 2010252)

2010252 Hanley Gulch 2 1.23 Decommission (at junction roads 2010250-

2000905) 2010255 Hanley Gulch 1 0.70 Decommission

2010300 Hanley Gulch 2 1.90 Decommission 0.54 mi; Leave As Is 1.36 mi

2010310 Hanley Gulch 1 0.46 Alt. C (No Action) instead of decommission;


2010330 Hanley Gulch 2 0.65 Decommission 0.61 miles (decom after .04 miles for

recreation needs). 2010332 Hanley Gulch 1 0.15 Decommission 2010340 Hanley Gulch 2 0.63 Stormproof 2010350 Hanley Gulch 2 1.07 Stormproof 2010700 Pete's Camp 1 0.50 Decommission

In making this decision, it was necessary to weigh the relative merits and consequences of the alternatives as well as to consider the resource issues and concerns, and public comments. No single factor determined the decision; rather, all factors were considered in reaching the decision. This decision, along with the specified mitigation and monitoring measures, provides the best combination of physical, biological, social, and environmental benefits with acceptable resource effects, while attaining the stated Purpose and Need.

Additionally, I have chosen to implement the Alternative B with modifications, for the following reasons:

The authorized actions under my decision are consistent with the Forest Plans goals, objectives, and Standards and Guidelines for this area;

The authorized actions under my decision meet the stated Purpose and Need and have acceptable environmental effects in regard to the Relevant Issues identified in the EA; and

The authorized actions will maintain adequate access for administrative and public use, including, access for fire protection, recreation, and resource management activities occurring within the watershed. Access will also be maintained to private land.


III. Other Alternatives Considered Alternative A (Preferred Action) The Alternative A was generated from the interdisciplinary team (IDT) scoping and includes most of the roads within the selected action, Alternative B with modifications. It includes 12.33 miles less of decommissioning (16 miles), 2.84 more of roads closures (7.5 miles), and 8.08 more miles of stormproofing (52.23 miles) as depicted in Table 2. Alternative A road treatments would have reduced sediment by 64% (1,848 cubic yards per year) from the No Action alternative.

This alternative was not selected because:

The alternative does not fully meet the purpose and need as compared to the selected action, Alternative B with modifications, to the extent desired. It does not decommission all roads that are no longer critical for travel management objectives and are not require for land management.

Alternative B (Public Response) The Alternative B was generated from scoping and includes all of the roads within the selected action, Alternative B with modifications. Alternative B differs from the selected action due to the decommissioning of 10.33 more miles of roads, 3.36 less miles of road closure and 2 miles less of stormproofing. This alternative was not selected because:

Alternative B is similar to the selected action except that eleven of the roads proposed for decommissioning will have other treatments as stated in Table 1. These eleven roads in Alternative B do not meet the purpose and need since it does not retain roads required for land management or public access as stated in Table 1 for the selected action; roads 1090280, 1090800, 2000839, 2000865, 2000904, 2000920, 2000926, 2010100, 2010140, 2010142, and 2010310. A comparison between alternatives and the selected action are displayed in Table 2. Table 2. Comparison between Alternatives and Selected Action

Alternative

Road Decommissioning

Road Closure

Road Stormproofing

only

No Action

Total

A 16.00 7.50 52.23 1.55 77.83 B 38.66 3.50 42.15 0.00 84.31

Selected Action, Alternative B with

Modifications

28.33 6.86 44.15 4.97 84.31

C 0.00 0.00 0.00 84.31 84.31 Alternative C (No Action) The No Action alternative represents the current level of management within the watershed. The alternative would result in continued deferred maintenance within the project area, making it unlikely within the foreseeable future that the proposed roads within the Applegate River - McKee Bridge 5th field watershed would be closed, decommissioned, or stormproofed as delineated in the action alternatives. For further details see EA, Chapter II.


This alternative was not selected because:

As noted above, the No Action alternative would not meet the stated Purpose and Need of the project. It is likely that current trends in sediment delivery to streams would continue due to continued deferred maintenance. The risk of mass failures would remain about the same as current conditions. The benefits to aquatics from restoration of stream channels at road crossings, reduced sediment delivery and hence, improved stream sediment regime elements, overall stream channel health and aquatic habitat improvement would not occur.

Mitigation Measures and Monitoring

Terms and conditions outlined in the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service 2007 “Biological Opinion for Aquatic Habitat Restoration Activities in Oregon and Washington That Affect ESA-listed Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Species and their Critical Habitats” will be followed, in particular for SONCC coho salmon and the northern spotted owl.

Prevention practices will be implemented that are found in “Best Management Practices for Noxious Weed Prevention and Management, Port-Orford-Cedar Root Disease Prevention and Management, Sudden Oak Death Prevention and Management – Interim Direction for the Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests, February 15, 2002.”

The identified cultural resource sites shall be protected from disturbance.

All project activities (Forest Service and contract) will comply with State and Federal Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) codes. All Forest Service project operations would be guided by FS Handbook 6709.11 (Health and Safety Code Handbook).

A sample of decommissioned roads will be visually analyzed after a major storm event by Rogue River – Siskiyou National Forest Engineering staff to assess the effectiveness of road decommissioning. In addition, a 1-year performance bond will be issued to ensure the performance of road maintenance work.

Response to Relevant Issues

Issues associated with this proposal were identified by an interdisciplinary team (IDT) and included a review and evaluation of information gathered through specialist input and public correspondence received. Through the public scoping process, issues important to this project were identified and tracked. For this analysis, the Forest Service separated issues into two groups: Relevant Issues and issues determined to be Out of Scope.

Issues are defined as points of discussion about the environmental effects of the action. Relevant Issues as used in the environmental analysis are those that have been determined to be applicable to the actions being analyzed, are used to disclose consequences, may affect design of component actions, may develop a need for mitigation measures, or whose disclosure of environmental effects are required by law or policy. Some issues may describe minor and/or non-variable consequences. The consequences regarding Relevant Issues are contained in the EA, Chapter IV. The analysis for this project has revealed no significant effects regarding relevant issues in regard to implementation of actions authorized under my decision.


IV. Public Involvement This project was announced in the Rogue River – Siskiyou National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) in 2008. On December 23, 2008, 40 letters were mailed to partners, grazing permittees, mining claimants, agencies and other interested groups and citizens requesting public comment on the Applegate River – McKee Bridge Legacy Roads Preferred Action, purpose and need. On December 29, 2008 a Legal Notice was published in the Medford Mail Tribune newspaper with a 30-day comment period that closed on January 29, 2009. Nine letters were received during this scoping period. Substantive comments were incorporated into an action alternative.

The Environmental Assessment (EA) http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/rogue-siskiyou/projects/planning/mckee-bridge-legacy-roads/ea.pdf was made available for public comment and a Legal Notice establishing a Comment Period under 36 CFR 215 was published in the Medford Mail Tribune on October 10, 2009. The comment period ended on November 8, 2009. Copies of the EA and Appendices, along with an invitation to comment, were mailed to those individuals and organizations who had submitted comments on the project during the initial scoping period, and those who had requested a copy of the EA. One letter from an individual and one E-Mail representing interested groups were received. Comment letters were read and analyzed for substantive content with District Ranger/Responsible Official oversight, review and concurrence. The responses to the comments are contained in Appendix A.

Original comment letters are made a part of the Project Record (incorporated by references) and are available upon request.

V. Consistency Findings The 1990 Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (RRNF LRMP) was amended with the adoption, May 20, 1994, of the Record of Decision (ROD) and Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.

This action has been analyzed and designed under the RRNF-LRMP as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan, including all amendments as applicable. I find that my decision (Alternative B with Modifications listed above) is consistent with the Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan and all amendments in effect on the date of this decision; and other laws, regulations and agreements applicable to the management of National Forest System lands and resources, including: 36 CFR 219.14, 36 CFR 219.27 (b).

This decision is consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA, 40 CFR 1500-1508, July 1, 1986, the National Forest Management Act of 1976, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act and the National Historic Preservation Act.

I find that implementation of my decision will not retard or prevent attainment of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) at the fifth-field scale, and will comply with Riparian Reserve standards and guidelines. Mitigation measures and Best Management Practices were designed to


minimize the potential effects on water quality and fisheries habitat to meet the intent of the ACS Objectives.

VI. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) 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.

I have determined that implementation of the activities described in my decision will not significantly affect, either individually or cumulatively, the quality of the human environment. An environmental impact statement is not needed because my decision will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

This determination is based on the following factors:

1. No known significant irreversible resource commitments or irretrievable losses of vegetation, wildlife habitats, soil productivity, or water quality.

Implementation of my decision will not create significant resource commitments or any significant irretrievable losses of vegetation, soils, water, or wildlife and fish habitats. The EA provides evidence in the Environmental Consequences section that this decision allows for the maintenance and restoration of water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems. It also maintains the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the hydrologic system and benefits the survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of wildlife species dependant on aquatic and riparian communities (EA Chapter III, Environmental Consequences).

2. 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). It is the responsibility of the Forest Service as a land manager to meet state of Oregon instream water quality standards. My Decision requires implementation of applicable Best Management Practices for the protection of water quality listed in EA (EA, Appendix A).

3. 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 IV, Environmental Effects)

4. 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 Applegate River – McKee Bridge Legacy Roads Environmental Assessment do not proposed new risks nor involve uncertain risks; no uncertain or unique/unknown risks were identified (EA Chapter III, Environmental Consequences).


5. The effects of this action on the human environment are not highly controversial.

The effects on the quality of the human environment of my decision are not considered scientifically highly controversial. No predictable or measurable effects are expected to occur to the streams within the project area or the downstream Applegate and Rogue River from the Applegate McKee Legacy Roads Project. The selected action (Alternative B with modifications) will reduce sediment delivered to streams from roads by approximately 64-67%. Thus, there would be an increase in positive cumulative effects when this work is considered with activities presently occurring or planned for the foreseeable future. Mitigation measures will be implemented under my decision to maintain and/or improve current conditions of the human environment.

6. 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 RRNF-LRMP, nor is it a substantial change from the historical levels of management activity in the area of this project (EA Chapter III: Affected Environment and Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences).

7. 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 analyzed in the EA, and there are no known significant cumulative effects (EA Chapter III: Affected Environment and Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences).

8. There are no significant effects on cultural (heritage) resources.

The mining ditches associated with the Palmer Creek drainage location should pose no management concerns during the proposed activity (road closure) since the damage occurred during the original road construction. One of the ditches intersects a road (NFSL road 1095350, Sourdough Gulch area); the road crosses the Upper Palmer Ditch (NRHP eligible/listed) about 1/2 mile upslope.

Identified cultural resources will remain unaffected by the proposed activities under my decision since mitigation measures are in place (EA Chapter III: Affected Environment and Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences).

9. This action will not adversely affect any threatened or endangered species or critical habitat outside of the scope of the current recovery efforts.

Surveys to locate all Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species in compliance with the Endangered Species Act have been accomplished. Terms and conditions outlined in the 2007 National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion for SONCC coho salmon, northern spotted owl and murrelets will be followed to minimize the impacts caused by disturbance on listed species. No significant adverse effects to species or their critical habitat are anticipated (EA Chapter IV, Environmental Consequences).

10. This action does not threaten a violation of Federal, State, or local laws or other legal


requirements imposed for protection of the environment.

The EA has identified that compliance is anticipated with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, the Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan based on the implementation of my decision. Appropriate consultation and conferencing has been completed in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. No violations of any State, Federal or local laws or other legal requirements are anticipated (EA Chapter IV, 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 Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

VII. Implementation Authorization for my decision is based on this Decision Notice and the October 2009 Environmental Assessment for the Applegate River – McKee Bridge Legacy Roads Project. The implementation of this decision may begin immediately.

VIII. Right to Administrative Review (Appeal) This decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) under the Code of Federal Regulations at 36 CFR part 215. Pursuant to 36 CFR 215: appeals may be filed with the Appeal Deciding Officer (Forest Supervisor, Rogue River–Siskiyou National Forest) by mail at P.O. Box 520, Medford, Oregon 97501or by FAX at (541) 858-2330 or via electronic mail at appeals-pacificnorthwest- [email protected] or may be hand delivered to 333 West 8th Street, Medford, Oregon during regular business hours (Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.). Appeals must be filed within 45 days following the date of publication of legal notice. The publication date of the legal notice in the Medford Mail Tribune newspaper is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal {215.15 (a)}. Those wishing to appeal should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other sources. In accordance with 36 CFR 215.14, it is the appellant’s responsibility to provide sufficient project or activity-specific evidence and rationale, focusing on the decision, to show why the Responsible Official’s decision should be reversed. The appeal must be filed with the Appeal Deciding Officer in writing. At a minimum, an appeal must include the following:

1. Appellant’s name and address, with a telephone number, if available; 2. Signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for

electronic mail may be filed with the appeal);


Selected Action Alternative B with Modifications

Map 1



Map 2



Map 3


Response to Comments 36 CFR 215 NOTICE AND COMMENT (SECTIONS 215.3, 215.5, AND 215.6) The October 2009 Applegate River-McKee Bridge Legacy Roads Project Environmental Assessment (EA) and Appendices, along with an invitation to comment, were posted in a Legal Notice published in the Mail Tribune newspapers on October 10, 2009. The notice established a Comment Period under 36 CFR 215. Comments were reviewed and responded to for input received through November 8, 2009. Two comment letters were received during the Comment Period. The comment letters were read and coded based on content and intent by a two person Forest Service planning team, with District Ranger/Responsible Official oversight, review and concurrence. The original comment letters and copies of the letter containing the Forest Service review and coding are made a part of the Project Record (incorporated by reference) and are available upon request. Table 1 displays the name and/or organization. Table 1. Public Comments Received During Comment Period

Reference Number

Date Received

Name & Organization

A09-1 10/30/2009 Dick Artley, Private Citizen A09-2 11/2/2009 Hillary Schar Jacobson, Private Citizen A09-3 11/2/2009 Archien Ransmeier, Private Citizen A09-4 11/2/2009 Suzanne Marshall, Private Citizen A09-5 11/2/2009 Jacquelin J. Gaffney, Private Citizen A09-6 11/2/2009 James B. Simonds, Private Citizen A09-7 11/2/2009 Donna B. Corrigan, Private Citizen A09-8 11/2/2009 Gary Powell, Private Citizen A09-9 11/2/2009 Sherry Johnston, Private Citizen A09-10 11/2/2009 Marie Kimokeo-Goes, Private Citizen A09-11 11/2/2009 Elizabeth A. Takedo, Private Citizen A09-12 11/2/2009 Gaia Peinnchief Carney, Private Citizen A09-13 11/2/2009 Susan E. Carney, Private Citizen A09-14 11/2/2009 Ell Jaxon Bear, Private Citizen A09-15 11/2/2009 Suzan and Marshall Malden, Private Citizen A09-16 11/2/2009 Linda and Richard Kiselner, Private Citizen A09-17 11/2/2009 L. R. Vander Lind, Private Citizen A09-18 11/2/2009 David J. Gall, Private Citizen A09-19 11/2/2009 Paula Nowels, Private Citizen

APPENDIX A


A09-20 11/2/2009 Vanessa Scott, Private Citizen A09-21 11/5/2009 George Sexton, Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center (KS

Wild) A09-22 11/5/2009 Josh Laughlin, Cascadia Wildlands Project (CWP) A09-23 11/5/2009 Jay Lininger, The Center for Biological Diversity A09-24 11/5/2009 Doug Heiken, Oregon Wild A09-25 11/5/2009 Richard K. Nawa, Siskiyou Project A09-26 11/5/2009 Lesley Adams, Rogue Riverkeeper A09-27 11/5/2009 Chant Thomas, Threatened & Endangered Little

Applegate Valley A09-28 11/5/2009 Francis Eatherington, Umpqua Watersheds A09-29 11/5/2009 Jim Steitz, Private Citizen A09-30 11/5/2009 Gary Powell, Private Citizen

FOREST SERVICE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Comments were reviewed and sorted into two types – substantive and non-substantive. Each type was assigned a Forest Service code as documented and noted above. A substantive comment is defined as:

“A review comment made by a commenter that offers a concern with factual basis that may have bearing on the decision being made.” Substantive comments were numerically coded in the Forest Service review. A working definition of substantive that was used for categorizing substantive comments include those that:

Provide new information pertaining to the selected action or an alternative Identify a new relevant issue or expand upon an existing issue Identify a different way (alternative) to meet the underlying need for the Selected action Identify a specific flaw in the analysis Ask a specific relevant question that can be meaningfully answered or referenced Identify an additional source of credible research, which if utilized, could result in different

effects Non-substantive comments (and associated letter codes) are defined as those that:

Primarily focus on personal values or opinion or simply provide or identify a preference (vote) for an alternative considered

Restate existing management direction, laws or policies, and court opinions that were utilized in the design and analysis of the project (or provide personal interpretation of such), or restate analysis or information documented in the EA

Provide comment that is considered outside the scope of the analysis (not in compliance with current laws and policies, is not relevant to the specific project proposal, or is outside of the Responsible Officials decision space)

Lack sufficient specificity to support a change in the analysis or permit a meaningful response, or are composed of general or vague statements not supported by data or research


Each substantive comment is captured in bold below, followed by the agency’s response to each. To minimize duplication, substantive comments addressing essentially the same topic or concern have been consolidated among the various letters. Each comment contains an example citation and/or reference from one or more of the comment letters. Comments and responses were used to help the Responsible Official reach an informed, rational decision regarding the Applegate River – McKee Bridge Legacy Roads Project. Substantive Comments Comment #1 “It is a violation of the amended CWA of 1972 to undertake ANY action in a designated water quality limited stream that might harm it (both long and short term).” Forest Service Response The intent of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to improve water quality, which are the objectives of the selected action, Alternative B with modifications. These road restoration type activities in the watershed will result in future sediment reduction in the Applegate-McKee Bridge 5th Field Watershed by reducing road density and road stream crossings, which will help achieve the loading capacity and therefore meet the Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL). Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) identified the following measures to help achieve the TMDL limit as being completed with the selected action: 1) system potential riparian vegetation for the length of Beaver Creek, 2) road density targets set for each drainage, and 3) road-stream crossing targets set for each drainage (ODEQ 2003). Alternative B with modifications will not affect stream temperature since none of the activities will change the current stream shade canopy. Comment #2 “We encourage the agency to take a hard look at decommissioning roads like the Palmer Creek Road (FS1095) which is directly adjacent to fish-bearing Palmer Creek and which has significant direct hydrological impacts.” Forest Service Response Palmer Creek Road (FS1095) is a main access road into the watershed. Closing this road would not provide adequate administrative and public use access for fire protection, recreation, mining, and resource management. This road will be stormproofed, under the selected action, Alternative B with modifications, which will reduce future potential sediment runoff.


Comment #3 “We understand that there are management needs requiring motorized access in the Haskins Gulch area. But we are disappointed that no decommissioning opportunities at all are proposed in preferred Alternative A.” “...no road closures or decommissioning are proposed in Alternative A for Baldy, Beaverhead, Charley Buck Gulch, Haskin’s Gulch, or Pete’s Camp in Beaver Creek in the Applegate McKee Legacy Roads project.” Forest Service Response The selected action, Alternative B with modifications, decommissions 2.3 miles of roads within the Haskin Gulch 7th field watershed, 60% of existing roads. The remaining 1.51 miles of roads will either be stormproofed (1.29 miles), which will reduce future potential sediment runoff or have no action (0.22 miles) (Table 2). The 1.51 miles of remaining roads are needed to provide adequate administrative use for fire protection, vegetation resource management and public recreational use access. Roads were evaluated in adjacent 7th field watersheds to Haskin Gulch. Roads which remained open will either have no action or stormproofing implemented due to administrative use needs for vegetation management or fire. In addition, road 2000908 (0.82 miles) in Haskins Gulch, is currently an overgrown road and is listed as an operational Level 2. Road 2000908 “decommissioning” as stated in the EA I-13 is simply a database update without any on-the-ground disturbance. This road in addition to the selected action totals 3.12 miles of road decommissioning, 67% reduction of roads with Haskin Gulch. Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives within Haskin Gulch

Road Related

Activities

Alternative A

(miles)

Alternative B

(miles)

Selected Action Alternative B

w/modifications (miles)

Alternative

C (miles)

Stormproof 1.51 1.51 1.29 0 Closure 0 0 0 0 Decommission 0 2.3 2.3 0 No Action 0 0 0.22 3.81

TOTAL 1.51 3.81 3.81 3.81

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact...

Documents

Transcript of Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact...