United States Department of AgrlcuHUre Record of Decision ,Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region Land and Resource 1989 Management Plan Ochoco National Forest Reprinted 1991 and Crooked River National Grassland

Caring for the Land ... RECORD OF DECISION

FOR THE LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

OCHOCO NATIONAL FOREST CROOK, GRANT, HARNEY, AND WHEELER COUNTIES, OREGON

AND

CROOKED RIVER NATIONAL GRASSLAND JEFFERSON COUNTY, OREGON

USDA FOREST SERVICE AUGUST 1989 APPROVAL PAGE

RECORD OF DECISION For The LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

OCHOCO NATIONAL FOREST Crook, Grant, Harney, and Wheeler Counties, Oregon and CROOKED RIVER NATIONAL GRASSLAND Jefferson County, Oregon

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region

The decision represents a selection, and forthcoming implementationof the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland, pursuant to regulations of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), Title 36, CFR Pt. 219 and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council of EnvironmentalQuality, Title 40, CFR Pts. 1500-1508.The Plan approved and adopted by virtue of this decision document is Alternative I which is identified as the preferred alternative in the Final Environmental Statement.

The Plan decision(s) represents a series of interdependent, but separable, judgements, which are generally of a complex, technical or political nature. The decisions relate primarily to programmatic land and resource management allocations and accompanying standards and guidelines, which when viewed in total comprise the Forest and Grassland Plans.

Basic elements of the process and resultant decisions are summarily set forth herewith as a Record of Decision (ROD). These include.

. planning process, authorities. and requirements . issues, including public responses

~ identification of decision(s) and the decision rationale . alternatives considered

~ modlficatron of final alternames . rationale for nonselection of alternatives . compatibillty with other agency goals and plans

~ implementation schedules . mitigation and monitoring processes far plan change or amendment . appeal rights

A decision may be subject to administrative appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 217. Notice of appeal and statement of reasons must be in writing and submitted to the Chief of the Forest Service within 90 days from the date of publishment of Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on September 15, 1989.

I encourage anyone who is concerned about the Ochoco National Forest or Crooked River National Grass- land Plan, or decisions contained therein, to first see if concerns or misunderstandingsmay be resolved with the Forest Supervisor in Prineville, Oregon (Phone 503 447-6247) before submitting an appeal.

8-1-89 FSF. TORRENCE Date Regional Forester - USDA Forest Service Paclfic Northwest Region 319 SW Pine, P.O. Box 3623 Portland. OR. 972043623

Ochoco National Forest Plan Corrected Page, October 6,1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Decision Approval Page ...... i Table of Contents...... Il-IV List of Tables...... V List of Figures...... , ...... V

I. INTRODUCTION ...... , ...... r0d-1

Process and Chronology for the Preparation of the Forest and Grassland Plans ...... , ...... ROD-I PurposeandNeed ...... r0d-1 Authorities and Purpose ...... ROD-I Tiering ...... ROD-I What the Plans Are...... r0d-2 Amendments ...... r0d-2 What the Plans Are Not ...... r0d3 Consistency ...... r0d-3 Relationship of Other Plans . . . , ...... , ...... r0d-3

11. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION . . , ...... , . . . . r0d-4

Issue Identification ...... , ...... r0d-4 Public Involvement on Draft EIS/Plan ...... r0d-5 Interest Group Methods ...... r0d-5 Summary of Public Comment on Supplement to the DEIS...... r0d-6 Issue and Public Response Summary...... , ...... r0d-6 Timber Supply and Forest Management. , ...... r0d-6 Timber Supply and Sustained Even-flow Yield ...... r0d-7 Ponderosa Pine Management r0b7 Uneven-aged vs Even-aged Silviculture ...... r0d4 Departure r0d-8 Clearcutting , ..I .. .. r0d-8 Social and Economic Wants and Needs of Local Communities . . . r0d-9 Lwestock Grazing and Allotment Management ...... r0d-9 Riparian Area Management ...... r0d-9 Transportation System . . . . , , ...... ROD-I0 Big Game Habitat. . . . . , , . . . . , ...... ROD-IO Roadless Areas and Wilderness Study Areas ...... ROD-IO Scenic or Visual Resources ...... ROD-I1 Old Growth Forest. . . . . , ...... ROD-11 Fuelwood Supply ...... ROD-I 1 Snag Dependent Wildlife . . . , . . . , ...... ROD-I I Winter Sports...... , . . , . , . .. .. ,...... ROD-I 1 Additional Issues Not Identified in Original KO’s ...... ROD-I2 Anadromous Fish...... , . , ...... I . . . I . .. .. ROD-I2

Historic Trail Preservation ~ Summit Trail ...... ROD-I2 Off-road Vehicle (ORV) Use . . . . . , , ...... , ROD-I2 Round Mountain . . , , . , ...... ROD-I2 Validation of Public Participation Process ...... ROD-I2

II 111 . DECISIONS ...... ROD-1 3

Summary of the Decision ...... r0d-13 Establishment of Forest and Grassland Multiple Use Goals ...... r0d-13 Standards and Guidelines ...... r0d-14 Land Allocations and Plan Structures ...... r0d-15 Summary Description of Management Areas ...... r0d-18 Decisions Related to Planning Issues (ICO’s) and Decision Rationale ROD-20 Timber Supply and Forest Management ...... ROD-20 Social and Economic Wants and Needs of Local Communities ...... ROD-22 Livestock Grazing and Allotment Management ...... ROD-23 Riparian Area Management ...... ROD-25 Transportation System ...... ROD-26 Big Game Habitat ...... ROD-27 Roadless Areas and Wilderness Study Areas ...... ROD-28 Scenic or Visual Resources ...... ROD-32 Old Growth Forest ...... r0d53 Fuelwood Supply ...... ROD-37 Snag Dependent Wildlife ...... ROD-37 Winter Sports ...... ROD-37 Other Multiple Use Decisions ...... ROD-38 Recreation . . ROD-38 Research Natural Areas ROD38 Anadromous Fish ROD-39 Eagle Roosting Areas ROD-39

Wild and Scenic Rivers . ..I ROD39 ORV Use .. ROD-39 Compatibility With Other Agency Goals and Plans ...... ROD-39 IV . CHANGES FROM DRAFT PREFERRED AND RATIONALE ...... ROD-40

Plan Structures and Allocations ...... ROD-40 Forest Management and Forplan Modeling ...... ROD-41 Economic Analysis ...... ROD-42 Wild and Scenic Rivers ...... ROD-42 Wilderness Study Areas ...... ROD-42 Roadless Areas ...... ROD-43 Lookout Mountain ...... ROD-43 Visual/Scenic Resources ...... ROD-44 General Recreation ...... ROD-44 Wildlife ...... ROD-45 Old Growth ...... ROD-45 Winter Range ...... ROD-45 SummerRange ...... r0d46 Snags ...... r0d46 Eagle Roosts ...... r0d46 HammerCreek ...... r0d46 RoadDensity ...... r0d46 Modeling Assumptions for Habitat Effectiveness ...... ROD-46

iii Grazing Management ...... ROD-47 Travelflransportation Planning ...... ROD-47 Riparian ...... ROD-48 Utility Corridors ...... , . . . . ROD-48 Land Adjustments ...... ROD-49 National Forest Ownership ...... , . ROD-49 Minerals and Energy...... ROD-49 V. ALTERNATIVES ...... ROD-50

Alternatives Analyzed and Resultant Disposition in the Final . . . . . ROD-50 Summary Description of Final Alternatives ...... , . . . . . ROD-50 State of Oregon Alternative . , ...... ROD-54 State Recommendations ...... , ...... ROD-54 Forest Service Rationale and Findings ...... ROD-54 Riparian Management r0d54 Road Densities .. .. RODS Dispersed Recreation Sites r0d55 Visual Management ROD-55 Additional Indicator Species Suggested r0d55 Ponderosa Pine Harvest Level Over Time ROD-56 Harney County Timber Supply r0d56 Timber Volume Measurement r0d56 Uneven-aged Management ROD-56 Additional RNA's Suggested ROW VI. REQUIRED COMPARISONS OF ALTERNATIVES...... ROD-58

Present Net Value (PNV) of Alternatives ...... ROD-58 Environmentally Preferable Alternative & Nonselection Rationale . . ROD-58 VII. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULES ...... ROD-59

Schedules and Implementation ...... ROD-59 Amendment and Revision Process ...... ROD-59 VIII. MONITORING AND MITIGATION ...... ROD-60

Monitoring and Evaluation ...... ROD-60 Mitigation ...... , . . . ROD-62 IX APPEAL RIGHTS ...... ROD-62

IV LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 Revised or Superseded Planning Documents ...... r0d-4 TABLE 2 Summary of Agency Efforts to Obtain Public Participation ...... r0d-5 TABLE 3 Respondents Preference for Particular Alternatives ...... r0d-5 TABLE 4 Estimated Number of Comments by Resource or Issue ...... r0d-5 TABLE 5 Ochoco National Forest Management Areas ...... ROD-I6 TABLE 6 Crooked River National Grassland Management Areas ...... ROD-17 TABLE 7 Resource Emphasis by Acres and % of Forest...... ROD-I8 TABLE 8 Resource Emphasis by Acres and % of Grassland ...... ROD-I8 TABLE 9 Planned Harvest for 1990.1999 ...... ROD-22 TABLE 10 Riparian Forage Utilization ...... ROD-24 TABLE 11 Primary Range (except Riparian) ...... ROD-24 TABLE 12 Watershed Sensitivities and Threshold Guidelines ...... ROD-25 TABLE 13 Motorized Use on Forest Management Areas ...... ROD-26 TABLE 14 Motorized Use on Grassland Management Areas ...... ROD-27 TABLE 15 Habitat Effectiveness Objectives ...... ROD-28 TABLE 16 Summary of Roadless Area Allocations ...... ROD-29 TABLE 17 Summary of Percent Area Allocated to Wilderness or Roadless ...... ROD-29 TABLE 18 Acres by Roadless Area Allocated to Management Areas ...... ROD-29 TABLE 19 Allocated Old Growth Plus Unallocated 300-Acre Stands in Wilderness and RNAs ...... ROD-34 TABLE 20 Old Growth Allocation ...... r0d36 TABLE 21 Snag Level by Management Area ...... ROD-37 TABLE 22 Proposed RNA's ...... r0d39 TABLE 23 Changes in Visual Resource Allocation Acres...... ROD-44 TABLE 24 Summary of Final Visual Resource Allocations for Forest and Grassland...... ROD-44 TABLE 25 Disposition of Alternatives Considered in the Final ...... ROD-50 TABLE 26 Resource Emphasis Acreages by Alternative ...... ROD-51 TABLE 27 Indicators of Responsiveness of Alternatives to Issues. Concerns. and Opportunities ...... ROD-52 TABLE 28 Summary of the Protection for Anadromous Fish ...... ROD-57 TABLE 29 Estimated Ponderosa Pine Volume ...... ROD-57 TABLE 30 Projected Timber Supply Volumes ...... ROD-57 TABLE 31 Comparison of PNV by Alternative ...... ROD-58

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 Amendment Process and Dynamic Nature of the Plan . . ROD-61

V 1. INTRODUCTION

This document, the Record of Decision (ROD), Evaluation of Alternatives summarizes the decisions, pertinent information, Draft Preferred Alternative Selection and rationale for the selection of a Land and 1986 Draft Environmental Statement Pub- Resource Management Plan for the Ochoco lished National Forest and Crooked River National Public Comment Period Grassland. It is required under the National 1988 Supplement to DEE Published Environmental Policy Act regulations 40 CFR 1989 Public Comment Period for Supple- 1500-1508. Its purpose is to clearly identify the ment decisions and intended action. Evaluation of Public Comment Formulation, Analysis and Modifica- The development of Plans for the Ochoco National tion of Final Alternative Forest and Crooked River National Grassland has Validation with Public progressed over a considerable amount of time. Final Plan Published The completion of comprehensive land and 1990 Plan Implementation, Monitoring and resource management plans under the National Evaluation Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) is a significant and important event in the administration of the Forest and Grassland The decisions PURPOSE AND NEED represented therein were arrived at through a delrberative process in which available information, AUTHORITIES AND PURPOSE data, alternatives, and public comments were carefully weighed and analyzed. The Plans provide for the coordinated multiple-use management of the various resources and uses, After consideration of pertinent information, my including recreation, wildlife and fish, range, timber, decision is to implement Plans for the Forest and watershed, minerals, and wilderness. The Forest Grassland which are represented by Alternative I and Grassland Plans and Environmental Impact The Plans will guide the management of the Forest Statement (EIS) were developed under the imple- and Grassland for the next 10-15 years. They will menting regulations of the National Environmental be amendable as described herein (pg ROD-2). Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Alternative I is described by the Final Environmental Quality, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Impact Statement (FEIS) and by the Plans them- Parts 1500-1508 (40 CFR 1500-1508); and the ' selves. National Forest Management Act (NFMA), Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 219 (36 CFR PROCESS AND CHRONOLOGY FOR 219). THE PREPARATION OF THE FOREST AND GRASSLAND PLANS The Plans are part of the framework for long-range planning established by the Forest and Rangeland YEAR PROCESS Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA), as illustrated below under tiering. 1980 Notice of Intent Published in the Federal Register TIERING 1981 Preliminary Identification of Issues and Concerns Forest Service planning is a continuous, interactive 1982 Forest Inventory Completed process tiered (CFR 40 CFR 1508 28) to and 1984 Analysis of Management Situation carried out on organizational levels within the 1985 Formulation and Analysis of Alterna- National Forest systems These levels are. tives

ROD - 1 1 National Resource PlanningAct Assess- development of a campground, or the sale of ment and Program timber. If the budget changes for any given year,

~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ the projects scheduled for that year may have to 2 Regional Regional Guide. be rescheduled However, the goals and land activity assignments described in the Plans would 3. Forest National Forest Land and not change unless the Plans themselves were Resource Management Plans changed If budgets change significantly over a (Forest Plans) for National number of years, the Plans may have to be Forest System lands. Tiered amended and consequently, would reflect different to Regional Guide. target outputs and environmental condltions. The

~ ~ significance of budget-related or other changes is 4. Project Site or project specific plans, determined in the context of the particular circum- generally at Ranger District stances level Tiered to Forest Plan. The decision to adopt these Plans authorizes their implementation During implementation, all WHAT THE FOREST AND GRASSLAND PLANS specific projects and activities will be evaluated ARE with respect to Plan direction and with appropriate public involvement. Schedules of proposed and The Plans are strategies for managing the Forest possible projects are contained in the Plans, and Grassland in an environmentallysound manner Appendices A. Public involvement and participation to produce goods and services in a way that will continue as the Plans are implemented, maximizes long-term public benefits because responsivenessto changing public issues The Plans are part of the 50-year framework for will continue. These Plans and accompanying long-range resource planning established by the Environmental Impact Statement are for the most Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources part programmatic. During implementation, when Planning Act (RPA), and establishes general the various projects are designed, site-specific resource management direction for the next 10 to plans and analyses are performed.These analyses 15 years These decisions are given on pp. ROD may result in environmental assessments, environ- 20-39 Information about outputs and effects mental impact statements, or categorical exclu- beyond this time are projected only to indicate sions, and possibly an amendment or revision of the anticipated consequences over time. The the Forest or Grassland Plan Any resulting NEPA Plans will ordinarily be revised on a IO-year cycle documents are to betieredto the Final Environmen- or at least every 15 years. The Plans may be tal Impact Statement for these Plans, pursuant to revised sooner if the Forest Supervisor determines 40 CFR 1508 28. that environmental conditions or resource demands have changed significantly, or If national policies, AMENDMENTS goals, or objectives have changed in a way that would require Forest Plan revisions. The Plans can be amended at any time. Amend- ments can be either 'significant" or 'non-significant" Once adopted, the Plans supersede or bring into depending on the timing or location ofthe proposed compliance all previous resource management change, and whether the change alters the goals, plans prepared for the Forest and Grassland, objectives, outputs, or management prescriptions. subject to existing rights, contracts, and specific Amendments may be made to respond to changing direction for areas such as Wilderness, Wild and needs, opportunities, monitoring, Congressional Scenic Rivers, National Recreation Areas, and land designations, or catastrophic events (such National Trails. This will generally be done within as major floods or fires), or to take advantage of three years (see Table 1, pg ROD4) Congression- major new management or production technolo- al land designations, catastrophic events, or major gies If the change is not significant, the Forest new management or production technologies Supervisor may implement the amendment follow- may require the Plans to be amended or revised ing appropriate public notification and satisfactory compliance with environmental policies and All activities, many of which are interdependent, procedures If the change IS significant, the Plan may be affected by annual budgets The Plans must be revised by the same process used to are implemented through various site-specific develop and approve the original Plan (see projects, such as the building of a road, the Amendment and Revision Process, p. ROD-59).

ROD - 2 WHAT THE PLANS ARE NOT All outstanding permits, contracts, cooperative agreements and other instruments for occupancy The Land and Resource Management Plans are and use of lands included in the Forest Plan will not plans for the various administrative activities be brought into agreement with this Forest Plan, needed to carry on the Forest Service's day-to-day subject to the valid existing rights of the parties internal operations. For example, the Plans do not involved; this will be done as soon as practicable, address personnel matters, law enforcement, fleet and generally within three years of the date of equipment, or internal organization changes. this Plan (see Table 1, pg ROD-4). Likewise, timber implementation plans such as The emphasis of the Plans is not on site-specific the Forest Tree Improvement Plan, Seed Orchard decisions or specific resource outputs. Instead, Management Plan, and Tree Seed Inventory Plan the emphasis is on applying various general will be brought into compliance with the direction management practices and intensities (standards contamed in the Forest Plan within three years of and guidelines) to different land areas (allocations) Plan approval. to achieve multiple use goals and objectives in a cost-efficient manner. The schedule of timber sale offerings in Appendix A-IO of the Forest Plan will be updated at least While all the outputs in the Plans can be accom- annually. All timber sales offered and all stand plished from a physical, biological, economic, management contracts issued after approval of social, and legal perspective, there is no guarantee the Forest Plan will be in compliance wlth direction that these levels will be accomplished. The outputs contained in the Plan Changes to existing con- proposed by the Plan are estimates based on tracts, including timber sales and other stand available inventory data and assumptions, and management projects, may be proposed on a their accomplishment is subject to the annual case-by-case basis where overriding resource budget received by the Forest. For example, the considerations are present Otherwise, all existing actual timber quantity sold or cut can depend on contracts will be administered in accordance with external factors beyond the scope of the Forest original provisions. Plan. Local demand for raw matenal, timber imports and exports, national housing starts, and home mortgage rates are among the factors which may RELATIONSHIP OF OTHER PLANS TO THE influence the annual timber volumes actually FOREST AND GRASSLAND LAND AND RE- harvested or sold in any one year. SOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS (LRMP) The Plans serve as the primary land and resource CONSISTENCY management direction for the Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland. All The National Forest Management Act requires other land, resource, or functional plans are that all resource plans, permits, contracts, and replaced or must be consistent with the direction other instruments for the use and occupancy of in these Plans A list of plans superseded or National Forest System lands be consistent with requiring modification by the LRMP's are given in the Forest Plan (16 USC. 1604(i)). All administra- Table 1. tion activities affecting the National Forest must be based on the Forest Plan (36 CFR 21 9 1O(e)).

ROD ~ 3 TABLE 1 REVISED OR SUPERSEDED PUNNING DOCUMENTS

PLAN/AGREEMENT TITLE SUPERSEDED UPDATEIREVISE 11 Prepare

1979 Timber Rasource Plan 1978 Silvies Malheur Unit Plan 1979 Ochoco Crooked River Unlt Plan 1980 Crooked River Natlonal Grassland Unit Plan 1978 South Fork Planning Unit Land Management Plan 1982 Round Mountain Electronics Site X Management Plan Transportation Plan X Fire Management Plan@) X Residue Management Plan X Special Use Permits X Memoranda of Understanding X Co-op Agreements X Allotment Management Plans X Tree Improvement Plan X Land Adjustment X Recreation Development Plans X Summit Trail Management Plan Statewide Comprehensive Wildllfe Plan X 1977 Mf-Road Vehicle Plan Facilities Management Plans X Site Development Plans X Seed Orchard Management Plan X rree Seed Inventory Plan X rimber Sale Harvest Schedules X :ray Buite Electronic Site Plan X 3ry Mountain Electronic Site Plans X iighway 26 Corridor Plan X Nild and Scenic River Plans Nilderness Plans X Nild Horse Management Plan X :orest and District Multiple Use Plans X :ove Palisades Cooperative Agreement X 3ald Eagle Recovery Plan X :apltal Improvements Plan X iazardous Materials Plan X qecreation Development Site Plans X (Haystack, et al) 983 Law Enforcement Plan X

11These existing plans will be examined and updated or revised as necessary to be brought in conformance wtth the Forest Pian, or simply incorporated into the Forest Plan If no change is needed

11. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION were consolidated into 12 major issues or 'planning problems,' which are (for more detail see FEE ISSUE IDENTIFICATION Appendix A)'

In Autumn of 1980, the Forest began the task of 1. Timber supply and Forest management identifying issues to be addressed in Forest 2. Social and economic wants and needs of local planning Six meetings with key interest group communities leaders and individuals were held In the meeting, 3 Livestock grazing and allotment management 125 preliminary issues, concerns and opportunities 4 Riparian area management (ICOs) were identified By an tterative process 5 Transportation system with the public, and through mailings, media and 6 Big game habitat meetings over the course of several months, these 7. Roadless areas and wilderness study areas

ROD - 4 8. Scenic or visual resources TABLE 4 9 Old growth forest ESTIMATED NUMBER OF COMMENTS BY IO. Fuelwood supply RESOURCE OR ISSUE I1 Snag dependent wildlife 12. Winter sports RESOURCWISSUE I TOTAL

Timber 1,974 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ON THE DRAFT Roadless Areas 1,903 EIS/PLAN Wildlife 829 Planning 804 Range 476 Notice of availability was published in the Federal Social Considerations 437 Register on September 12,1986 Over 1,000 copies Recreation 347 Fuelwood 339 of the documentswere distributed. Each document Old Growth 298 package contained a 'Reviewer's Guide" and Riparian Management 269 "Summary.' See Table 2 for the summary of public Multiple Use 208 involvement efforts for the DEIS. Wilderness 206 Transpottation 154 Special Interest Areas 115 By the end of the 90-day review period, approxi- Research Natural Areas 113 mately 2,150 responses were received All respons- Scenic Resource 73 were acknowledged with reply cards. Table Wild and Scenic Rivers 56 es 3 Fire 44 gives the number of respondentsfavoring particular Water 43 alternatives, and Table 4 shows the number of Wildlife MR's 40 comments by subject area (for more detail see Archeology/Histoiy/Cultural 31 Resource FElS Appendix I). Fish 24 soli 23 TABLE 2 Threatened, Endangered, SUMMARY OF AGENCY EFFORTS TO OBTAIN and Sensitive Species 22 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Budget 19 - Energy 14 Minerals 10 . Air 10 Special Land Uses 6 Plants .Nativellntroduced 5 Land Status 4

Economics 3 I ?+ Protechon 3 Pesticide Use 3 Law Enforcement 2 Indian Rights 1

I I I

TABLE 3 INTEREST GROUP METHODS RESPONDENTS PREFERENCE FOR PARTICULAR ALTERNATIVES It appeared that the majority of respondents I ALTERNATIVE I TOTAL I received their information primarily from fliers, media, or individuals rather than by reading the documents.

The forest products industry printed and distributed a leaflet entitled, 'Ochoco Forest Plan to Take 2 Millions of Dollars In Income from County Resi- 0 4J dents.' On one side of the leaflet was a summary 6 of industry's view of the Proposed Plan, including I I discussion of an industry-supported alternative, "B-plus ' On the backside was a response form, consisting of seven multiple-choice options and a

ROD - 5 space to write in a short comment The form was The Northwest Forest Resources Council filed two preaddressed to the Ochoco National Forest, appeals in May 1986, requesting that the manage- allowing a respondent to comment on the Plan by ment requirements incorporated into planning simply checking afew blanks and affixing a postage processes be reviewed, and that a no action stamp. Mill managers held meetings in which alternative representing current management employees were asked to fill out the form An plans be included in the EIS The Forest responded individual was contracted by industry to conduct by preparing and issuing a supplement to the meetings and distribute materials representing DElS in the fall of 1988 addressing those issues their viewpoint This individual conducted 2530 meetings, personally distributed 3,000 industry The environmental community continuedto prepare leaflets, and 700 copies of his speech. Other and circulate brochures and articles in recreation timber industry representatives also conducted guides on Lookout Mountain. One such brochure meetings or presented information at local civic, appeared in April 1989, by 'Friends of Lookout' business, and other organizational meetings. entitled, 'Accept an Invitation... Lookout Mountain Early in the process, analysts from the Northwest Special Management Area.' The purpose of this Forest Resources Council (NFRC) and timber brochure was stated, Yo protect the Lookout industry lobby group, met with the Ochoco's Mountain Area ' planning analyst Disagreeing with how job multipliers were expressed, they charged that job losses were understated. They used the potential SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENT ON yield from the Forest's 1980 timber plan as the THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE DEIS basis for their economic arguments A letter requesting withdrawal of the DElS and Proposed Forest Plan was sent to the Regional Forester by The responses received on the Supplement to a representative of the NFRC the DEE were predominately local in origin. Ninety percent were form letters which came from local The Central Oregon Economic Development mills or mill owners The form letters stated that Council contracted Brian Long, an Economist they had 'no malor comments on the Supplement from Seattle, to review the Forest's economic to the DEE itself,' but went on to repeat issues analyses and Impact Planning (IMPIAN) modeling and data Long prepared a report in which he the mills and timber industry emphasized concern- showed a loss of 317 jobs and 6 5 million dollars ing the Draft - timber supply and jobs. Over 95% due to the Draft Preferred Plan. Long's findings, of the comments received on the Supplement to displayed in a 38-page report entitled "Economic the DElS did not respond to the issues addressed Impact Analysis of the United States Forest Service by the Supplement Of those comments received Proposed Plan for the Ochoco National Forest in on the NFMA management requirements incorpo- the Central Oregon Area,' were presented to local rated by process, about half indicated the proce- community leaders and organizations dure was appropriate, while the others (from the timber industry, whose issue it was) disagreed A coalition of eight environmental groups published with the process and cost of the requirements in and distributed 8500 copies of a flier entitled, terms of timber supply. The no change alternative 'There Is Still Time to Save the Ochoco." The flier was recognized by most commentators as not included information on the planning process and meeting the requirements of law, particularly NFMA, issues, and offered suggestions on how to respond and therefore not being a viable implementable to the issues Environmentalist's views of the alternative. Proposed Plan were also presented at a public meeting in Bend, on radio and televisiontalk shows, ISSUE AND PUBLIC RESPONSE SUM- and in newspaper articles. MARY Two other special interest campaigns included, a statewide drive by snowmobile organizations to TIMBER SUPPLY AND FOREST MANAGEMENT keep the Forest open to snowmobiles (particularly Lookout Mountain), and the elderly citizen's desire Sub-issues relating to timber supply and forest to re-open the road to the summit of Lookout management have been identified and are dis- Mountain cussed separately

ROD - 6 Timber Supply and Sustained Even-flow Yield 75% was ponderosa pine Silvicultural systems applied have been predominately even-aged Forest products manufacturing is the malor industry Intensive timber management and resultant of the area Timber accounts for over 95% of the industrial activity on the Forest has potential to National Forest receipts The Forest has 6.3 BBF conflict with or impact other resources. Conversely, of standing crop, approximately 49% of which is land allocations for other purposes compete with comprised of mature ponderosa pine. timber interests, and other management require- ments can constrain timber management activities There are 533,177 acres of forest land tentatively and reduce potential yields. identified as suttable for timber production The Forest Plan allocates 496,850 acres to general What the respondents said: forest, 92,200 acres to nontimber use such as wildernesses, roadless areas, old growth, and Timber industry wanted an allowable sale quantity 255,590 acres to other management areas. of 137 MMBF, which was the original, 1979 Timber Resource Plan potential yield They also asked for Large fine-grained ponderosa pine is the most at least 100 MMBF of the allowable sale quantity commercially valuable tree in central Oregon (ASQ) to be in ponderosa pine. They attempted Open, park-like stands of mature ponderosa pine to show that the 'commercial forest" landbase are also what people identify the Ochoco National had been decreased through the suitability Forest with and seek out for recreational purposes. determinations and other land allocations in the Local mills are tooled for large material, although Draft Plan. Timber industry also wanted a larger some modification has begun. Ponderosa pine salvage program The conservation community, may occur in relatively pure stands generally on on the other hand, thought the ASQ for the Forest relatively low productivity sites, or associated with should be about 90 MMBF. Both industry and the other conifer species. The latter are referred to as conservationists agreed on the desirability of a mixed conifer stands and generally occupy the sustained even-flow yield, but disagreed on the better sites, but existing mixed conifer stands level of yield feasible on a sustained basis. have a high incidence of insect and disease damage, which reduces value and silvicultural Ponderosa Pine Management options. Large ponderosa pine trees are an economically The 1979 Forest Timber Resource Plan established important forest resource They are more valuable a potential yield of 136.5 MMBF The programmed and important than other species or second growth harvest for the Forest, under that plan, has been Wood product remanufacturing has been increas- 129 8 MMBF. The present planning effort developed ing and relies pnmarily on the high quality lumber alternative first decade allowable sale quantities, milled from ponderosa pine This industry is for the DEIS, ranging from 13 9 MMCF (82 MMBF) dependent on large pine (20-inch DBH or larger) to 24 4 MMCF (146 MMBF) Three of the alterna- that is relatively free of knots The majority of pine tives, including the draft preferred with an ASQ of grows on relatively low productivity sites producing 123 MMBF, plus an additional 5 MMBF in salvage less than 58 cubic feet/acre/year A quality versus sales, were departures Yield or an ASQ exceeding quantity situation exists Current forestry practices 100 MMBF is not sustainable in BF measure over include rapid liquidation of old growth pine stands, time Because FORPLAN yields were all calculated even-aged management, and emphasis on fiber in cubic feet, sustained yield in board feet was (quantity) production. Strategies in the DEIS were not readily determinable The current net annual designed to produce either maximum cubic foot growth estimated in board feet for the Forest is timber volume on available lands or maximum about 80 MMBF. The harvest on the Forest has PNV These strategies resulted in harvesting stands been at a historic high, eg 153 MMBF in 1985 at 90 to 100 years and producing trees no larger This high level of harvest was a result of the than 14 to 16 inches DBH. combination of timber availability and a strong market. What the respondents said.

Mill capacity of Crook and Harney Counties alone Large ponderosa pine were viewed as a unique is estimated to be 385 MMBF annually Demand product of central Oregon Small diameter second for timber currently exceeds supply The Forest growth trees were not. The stumpage value of has sold an average of 137 MMBF per annum large ponderosa pine is many times greater than over the past decade, and cut 110 MMBF of which second growth Some segments of the wood

ROD - 7 products industry would like to know what the second decade, and 89 MMBF by the fifth decade supply of pine will be over time in order to plan (20.6 MMCF to 16.1 MMCF). This amounts to a 25 their business operations. Both industry and other percent reduction over 5 decades The intent of publics do not like even-aged management in the departure was to maintain a high timber supply ponderosa pine Both want 'selection' harvests, to support community stability during the first but for different reasons. Intensive management decade The issue is, however, larger than that on low productivity pine sites is said not to be alone. None of the alternatives are sustainable in appropriate. It was thought that ponderosa pine, board feet over time (See Ponderosa Pine because of its uses and the sltes involved, should Management issue for importance of board feet be managed on a board foot (not cubic foot) versus cubic feet, p. ROD 7-8.)It is apparent that basis It was suggested ponderosa pine be the current harvest level in board feet will decline inventoried and managed separately, with a over time and a decision as to the rate and to separate ASQ established for pine. The timber what level over time is needed, I e. a 'glide path' industry asked for a ponderosa pine ASQ of 100 or 'stepping down.' MMBF annually. What the Respondents Said Uneven-aged vs. Even-aged Silviculture None of the respondents likedthe idea of departure The use of clearcutting as a silvicultural system Industry said they needed a dependable (and on the Forest has increased in the past decade. higher) supply of timber, especially to encourage This is due to prescriptions in mixed conifer that new business to central Oregon Conservationists favor more clearcutting, and increases in harvest said departure was a euphemism for rapid levels as the economy recovered from the recession liquidation of old growth The public, for the most of the early 1980s. Overstory removal has been part, asked for a 'sustained yield' which they applied extensively in ponderosa pine. Clearcut acres under the Proposed Plan would start seem to equate with nondeclining even-flow. Some increasing in the second decade as overstory felt we were remiss in proposing anything but removal opportunities continue to be reduced sustained yield (nondeclining even-flow). and management intensity increases. Clearcutting The harvest methods employed in FORPIAN modeling and yield tables in the Proposed Plan Of the approximately 35,000 to 40,000 acres and alternatives were based on even-aged man- currently under contract on the Forest, only about agement. Uneven-aged management of ponderosa 15 percent are to be clearcut However, the Forest pine appears to be a viable alternative with program in near future years contains substantial offsetting advantages and disadvantages. Some acreages of clearcutting in mixed conifer stands limited uneven-aged management was pro- The Draft Plan proposed harvesting 1,444 acres grammed for certain management areas in the (nine percent of total harvested acres), increasing Proposed Plan to 2,208 acres (39 percent of total harvested acres) by the year 2030 Root rot and other insect and What the Respondents Said disease problems, plus slash disposal needs, make any type of partial removal impractical for There was strong support for uneven-aged most of the mixed conifer stands management by the public and forest industry (albeit, for different reasons) and support for What the Respondents Said incorporation of uneven-aged management into an altemative Some publics see overstory removal There was almost unanimous opposltion to as clearcutting Uneven-aged management was clearcutting from industry, conservation groups, perceived as a method to avoid clearcutting (see and members of the general public. Reasons Clearcutting, this page) and to reduce conflicts cited included the adverse effects It has on other with other resources resources, the waste of fast-growing, younger stock and potential crop trees, and the destruction Departure of advanced regeneration The issue was posed as 'clearcutting vs selection ' Some publics This issue stems from the Draft Plan (Alternative perceived overstory removal as clearcutting €-Departure) proposal for an ASQ of 123 MMBF Clearcutting ponderosa pine was simply not in the first decade, declining to I18 MMBF in the considered appropriate Acceptance for clearcut-

ROD -8 ting in mixed conifer was conceded by industry. AUM's annually, involving 105 permittees. Changes The uneven-aged issue is related to this issue. in public perception about management of the Forest and Grassland in recent years have raised questions of possible conflict between livestock SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC WANTS AND NEEDS and big game, water quality, riparian conditions, OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES fisheries recreationists and reforestation. Grazing permit administration is tied by law to allotment Central Oregon's economy is primarily based on plans, not the Forest or Grassland Plans I& natural resources. Employment levels, commu- nity stability, ability to attract new industry and What the Respondents Said maintain the present, have been linked by some to timber supply levels. Our analyses show that Strong criticism was expressed concerning our the Forest can not continue to concurrently provide past performance in administering the grazing the same amount of timber and amenities over program. The public doubts that riparian conditions time as is currently provided As a result, there is can be improved and livestock numbers increased likely to be socioeconomic conflict under any simultaneously. alternative Some said that any significant reduction in livestock The issue, however, is not as direct as timber grazing would have an adverse effect on the supply alone. Other factors, such as remanufactur- socio-economic base of Crook, Harney, and ing, material (log) transport into and out of the Jefferson counties and eliminate currently viable area, automation, market conditions, rate of ranching units, and still other respondents suggest- liquidation of old growth, and ponderosa pine ed that full utilization be made of all available management affect jobs, employment levels, forage county receipts, community stability, and other businesses and industries that contribute signifi- Some respondents requested that additional data cantly to the economic well-being of the communi- about current conditions be presented and that ties. more detailed descriptions of the impacts of livestock use on other resources be provided. What the Respondents Said RIPARIAN AREA MANAGEMENT The forest products industry and many Individuals were adamant in demanding a high timber supply Approximately 20,240 acres, including 815 miles to maintain the local economy and lobs. Others of streams, of the Forest and Grassland are pointed out the short-sightedness of this viewpoint considered the riparian influence zone. Riparian and suggested that the rapid conversion of old areas receive a disproportionate amount of growth and shift to second growth/fiber manage- recreation and grazing use. Our most productive ment might not be positive in the long run. They timber sites also occur along stream bottoms believe the important resource is large ponderosa Approximately 6,650 acres of riparian area are pine. Second growth pine is worth $40-60/MBF, considered to be in 'poor" condition Public old growth $100300/MBF, so that even if the cut attention for riparian area management and is significantly reduced, management for larger condition is increasing. pine could contribute more to the economy The issue is also interrelated with the departure, The Draft Plan proposed to manage 9,400 acres uneven-age, and ponderosa pine issues. Still of streamside to achieve "excellent' conditions. others felt that the high harvest levels would result Structural improvements were proposed to en- in the loss of amenity resources that are the reason hance these areas as follows: fencing, 255 miles; many people choose to live, work, and recreate in large woody debris placement, 14 miles; log weir central Oregon Nearly all thought that a departure construction, 300 acres, rock structures, 50 acres; was extremely short-sighted and shrub plantings, 50 acres The remaining 9,600 acres would be managed for 'good' or 'fair' condition LIVESTOCK GRAZING AND ALLOTMENT MAN- AGEMENT What the Respondents Said

The Forest and Grassland provide summer grazing The public is concerned about the impact that for about 14,000 cattle and 3,500 sheep, or 75,000 grazing, timber harvest, and road building has on

ROD - 9 riparian areas. Of particular concern is the pro- potential habitat to support larger populations of posed increase in livestock use of forage and big game than these objectives skepticism over the Forest's ability to adequately manage riparian vegetation The view was present- The Draft Plan proposed management for big ed that all riparian areas should be managed in game habltat would be the primary emphasis on 'good" or better condition. There seemed to be a 227,700 acres (approximately 25 percent) of the perception that If riparian areas were in 'good Forest and Grassland In these areas, open road condition,' there would not be much concern over density and cover would be managed for high whether the vegetation was used by livestock or quality big game habitat. not Some livestock users recommended that where fencing is employed to manage riparian What the Respondents Said vegetation, the fenced tints should be large enough to be managed as riparian pastufes; Most desired a larger big game population than others wanted more specifics on the proposed what the Draft Plan allowed. They would like more riparian program seasonal and permanent road closures They felt all of the big game winter range should be managed TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM for that purpose, and an increase in the cover- forage ratios for the general forest should be The transportation system on the Forest and made. Grassland totaled 4,554 miles of roads in 1985 About 833 miles (18 percent) are maintained for passenger car use, with the remainder maintained ROADLESS AREAS AND WILDERNESS STUDY for high clearance vehicles. In the past, roads AREAS were constructed to relatively high standafds. Recently, economic pressures and more rigorous The Draft Plan proposed managing Cottonwood analysis led the Forest Service to adopt lower Creek, most of Rock Creek, part of Silver Creek, road standards and a small portion of Lookout Mountain for semiprimitive nonmotorized recreation (25,249 Under the Draft Plan, the number of miles of road acres total). Green Mountain (7,000 acres) was mantained on the Forest and Grassland would proposed to be managed for semiprimitive motor- decrease nominally in the future Roads would be ized recreation. closed when needed to protect soil and water, prevent disturbance of big game, and limit invest- The Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984 required the ment loss Closures may be seasonal or yearlong Forest Service to review the Deschutes Canyon- Steelhead Falls Wilderness Study Area (WSA) What the Respondents Said and make a recommendation in the Forest Plan. The Draft proposed a 5,200-acre wilderness (2,500 There is strong opinion that road standards and acres National Grassland, 2,660 ELM). The total road density are too high Seasonal road closures WSA was 18,402 acres. Also, the portion of the for protection of big game, and road closure after Deschutes River flowing through the wilderness completion of timber sales are generally supported study area was being studied for classification by the public under both state and federal wild and scenic river systems. The North Fork Crooked River WSA The timber industry suggested that the conflicts (1,125 acres) was identified as being part of a between roads and big game result from roads larger area over which the BLM had the lead. being open to use, rather than roads per se. They contend that the needs of big game could be What Respondents Said served as well by closing roads as by leaving areas roadless Public response on this issue was very polarized. Many of those favoring maintaining areas as BIG GAME HABITAT unroaded on the Forest requested that acreage in each be increased over what was proposed in The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife the Draft Plan. Lookout Mountain was most strongly (ODFW) assigned management objectives of supported to remain roadless, followed by Rock 2,600 elk and 22,600 deer to the Forest and Creek and Cottonwood Creek areas (Ochoco Grassland. The Forest and Grassland have Canyons)

ROD - 10 Those opposing roadless area management for FUELWOOD SUPPLY recreation cited single-use management as the basis for their opposition, and grouped roadless The Forest currently supplies about 10,000 cords areas with what they felt were other single-use of fuelwood per year. This is expected to decrease areas, i e. wilderness, research natural areas, and after a few decades as harvesting is done in old growth. younger stands that provide less cull material. There is a large amount of material currently not Those commenting on the Deschutes Canyon- used because of poor access (distance from Steelhead Falls WSA favored expanding the road, distance from town) and because of small wilderness to include more area If we were going size The availability and location of fuelwood is to recommend wilderness There were few com- related in part to the timber sale program. Fuelwood ments received on the NF Crooked River WSA. gathering often conflicts with leaving an adequate number of snags for wildlife. SCENIC OR VISUAL RESOURCES What the Respondents Said The DrafI Plan proposed managing 3,000 acres in the Bandit Springs area and a 7,000 acre area The people who use fuelwood for heating (which encompassing Crystal Creek, Walton Lake, Round includes a majortty of local residents) favored the Mountain, Lookout Mountain, Mount Pisgah, and continued availability or increase in availability of East Point to protect the natural appearance of fuelwood. the landscape Scenic corridors proposed totalled 52,000 acres, or about 50 percent of the potential SNAG DEPENDENT WILDLIFE roadside viewing of 106,700 acres. The Draft Plan proposed providing 55 percent of What the Respondents Said the potential snag habitat. Snag levels vary by management area, ranging from 40 percent in There were relatively few comments from the areas managed for timber production to 100 public on this issue. Most comments favored percent in wilderness and roadless areas. Fuel- retaining Highway 26 as a scenic corridor Some wood cutting and timber sales may not be leaving people felt that scenic corridors were lust another adequate supplies of snags means of reducing the timber base. The State of Oregon expressed strong concern over maintaining What the Respondents Said the visual character of the Ochoco Forest over time. Most of the respondents on this issue wanted snags reselved for wildlife. There was concern OLD GROWTH FOREST that the Forest Plan did not adequately protect snag habitat and that too many snags would fall The Draft Plan proposed to provide 26,340 acres prey to woodcutters and commercial timber sales. specifically allocated (dedicated) to old growth Conversely, timber industry strongly requested an management. Approximately 23,500 more acres expanded salvage program, which could conflict of old growth were thought to be available in with leaving snags or snag replacement effons wilderness and unroaded areas. WINTER SPORTS The size and distribution of the areas managed for old growth habitat were designed to meet At present, most of the Forest, except for the habitat requirements for the pileated woodpecker, cross-country ski trails at Bandit Springs, is open a management indicator species to winter recreation, including snowmobiles The Draft Plan proposed closing the summit of Lookout What the Respondents Said Mountain (2,950 acres) to snowmobiling.

A great majority of those responding desired a The greatest limitation to winter recreation on the larger allocation for old growth. Some also ex- Forest is the lack of access, which at present is pressed interest in preserving old growth pniper provided almost entirely by roads plowed to access habitat timber sales.

ROD ~ 11 What the Respondents Said the Draft Plan phase It is being addressed under Transportation System (pg ROD-26). The proposal to close Lookout Mountain to snowmobiling was strongly opposed by snowmobil- ROUND MOUNTAIN ers This appeared to be the major issue concerning winter sports that surfaced in the public comments The Oregon NaturalResources Council in comment In contrast, there was little support by cross-country on the Draft Plan asked that a recreation unit be skiers for closing Lookout Mountain, or other established for the Round Mountain area. This areas of the Forest, to snowmobiling. Staff observa- issue was brought up again by one individual in tions of winter use of Lookout Mountain indicate the validation process (see Other Multiple Use that the conflict between skiers and snowmobilers Decisions, pg. ROD-38). is normally minimal, and that at present levels, both uses can be accommodated in the area One suggestion was that separate trails to the top of Lookout Mountain be provided for skiers VALIDATION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPA- and snowmobilers. TION PROCESS

Incorporation of public involvement into the ADDITIONAL ISSUES NOT IDENTIFIED decisions being reached in the Final Forest and IN THE ORIGINAL ICO’S Grassland Plans has been an integral step as we have progressed from the draft documents ANADROMOUS FISH released in September 1986. Significant steps were taken during the last year of final document Anadromous fish were not identified as an issue preparation to insure that direction in the Final in development of the DElS and Proposed Forest Plans responded accurately to comments received Plan Anadromous fish were identified as a concern on the Draft. Meetings were held, and contacts by several individuals and groups, including a made with selected groups, individuals, agencies lengthy, technical response from the Columbia and political leaders in order to: River Intertribal Fish Commission (CRIFC) Primary

concerns included protection and enhancement ~ Validate public responses received during of spawning habitat, and the adequacy of the the process; monitoring schedule. Native American groups - Insure that we correctly interpreted what noted that treaties guarantee protection for was said; and anadromous fish habitat. - Insure that we did not miss something or overlook stumbling blocks HISTORIC TRAIL PRESERVATION - SUMMIT towards successful implementation TRAIL This networking followed our efforts in seeking This issue developed out of a separate study broad public review of our draft documents. During conducted during the interim between issuance the past year, meetings have been held with of the DEIS/Plan and Final.l/ The Forest coordinat- groups, agencies, citizens, and internally within ed with the State Historic Preservation Office the Forest Service organization (SHPO) on details contained in the Final. This trail has been related also to other groups’ proposals In response to this effort, where it appeared for an east-west intertie to a cross-state trail system. appropriate, changes were made in the final planning documents This was intended to OFF-ROAD VEHICLE (ORV) USE strengthen the Plan decision and build a base of support for effective implementation (see pp ROD This issue re-emerged during the issue/Final Plan 40-49 for summary of changes) validation phase. It was not evident as an issue in

11 Gowan, A 1986 The Summit Trail A History. Comprehensive Survey. and Evaluation USDA For SEN,Ochoco N F Repts 1 & 2

ROD - 12 111. influence for securing sound land conserva- DECISIONS tion practices on associated private lands.

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION In addition, the goals and objectives for the Grassland differ from those of the National Forest My decision is to approve and adopt the Forest for the management of old growth and recreation. and Grassland Plans which accompany the Final For those resources. the Grassland aoab deal EIS; this decision is referred to as Alternative I for onlywith luniper,and desert and environ- the management of the Ochoco National Forest ments respectively and Crooked River National Grassland SUMMARY LISTING OF MULTIPLE USE GOALS In arriving at this decision, I reviewed the environ- FOR FOREST AND GRASSLAND mental consequences of the Plans and their alternatives I gave particular attention to the Air Quality - Comply with air quality laws and responsiveness of the selected plans to the public regulations and coordinate with appropriate issues and management concerns identified in regulatory agencies. development of the Final Plans Land allocations and standards and guidelines developed through Biological Diversity - Maintain native, historic, interdisciplinary team analysis and review, reflect and desirable introduced plant and animal species public comment, inherent land and resource and communities, including those that may be capabilities, and the laws and regulations under threatened, endangered, or sensitive which the National Forest and Grassland are required to be administered In my ludgement, Maintain or enhance ecosystem function to provide Alternative I represents an equitable treatment of for long-term productivity of forest resources and all resource considerations, and provides for both biological communities. monetary and non-monetary outputs in a balanced and environmentally sound manner. In that sense, Cultural Resources - Locate, evaluate, protect, Alternative I maximizes net public benefits over and mitigate if necessary, significant archaeological time sites Enhance and rnterpret selected sites for public education and enjoyment. Promote opportu- ESTABLISHMENT OF FOREST AND nities for academic research GRASSLAND MULTIPLE USE GOALS Facilities - Plan, construct, maintain, and manage Forest and Grassland facilities to provide maximum The Forest and Grassland Plans (Chapters 4) economy, investment protection, user safety, and establish multiple use goals, objectives and desired resource protection. future condition. The goals represent a summary of the standards and guidelines on page ROD 15 Fire - Control wildfire aggressively (particularly in and are listed below. urban-Forest interface areas), and in a cost- effective manner (minimize suppression cost plus The Grassland is administered under different loss) laws than the National Forest, and in addition to the multiple use goals, has legislated primary Provide for the ecologically sound use of prescribed goals which are. fire as a cost-effective management tool for achieving resource management objectives. 1 Administer the National Grassland under sound and progressive principles of land Forage - Provide forage for wildlife and domestic conservation and multiple use, and promote livestock, in a manner consistent with other the development of grassland agriculture resource objectives and environmental constraints, and sustained-yield management of the while maintaining or improving ecological condition forage, fish and wildlife, timber, water, and and plant community stability recreational resources Forest Health - Maintain health of the Forest for 2 Manage the National Grassland resources present and future uses. Forest health is defined to maintain and improve soil and vegetative as 'a desired condition where biotic and abiotic cover, demonstrate sound and practical influences on the Forest (1.e. insects, diseases, principles of land use, and exert a favorable atmospheric disposition, silvicultural treatments,

ROD - 13 harvesting practices) do not threaten management Social and Economic - Manage the Forest to objectives either now or in the future ' lend support to the social and economic viability of local communities, as well as to the nation as a Forest Residues - Manage Forest residues (woody whole, biomass), resulting from either natural or man- caused processes,as a resource. Provide Provide equal opportunities to people regardless this resource (on-site) for the benefit of other of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, age, resources such as soil, water, wildlife, and timber, handicap, or as well as for the social and economic benefits associated with firewood gathering and other Soil - Manage soil to maintain, restore, or improve family oriented endeavors centered around its natural productive potential, balanced with residues (Regional Policy - FSM 2403). resource demands over the long term Fuelwood - Provide fuelwood for personal and commercial use, consistent with other resource Timber - Provide for the optimum production of Objectives and environmental constraints quality wood products, consistent with other resource objectives, environmental constraints, Lands - Permit special land uses that have been and economic efficiency. evaluated in relationship to land management objectives, are harmonious with other resource Transportation System - Plan, design, operate objectives and environmental considerations, and and maintain a safe and economical transportation are in the public interest. system providing efficient access for the movement of people and materials involved in the use and Minerals and Energy - Provide for and facilitate protection of the National Forest lands. the exploration, development, and production of mineral and energy resources in coordination with Water - Maintain or improve water quality and other resource objectives, environmental consider- quantity, and timing of run-off. ations, and mining and leasing laws. Comply with the objectives of the "Clean Water Old Growth - Provide stands of old growth Act" and Oregon State water quality standards throughout the Forest for wildlife habitat, ecosystem diversity and aesthetic diversity Provide water of consistently high quality to users and dependent resources Recreation - Emphasize the National Recreation Strategy. Wildlife and Fish - Provide, manage and improve Provide for a variety of recreational experiences fish and wildlife habitats to mantain viable popula- across all areas of the Ochoco National Forest, tions of existing native and desired non-native consistent with other resource objectives and vertebrate species, including threatened, endan- environmental constraints. gered, and sensitive species

Protect unique natural and recreational features. ESTABLISHMENT OF MANAGEMENT Scenic Resources - Participate in the "National REQUIREMENTS (STANDARDS AND Forest Scenic Byways" program through nomina- GUIDELINES) AS LISTED IN CHAPTERS tion of Forest roads that exhibit exceptional qualities and meet national selection criteria. 4, FOREST AND GRASSLAND PLANS

Provide natural-appearingscenery along major Specific direction for the management areas is travel ways, at developed and dispersed recreation provided for in Chapters 4 of the Plans as desired sites, and at certain recreation areas condition statements (prescriptions) and as Forest- and Grassland-wide and management area Integrate visual quality management into all standards and guidelines. A summary of this resource activities which have potential negative information for the Forest and Grassland Plans impacts on scenery follows~

ROD - 14 NATIONAL FOREST Timber Transportation System Management Area Prescriptions Water (Forest Plan, Chapter 4 - Section 2) Wildlife and Fish

FI. Black Canyon Wilderness NATIONAL GRASSLAND F2. Bridge Creek Wilderness F3. Mill Creek Wilderness Management Area Prescriptions F4. North Fork Crooked River Wilderness Study (Grassland Plan, Chapter 4 - Section 2) Area F5. Research Natural Areas GI. Antelope Winter Range F6. Old Growth 62. Metolius Deer Winter Range F7. Summit Historic Trail G3. General Forage F8 Rock Creek/Cottonwood Creek Area 64. Research Natural Areas F9. Rock Creek/Cottonwood Creek Unroaded- G5. Juniper Old Growth Helicopter Area G6. Crooked River Scenic Rwer F10 Silver Creek Area G7. Deschutes River Recreation River FII Lookout Mountain Recreation Area G8. Squaw Creek F12. Eagle Roosting Areas G9. Riparian F13. Developed Recreation G10. Rimrock Springs Wildlife Area F14. Dispersed Recreation GI1. Haystack Reservoir F15. Riparian G12. Cove Palisades State Park F16. Bandit Springs Recreation Area G13. Lake Billy Chinook View Area F17. Stein’s Pillar Recreation Area G14. Dispersed Recreation F18. Hammer Creek Wildlife/Recreation Area GI5. Gray Butte Electronic Site F19 Deep Creek Recreation Area G16. Utillty Corridors F20. Winter Ranae F21 General FokWinter Range Grassland-wlde and Management Area Stand- F22 General Forest ards and Guidelines F23. North Fork Crooked River Recreation Corridor (Grassland Plan, Chapter F24. North Fork Crooked River Scenic Corridor F25 Highway 26 Visual Corridor Air Quality F26 Visual Management Corridors Biological Diversity F27. Round Mountain National Recreation Trail Cultural Resources F28. Facilities Facilities Fire Forage Forest-wide and Management Area Standards Fuelwood and Guidelines Grassland Health (Forest Plan, Chapter 4 Section 3) - Lands Minerals and Energy Air Quality Recreation Biological Diversity Scenic Resources Cultural Resources Social and Economic Facilities soil Fire Transportatron System Forage Water Forest Health Wildlife and Fish Forest Residues Fuelwood Lands Minerals and Energy LAND ALLOCATIONS AND PLAN Old Growth STRUCTURES Recreation Scenic Resources The Plans establish land allocations which apply Social and Economic to specific uses, resource considerations, natural soil features or legislatively designated areas. The

ROD - 15 Ochoco National Forest Plan Corrected Page, October 6,1989 allocations are mapped (see Alternative I maps future condtion have been described by manage- depicting management areas) and have had ment area in Chapters 4, Forest and Grassland preliminary ground truthmg. Plans, and in the FElS Chapter 2 and Appendix B The management areas are individually de- The management area allocations for the Forest scrtbed in summary form on pages ROD 18-20 and Grassland are summarized in Tables 5 & 6. (see also Alternative I maps). Summary of percent area by resource emphasis is presented in Tables 7 & 8. Objectivesand desired TABLE 5 OCHOCO NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT AREAS

Allocations and Resource Emphasls By Area

Management Area Acres % Tolal Resource Emphasls

MA-Fl Black Canyon Wilderness 13400 2 Wilderness

MA-F2 Bridge Creek Wilderness 5400

MA-F3 Mill Creek Wilderness 17400 2 Wilderness

MA-F4 North Fork Crooked River 1125

MA-F5 Research Natural Areas 44w <1 Research

MA-FG Old Growth 1/ 19570 2 Wildlife

MA-F7 Summii Historic Trail 9560 1 Recreation

MA-FB Rock CreeklCottonwood Creek 11820 1 Recreation

~~ ~ MA-F9 Rock CreeUCottonwood Creek I Unroaded-Helicopter , MA-FIO Silver Creek Area 3110

MA-F11 Lookout Mountain Recreation 15660 2 Recreation

~~ ~ ~~ I MA-F12 Eagle Roosting Areas

MA-F13 Developed Recreation I 1810 I

MA-F15 Riparian 18130 2 Riparian

MA-FIG Bandit Springs Recreation 1580

MA-F17 Stein's Pillar Recreation 1 1070 I cl 1 Recreation I MA-F18 Hammer Creek Wildlife/ 2560

MA-FI9 Deep Creek Recreation 770

MA-RO Winter Range 611 30 7 Wildltfe

MAX3 General Forest Winter Range

MA-F22 General Forest 496530 59 Timber/Range

MA-F23 North Fork Crooked River - 1830 <1 Recreation Recreation River Corridor

Ochoco National Forest Plan ROD - 16 Amendment 3, November 9, 1990 Managemeni Area t Acres t %Total I Resource Emphasis

~~~~~ MA-F24 North Fork Crooked River - Scenic River Corridor ~ ~~ ~ ~~ I MA-F25 Highway 26 Visual Corridor

MA-F26 Visual Management Corridors I 33260 I 4 I Visuals

MA-F27 Round Mountaln National loo0

MA-F28 Facilities 460

~ ~~ ~~ TOTAL FOREST ACRES

I/ includes 8 old growth Unit0 within wildemerr, unmaded, and WSA

TABLE 6 CROOKED RIVER NATIONAL GRASSLAND MANAGEMENT AREAS

Allocations and Resource Emphasis By Area

Management Area 1 Acres I %Total I Resource Emphasls

MA-GI Antelope Winter Range I 22700 I 20 I Wildllfe

~ ~ ~ MA-G2 Metolius Deer Winter Range

MA-G3 General Forage I 59440 I 53 I Range MA-G4 Research Natural Areas I 110 I

MA-G7 Deschutes River-Scenic River Corridor 650 1 WildIScenic River

MA-GB Squaw Creek 7840 7 RecreationlWildlife

MA-G9 Riparian 2110 2 Riparian

MA-GI0 Rimrock Springs Wildlife Area 430

MA-GI1 Haystack Reseivoir 150 <1 Recreation

MA-Gl2 Cove Palisades State Park 2690 2 Recreation

MA-GI3 Lake Billy Chinook View Area I 560 I I I Visuals MA-GI4 Dispersed Recreation I 90 I

ROD - 17 MA-F4 NORTH FORK CROOKED RIVER WILDER- NESS STUDY AREA - Management will maintain TABLE 7 the exlsting condtions of the area for potential RESOURCE EMPHASIS BY ACRES AND % OF FOREST wilderness designation pending a decision by

RESOURCE %OF Congress or until released from further considera- # MGMT AREAS ACRES 1 EMPHASIS I I I FOREST tion. I TIMBEWFOWGE I 2 I 498.3w I 58% I MA-F5 RESEARCH NATURAL AREAS - Provide WLDUFE I 3 I 174.820 I 21% I opportunties for research, education, and ecologi- OLO GROW 1 10.570 2% cal benchmarks in naturally occuring ecosystems RECREATION I 10 I 45.350 I 6% I where natural processes are maintained. I I I SCENICNISUAL 40.110 MA-FG OLD GROWTH - Provide habitat for wildlife WLOERNESS 37.330 species dependent on old growth stands and RIPARIAN 18.130 protect old growth ItseF.

RESEARCH 4.400 C1% MA-F7 SUMMIT HISTORIC TRAIL - Protect the integrity of the Summit Trail. Enhance and interpret FACILITIES 1 450 Cl% signrficant segments for public enjoyment and

TOTAL I 644.840 education. Pristine segments will be managed to protect, interpret, and preserve their historic qualities.

TABLE 8 MA-Fa ROCK CREEWCOlTONWOOD CREEK RESOURCE EMPHASIS BY ACRES AND % OF GRASSLAND ROADLESS AREA - Provide for protection of soil, water, and fisheries, and for opportunities for RESOURCE XMGMTARWS ACRES nonmotorized recreational use and enjoyment EMPHASIS 1 I Maintain vegetation on steep slopes to prevent I RPINGWFORPIGE I 1 I 59,440 I 53% 1 erosion, and to protect water quallty and the I WIWUFE I 3 I 35.870 I 32% I anadromous fishery.

RECREATION 4 8.400 10% MA-F9 ROCK CREEWCOlTONWOOD CREEK UNROADED HELICOPTER AREA - Allow timber RIPARIAN 1 2,110 2% harvest while protecting the anadromous fishery, sensitive soils on steep slopes, and big game habitat WILD a SCENIC 2 2,740 Cl% ODGROW 1 740 <1% MA-F10 SILVER CREEK ROADLESS AREA - Protect

FACILrllES 2 540

Ochoco National Forest Plan ROD ~ ia Amendment 3, November 9, 1990 ~~

MA-F14 DISPERSED RECREATION - Provide and will protect and enhance public use and enjoyment maintain a near-natural setting for people to utilize of the river segment while pursuing outdoor recreation experiences. MA-F24 NORTH FORK CROOKED RIVER SCENIC MA-F15 RIPARIAN - Manage streamside vegetation CORRIDOR - Management will maintain and and habitat in order to maintain or improve water enhance a natural appearing landscape and quality, meeting temperature and turbidity levels protect the scenic river designation. as required by state standards under the Clean Water Act. MA-F25 US. HIGHWAY 26 VISUAL CORRIDOR - Maintain and enhance the scenery for travelers MA-FIG BANDIT SPRINGS RECREATION AREA - along US. Highway 26 Dispersed, nonmotorized recreational opportuni- ties, within a setting where management activities MA-F26 VISUAL MANAGEMENT CORRIDORS - are generally not evident to the casual observer. Maintain the natural appeanng character of the The recreational activities and opportunities will Forest along major travel routes, where manage- be expanded beyond winter recreation to year- ment activities are not evident, or are visually round activities. subordinated to the surrounding landscape.

MA-F17 STEIN’S PILLAR RECREATION AREA - MA-F27 ROUND MOUNTAIN NATIONAL RECRE- Maintain a scenic, natural or natural-appearing ATION TRAIL - Protect and manage for scenic setting associatedwith unique geologic formations, qualities which make the trail corridor an attractive particularly Stein’s Pillar. Provide roadless nonmo- recreational setting torized recreation, with various opportunities to enjoy nature. MA-F28 FACILITIES - Provide a safe, efficient, and healthful working environment where structure MA-F18 HAMMER CREEK WILDLIFE/RECREATION design and layout of the site blend with the AREA - Provide and maintain habitat diversity for surroundings. avariety of wildlifespecies whereopen road density is minimal, and a scenic, semi-natural or natural- MA-GI ANTELOPE WINTER RANGE - Manage for appearing setting for nonmotonzed recreational optimum winter range conditions for antelope in opportunities exists. conjunction with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. MA-F19 DEEP CREEK RECREATION AREA - Provide a near natural setting, where management MA-G2 METOLIUS DEER WINTER RANGE - activities are not visually evident or subordinated Manage for big game winter range habitat. to the surrounding landscape, for recreational pursuits within the area MA-G3 GENERAL FORAGE - Manage for forage production and utilization in a manner consistent MA-F20 WINTER RANGE - Manage for big game with Forest-wide Standards and Guides for other winter range habitat resources

MA-F21 GENERAL FOREST WINTER RANGE - MA-G4 RESEARCH NATURAL AREAS - Provide Manage for timber production with measures opportunities for research, education, and ecologi- taken to maintain habitat effectiveness for big cal benchmarks in naturally occuring ecosystems game. Management activities will be designed where natural processes are maintained and implementedto recognize big game habitat needs. MA-G5 JUNIPER OLD GROWTH - Provide habitat for wildlife species dependent on old growth stands. MA-F22 GENERAL FOREST - Production of timber and forage while meeting the Forest-wide Stand- MA-G6 CROOKED RIVER RECREATION RIVER - ards and Guides for all resources Management will maintain the appearance of a natural landscape to enhance and protect recre- MA-F23 NORTH FORK CROOKED RIVER RECRE- ational values ATION CORRIDOR - Management will maintain the appearance of a natural landscape in the MA-G7 DESCHUTES RIVER SCENIC CORRIDOR foreground view from Road 42 to enhance recre- -Manage for scenic quality and natural appearance ational and scenic values Management activities of the landscape

ROD - 19 MA-G8 SQUAW CREEK - Provide opportunlties listed and followed here by brief rationale for the for semiprimltive nonmotorized recreation in a decisions. pristine canyon setting while protecting and enhancing the deer winter range habitat and TIMBER SUPPLY AND FOREST MANAGEMENT fisheries Includes a 1,370 acre segment of Lower DECISIONS Squaw Creek recommended for designation as a "scenic riveP in the Wild and Scenic River System. DECISIONS.

MA-G9 RIPARIAN - Manage streamside vegetation 1. There will be no scheduled or chargeable timber and habitat in order to maintain or improve water harvest for the National Grassland quality, meeting temperature and turbidity levels as required by state standards under the Clean 2. The suitable land base for forest management Water Act. activlties within this planning period is determined to be 533,177 acres (as shown in FElS Chapter 2, MA-G10 RIMROCK SPRINGS WILDLIFE - Provide Table 2-8, and Appendix G in the Forest Plan) unique habitat (wetlands, ponds, springs) within the juniper-sagebrush steppe, characteristic of 3. Ninety percent or more of the physically suitable Central Oregon's high desert Provide for noncon- Forest acres will have a scheduled or chargeable sumptive (viewing, photography) wildlife uses in a timber harvest, based on the allocations described natural setting. in FEE Chapter 2, and displayed on the Forest plan map. MA-GI 1 HAYSTACK RESERVOIR - Provide users with a system of qualty facilities that are safe and 4. The estimated scheduled timber volumes, environmentally sound Continue to emphasize harvest type, rotation age or size, and estimated camping, picnicking, boating, fishing, and swim- potential contribution to ASQ by management ming area grouping are

MA-GI2 COVE PALISADES STATE PARK- Manage Group I for developed campgrounds and water related 92,200 Acres - 11% recreational activities. No scheduled treatment 1 Black Canyon Wilderness MA-G13 LAKE BILLY CHINOOK VIEW - Maintain 2 Bridge Creek Wilderness the natural appearing character of the viewshed 3. Mill Creek Wilderness from Lake Billy Chinook, where management 4 N.F.C R. Wilderness Study activities are not evident or are visually subordinat- 5 RNA's ed to the surrounding landscape 6 Old Growth 7 Summit Trail (preservation) MA-GI4 DISPERSED RECREATION - Provide and 8. Rock Creek/Cottonwood Creek Unroaded maintain a near-natural setting for people to utilize IO. Silver Creek Unroaded while pursuing outdoor recreation experiences 11. Lookout Mountain 28. Facilities MA-GI5 GRAY BUTTE ELECTRONIC SITE - Accomodate electronic transmission facilities. The Group I1 site is limited to low power output electronic 16,130 Acres - 2% equipment Silviculture - Even- or uneven-aged Rotation Age - 200 years Diameter 20"+ MA-GI6 UTILITY CORRIDORS - Accommodate Average annual cu ft volume - 0 3 MMCF energy-transmissionfacilities. 15 Riparian

Group 111 DECISIONS RELATED TO PLANNING 3,240 Acres - c 1% ISSUES (ICO'S) AND THEIR DECISION Silviculture - Even- or uneven-aged

RATIONALE Rotation age ~ 300 years Diameter 30" Decisions relating to each planning issue (see pp Average annual cu ft yield - c0 IMMCF ROD 6-12 for summary description of issues) are 12. Eagle Roosting

ROD - 20 17. Stein's Pillar Average annual cu R yield - 16.8 MMCF 19. Deep Creek 9. Rock CreekIColtonwoodCreek Helicopter 24 N F.C.R. Scenic River 21. General Forest Winter Range 22. General Forest Group IV 28, 1I 0 Acres - 4% 5 The ASQ will be 19 0 MMCF per year which is Silviculture ~ Even- or uneven-aged sustainable in perpetuity. This translates to 115 Rotation age - Pine 250 years, mixed conifer 200 MMBF average ASQ over the first decade of which years an estimated 71 percent, or 82 MMBF, will be Average annual cu.ft. yield - 0.4 MMCF comprised of ponderosa pine volume. 7 Summlt Trail (retention) 13. Developed Recreation 6. The Forest will conduct a timber salvage program 14. Dispersed Recreation within the limits of requirements for other resource 16. Bandit Springs objectives, such as snags for wildlife habitat, dead 25. Hwy 26 Corridor and down material as it relates to site productivity 26. Visual Management (retention) and healthy stream ecosystems, and prevention 27. Round Mountain National Recreation of excessive soil compaction. The annual volume estimated to be available for salvage over the Trail planning period is four MMBF annually of which three MMBF is ponderosa pine. Group V 32,140 Acres - 4% 7. The Forest will employ appropriate silvicultural Silviculture - Even- or uneven-aged systems in Forest management based on project Rotation age - Pine 200 years, mixed conifer 150 analysis of stand structures, stand conditions, years species composition and management objectives Diameter - Pine 27, mixed conifer 22" (see FEIS, Appendix E). Either even-aged or Average annual cu.ft. yield - 0.6 MMCF uneven-aged systems may be prescribed Clearcut- 7. Summit Trail (partial retention) ting will be done where forest conditions, such as 18. Hammer Creek disease and insect infestation, allow no other silviculturally acceptable alternative Such situa- 23. N F.C.R Recreation River tions generally occur in mixed conifer stands or 26. Visual Management (partial retention) where ponderosa pine is heavily infected with dwarf mistletoe. Approximately 100,000 acres of Group VI ponderosa pine stands in the General Forest 64,130 Acres - 8% (MA-F22) will be managed under uneven-aged Silviculture - Even-aged systems. Rotation age - Pine 125 years, mixed conifer 90 years 8. Ponderosa pine rotation age in the General Diameter - Pine I@,mixed conifer 15' Forest Management Area (MA-F22) will be 130 Average annual cu ft. yield - 0.9 MMCF years with a tree diameter of 18 inches; for mixed 20. Winter Range conifer it is 90 years and 16 inches. Stands selected for uneven-agedmanagement will have an average rotational diameter of 20 inches. Rotation ages in Group VI1 other management areas range from 90300 years 606,690 Acres - 72% and are based on resource objectives (recreation, Silviculture - Even- or uneven-aged wildlife, visual emphasis - see item 4 under Rotation age - Pine 130 years, mixed conifer 90 Decisions, p. ROD-20). years Diameter - Pine 1W, mixed conifer 16n(uneven-aged 9. Changes in ASQ will be done gradually over 200) time. Table 9 shows the proposed schedule.

ROD - 21 TABLE 9 is my intention to make these changes in timber Planned Harvest For 1990-1999 availabilrty in a gradual manner so as to cause (Glide Path) minimal social or economic affects (see Table 9). (MMBF not including salvage) I have considered the potential for providing a I I YEAR I higher ASQ should economics or demand continue to improve. Some addtional ASQ (-3MMBF) I I 1990 I 1991 I 1992 I 1993 I 1994 I might be theoretically captured by further increases in management intensrty and investment, but this ASQ 124 121 118 114 113 is not presently cost efficient, as demonstrated by the PNV of Alternative 6-Modified vs Alternative I (Table 31). Because the forested lands on the Ochoco are for the most part 'sunable' and 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 costefficient under current economics, changes in demand do not affect ASQ by bringing more ASQ 112 112 112 112 112 acres or sltuations into solution. In short, there is little potential for increasing ASQ on this particular National Forest due to improved economics at RATIONALE this time. Any such opportunities would contribute insignificantly to the ASQ as calculated and do The intent is to maintain relatively high and not appear to be cost effective at this time. sustainable level of allowable sale quantity and salvage program over the next decade in view of SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC WANTS AND NEEDS dependent communities and wood product OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES demand; however this must be accomplished wlthin the law and regulations, as well as require- DECISION ments for other resources established by this Plan. In my judgement the combined ASQ and The decisions relating to this issue are addressed salvage of 119 MMBF annually, when all things under the other issues and aspects of the Plan(s). are taken into consideration, is reasonable and These include, but are not limited to. attainable for the Ochoco National Forest for this planning period. 1. Allocations which recognize and protect impor- tant natural features, recreational attractions, 1 have given particular attention to the amount of wildernesses, and wildlife habitat. ponderosa pine that can comprise that volume on a sustainable basis and find it to be approximately National Forest - MA - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11, 71%, or 82 MMBF for the first decade. Because of 12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,23,24,25,26,27 product value, considerations, and other resource ObjeCtiveS involved, I have elected to vary rotation National Grassland - MA - ages (diameters) by species and situations in 1,2,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 order to insure the continuation of high value products from the Forest, and perpetuation of the 2 Allocations, decisions, and standards and aesthetic forest character of the Ochoco National guidelines (direction) which perpetuatethe charac- Forest The decision to apply uneven-aged ter of the National Forest and Grassland over management also relates to those reasons. time, e.g .

The combined ASQ and salvage volume of 119 a Larger harvest tree diameters than those MMBF is greater than the average annual historic required to maximize timber outputs. volume of 11 0 MMBF cut over the past decade. However it is eight percent less than the volume b Application of uneven-aged management. sold, or 10 8 MMBF less than the programmed harvest allowed under the 1979 Timber Resource c Roadside visual corridors. Plan. The differences in projections may be attributed to new inventory information; improved d Protection of recreational features or yield tables, and new allocations, laws, regulations attractions (Deep Creek, Stein's Pillar, and requirements affecting resource decisions. It N F.C R Scenic River, et al)

Ochoco National Forest Plan ROD - 22 Corrected Page, October 6, 1989 3. Timber supply level of I19 MMBF (including years) to begin improvement of their condrtion to salvage) in the first decade, with long-term 'excellent.' sustained yield of 19 0 MMCF. 3 Range allotment plans will be updated and 4. Consideration of product value in Forest tiered to the above program. Adjustments in management decisions; decisionfor larger rotation- permitted stock numbers will be made through al diameter for ponderosa pine and approximately the allotment planning process. 71 percent of the ASQ comprised of ponderosa pine. 4. Fall green-up in Winter Range (MA-F20) and General Forest Winter Range (MA-F21) will be 5. Decisions affecting range allotments made on reserved for big game. a case-by-case basis. 5. No domestic stock grazing will be permitted in RATIONALE lower Squaw Creek (MA-F8) from the power line crossing downstream to confluence of the De- Decisions under the issue of Timber Supply have schutes River, or on the Island RNA (MA-F4). the potential to have the greatest and most immediate effects on local communities. The 6. Interior portions of Rimrock Springs Wildlife importance of timber harvest levels to jobs is Area (MA-F1O) are not programmed for planned, recognized, but decisions by industry (e.g automa- recurrent grazing. tion) also effect the number of jobs. The decision made in the plan purposefully provides a relatively 7. The current grazing program of 75,000 AUM's high level of timber supply, with attention to the for the Forest and Grassland could be reduced amount of ponderosa pine Large ponderosa pine by up to 10 percent during this planning period. has the greatest value and Its sale and manufacture This reduction would not be an across the board potentially generates the greatest number of jobs cut, but vary by the condition of the riparian areas and economic returns. The decision to plan for a within each allotment on a case-by-case basis. smaller diameter for other species relates to current Over time, AUM's may increase depending on the product demands, as well as silvics of the species effectiveness of the riparian improvement program My decisions will provide a sustained, even-flow, of high value timber from the Forest on a decadal RATIONALE basis, while maintaining, protecting, or enhancing wildlife, recreation, water quality and visual re- With the establishment of forage utilization stand- sources. In my judgement, Final Plan decisions ards It is my intent to assure that grazing levels contribute to a balance between nonmonetary on the National Forest and Grassland do not and monetary resources in a manner that can exceed the carrying capacity of plant communities, assist the economic stability of dependent commu- and to prevent deterioration of rangelands. I have nities, and allow the character and recreational established a program for updating allotment settings relating to rural lifestyles carried on near plans and dealing with conflicts and conditions of the National Forest and Grassland to be maintained overuse on an allotment-by-allotmentbasis over over time. the next three years On winter ranges where availability of forage is critical to big game, I am LIVESTOCK GRAZING AND ALLOTMENT MAN- reserving fall green-up for the exclusive use of big AGEMENT game. Prohibition of domestic stock grazing on lower Squaw Creek and Island RNA is designed DECISIONS. to maintain benchmark areas that have experienced little or no grazing in the past. Lower Squaw Creek 1. Forage utilization standards for riparian and represents one of the best examples of excellent primary range are established as described in riparian conditions on the Forest and Grassland Table 10. In my judgement the decisions relating to the administration of the grazing program described 2 A prioritized program for improvement of riparian in the Plans allow each situation to be considered areas on an allotment-by-allotmentbasis has on its merits at a project analysis level This been developed (see Forest and Grassland Plans approach is an equitable one, in my opinion. Appendix A) All riparian areas will have necessary Those permittees which have over the years action initiated within this planning period (10 practiced good range management will have their

ROD - 23 Maximum Annual Utlllzallon (%)By Exlstlng Range Condltlon

Grassland Commundies 2l Shrubland Communities 31 Range Resource Management Level Sat * Unsat * Sat I Unsat

E - Livestock use managed within current grazing 40 0-30 30 capacity by riding. herding, salting, and cost-effective improvements used only to maintain stewardship of the range

C ~ Livestock managed to achieve full Utilization of 45 0-35 40 allocated forage Management systems designed to obtain distribution and maintain plan vigor include fencinq and water development

D - Livestock managed to optimize forage production 50 0-40 50 0-35 and Utilization Cost-effective culture practices improv- ing forage supply, forage use and livestock distribu- tion may be combined with fencing and water development to implement complex grazing systems

I I Maximum Annual Utilization (%) 2/ I I I Forested Communities I Grassland Communities I Shrubland Communities I I RanQe Resource Mqmt Level I sat I Unsat I sat. I Unsat. I sat I unsat I

E - Ltvestock use managed within current 40 0-30 50 grazing oapacity by riding, herding, salting, and cost-effective impravements used only to maintain stewardship of the range

C - Livestock managed to achieve full 45 0-35 55 utilization of allocated forage Management systems designed to obtain distribution and maintain plant vigor include fencing and water developments

D - Livestock managed to optimize forage 50 0-40 55 0.40 50 0-35 production and utilization Cost-effective culture practices improving forage supply, forage use and livestock distribution may be combined wtth fencing and water developmentto implement complex grazing systems

ROD - 24 efforts rewarded. Where there have been abuses, 6. Development of a program for structures, actions will be taken to correct the situation (see instream devices and woody debris for riparian Riparian Area Management discussion which area and channel condition improvement (see follows). project schedules, Forest Plan, Appendix A).

RIPARIAN AREA MANAGEMENT 7. Compliance with Oregon State Water Quallty Standards (OR Adm. Rules 34041-205). DECISIONS 8. On approximately 40 miles (1,000 acres) of 1. See also Decisions and Rationale under selected streams, the streamside management Livestock Grazing (pp. ROD 23-25), and Anadro- area wdl average 200 feet on each side to provide mous Fish (p. ROD-89). 'connective habitat.'

2. Adopt as guidance the Best Management RATIONALE Practices (BMP's) described in USDA Forest Service PNW 1988 publication, 'General Water The Forest Service is required by law to meet the Quality Best Management Practices.' requirements of the Clean Water Act. In addition, fisheries and fish habitat are important Forest 3. Allocation of an average ZOO-foot streamside resources, particularly anadromous fish. With management unit (average 100 feet each side) for national focus on riparian area management and all perennial and intermittent streams (to which water quality, as well as increased recognition of standards and guidelines for protection of riparian the importance of anadromous fish habitat, the areas and water quality have been applied). Forest Service can no longer tolerate nor allow uses or practices which favor indlvidual interests 4. Application of even-aged or uneven-aged at the expense of riparian areas and water quallty. silviculture systems where appropriate The decisions I've outlined above are a fotward step in providing correction and improvement in 5. Establishment of watershed sensitivities and conditions where necessary, and in assuring that Forest-wide threshold guidelines of no more than the Forest Sewice meets its obligations in respect 2535% of the Forest vegetation removed (harvest- to requirements of law, regulations and objectives ed) in a watershed at any one time as shown in for riparian management established by this Plan. l Table 12.

TABLE 12 WATERSHED SENSITIVITIES AND THRESHOLD GUIDELINES

35% Harvest Threshold 30% HaNest Threshold 25% Harvest Threshold I Low Sensiiivliy Moderate Sensnivliy I High Sensnivliy I Middle Fork Crooked River North Fork Crooked River John Day Dry/Stinger Marks Creek Trout Creek Beaver Creek (east) Emigrant Creek Bridge Creek Beaver Creek (west) McKay Creek Deep Creek Bear/Camp Creek Howard/Porter Wolf Creek Keeton Creek Ochoco Creek NicolVSawmill Mill Creak Badger Creek Silver Creek Bear Creek Deschutes River Rock Creek Willow Creek

ROD - 25 Ochoco National Forest Plan Corrected Page, October 6.1989 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM basis. This decision relates to big game habitat needs. DECISIONS 3. The use of off-road vehicles (ORV's) On the 1. Road standards, design and densities (trans- Forest and Grassland will be controlled in respect portation planning) will be related to allocations to management area objectives and resource and management area objectives in the Final Plan. protection needs as specified in the Forest and Grassland Plans (Standards and Guidelines, 2. Average open road densities in General Forest Chapters 4), and summarized in Tables 13 and (MA-F22) will be 3 mi./sq.mi.; for Winter Range 14. (MA-F20) it will be 1 mi./sq.mi. on a seasonal

TABLE 13 MOTORIZED USE ON FOREST MANAGEMENT AREAS

Ochoco National Forest Plan ROD - 26 Amendment 4; August 1. 1991 TABLE 14 MOTORIZED USE ON GRASSLAND MANAGEMENT AREAS

Management Areas

Oecirionr 12345.5783

No Motorized Use 11111111xxxxx

Encourage ORYS on X Designated Routes, Allow No Cross Coun- t~ Travel Exe~tFor Admln Ure and 0y Perm;, Only, Provide krlgnafed Trails For ow use.

Restricted to Oesig~ nsfed Router April 1~ No" 14.

Roads. xcepf or

.Management Area Gi2 15 administered In, the SMl?

RATIONALE 2. Available winter range on the Forest that is not needed to meet State of Oregon population goals Decisions related to the transportation system are for elk is 107,360 acres (MA-F21). Cover objectives primarily based on the need to develop and for General Forest (MA-F22) will apply to MA-F21. maintain road systems which meet the particular but other factors such as road densities and management objectives for an area. Cost- vegetation manipulation practices may be altered effectiveness and safety are integral in the docu- on a project specific and opportunity basis to ments. benefit big game.

In order to minimize motorized use conflicts on 3. No areas are specifically allocated for big game the Forest and Grassland, I am adopting a set of summer range, but big game habitat requirements, restrictions based on existing authority and and protection of habitat features, will be incorporat- regulations, that limits or authorizes use of ORV's ed into all project analysis on a case-by-case in a manner compatible with the management basis. objectives of this Plan. 4. Management areas with seasonal road access restrictions specifically to provide big game habitat BIG GAME HABITAT and security are, but may not be limited to:

DECISIONS Grassland:

1. Potential big game winter ranges have been Antelope Winter Range (MA-Gl), Metolius identified on the National Forest and Grassland. Deer Winter Range (MA-G2) - Control access To meet ODFW objectives 64,130 acres are as needed to enhance big game winter range allocated to big game winter range on the National and support other resource objectives. Forest (MA-F20), 12,740 acres on the Grassland (Metolius Deer Winter Range MA-G2), and 22.700 General Forage (MA-G3) - Close roads acres of antelope winter range on the Grassland seasonally in specific areas: deer hunting (MA-Gl). season, Sept. 20 - Oct. 30.

ROD - 27 Juniper Old Growth (MA-G5) -Control access 7 Open road densities on the National Forest in to protect old growth habitat General Forest (MA-F22) will not exceed, on the average, three mi /sq.mi , on Winter Range Rlmrock Springs Wildlife Area (MA-G10) - (MA-F20) the open road density from Dec 1 - Allow only administrative and permittee traffic. May 1 will not exceed one mi /sq mi. on the average RATIONALE, National Forest: In the establishing requirements for big game Eagle Roosting (MA-F12) -Except for constant habitat on the National Forest and Grassland, I setvice through routes, use will be restricted have attempted to recognize the regional and to administrative use and use by permit only local importance of this resource. The decisions during Dec. 1 to May 1. incorporated into the Plans for big game habitat are significant, yet they have been accomplished Hammer Creek Wildlife/Recreatlon (MA-Fl a), with very little effect on other resource outputs. Wlnter Range (MA-F20), General Forest They will place additional restrictions on motorized Winter Range (MA-MI) - Except for constant use of some areas of the Grassland and Forest at setvice through routes, use will be restricted certain times. With more people, better access, during the periods of Dec. 1 to May 1 Access and motorized technology this is necessary to routes will be limited to one mile per section provide habitat security for big game, and to during that period, and three miles per section achieve population objectwes established by on the average the remainder of the year. ODFW ROADLESS AREAS AND WILDERNESS STUDY Old Growth (MA-F6) Constant sewice roads - AREAS (WSA's) will remain open Use on all other roads across the management areas will be eliminated DECISIONS

5 Establishes Hammer Creek MA-FI8 (2,560 1 Designates nonwilderness, multiple use alloca- Acres) in the Maury Mts which feature big game tions for those roadless areas that were reviewed and wildlife habitat management under 36 CFR 219 17 and not recommended for wilderness designation under the Oregon Wilder- 6 Establishes habitat effectiveness indices guide- ness Act of 1984. (See Tables 16-18.) lines for MA's -F18, 20, 21 & 22 (see Table 15)

TABLE 15 HABITAT EFFECTIVENESS OBJECTIVES

Habitat Effectiveness Index (HEI) I/ I (By Decade) I Allocation 11l2l3141 5 I

MA-F18 Hammer Creek WtldlifelRecreation 5 6 8 8 32

MA-FZO Wtnier Range 5 6 8 a 32

MA-F21 General Forest Winter Range 5 6 8 a 21 I I I I I I I MA-FZ?General Forest

11 See Forest wide Standard9 and GuideltneS for an explanatmn of HE1 Management obiectiw are based on achieving habitat eflecfivene~~over Ume The quaiihl and quanUhl of Cover and open mad density ere the main fadom influencing HE1 and Should be deSlgned I" concert to achieve ihe desired HE1 shwn In the table by management area

ROD - 28 TABLE 16 SUMMARY OF ROADLESS AREA ALLOCATIONS

I RARE II Acres I Draft (An. E) Allocated to Remain Flnal (Ail 9 Allocated to Unroaded Remain Unroaded I Broadway 8,680 0 0 Green Mountain 6,630 7.m 0 Rock CrICottonwood Cr. 20,340 19,070 11,820 Silver Cr 11,670 3.230 3,110 Lookout Mountain 15,2W 2,950 15,660 II Deschutes Canyon- Steelhead Falls WSA FS 10,ooO 2,m 5.100 31 ELM 3.240 Z! 2.a Norlh Fork Crooked River WSA 1,300 1.125 1.125 Total Unroaded Acres 73,880 I 38,535 I 39,555

TABLE 17 SUMMARY OF PERCENT AREA ALLOCATED TO WILDERNESS OR ROADLESS NATIONAL FOREST AND NATIONAL GRASSLAND

Total Unroaded Area 4 1% I Total Wilderness Area 3 7% 1 Total Unroaded or Wilderness I 79% I

TABLE 18 ACRES OF ROADLESS AREA ALLOCATED TO MANAGEMENT AREAS

I I Forest Management Areas (See description, pp ROD 1819) I

ROD - 29 Ochoco National Forest Pian Corrected Page, October 6, 1989 I I Forest Management Areas (See description pp ROD 16-19) I

Cottowood Creek

I I Grassland Management Areas (see description pp ROD 19-20) I Roadless 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Area 7

Deschutes 3,600 600 20 650 5,100 20 10 River Canyon 2/

11 Noah Fork Crooked Rwer Wilderness Study Area Z! Deschules River Canyon Wildeinesr Study Area (Forest Sewice ownership only, Mgml Area comprised a1 area ou1side WSA)

2. Recommended no wilderness for Deschutes or programmed for this planning period unless Canyon-Steelhead Falls, a study area designated site-specific analysis is completed and plans by the Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984; instead approved otherwise Any timber removed through allocates 7,840 acres, part which contains portions vegetation manipulation projects would be on a of the WSA designated for semiprimitive nonmotor- nonscheduled or nonchargeable basis ized recreation (see also, Decision 4, this page) Other portions of the WSA are included in the 4 Establishes an 7,840-acre Squaw Creek Manage- Deschutes Scenic River as classified under the ment Area (MA-G8) on the National Grassland Oregon Rivers Act of 1988 Maintains options on and provides specific decisions for access, the North Fork Crooked River Wilderness Study recreation, and wildlife habitat management in the Area, on which the Bureau of Land Management area (see Livestock Grazing and Allotment Manage- is the lead agency preparing the environmental ment, p ROD-23). Identifies the eligibility and documentation and has recommended nonwilder- suitability of lower Squaw Creek for scenic river ness in a draft EA, until Congressionally decided classification under the Wild and Scenic Rivers System and recommends designation as a Scenic 3. Establishes a Lookout Mountain Management River. Area (MA-Fi 1 A&B) and management concept which incorporates the entire Lookout Mountain area, including existing access roads into Brush RATIONALE Creek and Independent Mine Designates 7750 acres (MA-Fi IA) for unroaded semiprimitive 1 Roadless Areas recreation, and the remainder of the area (MA-FI 1.3) for recreational and wildlife habitat The Green Mountain roadless area was proposed purposes. Vegetation management activities and in the Draft Plan/EIS preferred alternative for access development would be done only if they motorized semiprimitive recreation. There was can be demonstrated at the project planning level little, if any, support for that designation in the to benefit recreation and wildlife interests No public comments. In addition, the suitability of the entry for purpose of stand treatment is scheduled area for such use,

ROD - 30 and the details for implementing that type of make this 4-wheel trail unsuitable and unsafe for management, were not convincing based on informa- general public use, with the potential to result in tion available. l have therefore allocated the area to unacceptable resource damage The construction of other (multiple) uses as shown by Table 18. pg improved road access to the summit would be in ROD-29 conflict with management objectives for the area Snowmobile use on Lookout Mountain will be allowed Silver Creek Roadless Area (MA-F10) is proposed to to continue At this time, I have not been convinced remain essentially as described in the Draft preferred that the amount of snowmobile and cross country with some minor adjustments to assure a more ski use in the area results in any irreconcilableconflicts manageableboundary There appeared to be general (see Winter Sports, pg ROD-37) Some separation public support for the area as proposed in the Draft. of snowmobile and ski trails, as planned, should relieve the present concerns. Because the existing The Rock Creek and Cottonwood Creek roadless roads to Independent Mine and Brush Creek are a areas were proposed in the Draft to remain unroaded. part of the management of the Lookout Mountain Public comment and additional analyses supported area, the decisions made regarding these roads the idea that portions of these areas might be entered affects the Lookout Mountain area I have chosen to for timber management purposes, and that idea has incorporate these access routes into the management been incorporated into my final decision (Table 18). area I have identified a mountain top subunit Approximately 11,820 acres of the 19,073-acre (MA-F11A) that is a mosaic of mountain meadow. roadless area will remain unroaded (MA-F8). of which steep drainage heads, shallow, rocky soil, and low 2,480 acres will be available for helicopter logging productivity forest This part of the mountain. I have (MA-FS), where it is in fact economical and able to determined is best left unroaded for semiprimitive be accomplished with no additional roading in MA-FB recreational opportunities and wildlife habitat On the or the adjacent old growth areas identified. My lower elevation subunit (MA-FIIB), which is for the decision to retain 11,820 acres in unroaded status is most part productwe forest land, I am proposing based on several factors. First. the area proposed to that recreation and wildlife habitat also be empha- remain unroaded (MA-F8) is generally very steep, sized. However, in my judgement. those resources, low in productivity. and has highly erodible soils and the forest setting for related activities. might be Both streams have anadromous fish spawning enhanced or maintained over time by appropriate potential There is little assurance, with current vegetation management and access development economics and technology, that these steep slopes My decision is that before any activities are initiated could be logged while still protecting water quality in MA-FIIB, site specific planning and additional In addition, the difficulty of access afforded by the public involvement be completed Project level unroaded area will provide habitat security for big analysis will be started within the first half (3-5 years) game of the planning period to follow. To be consistent with our intentions I have not scheduled the removal What the outcome will be for the Lookout Mountain of timber products from this area, and it is not part roadless area has been perhaps the most controver- of the Forest ASQ I also intend to pursue opportunities sial issue for the forest Prior. and to an extent to tie research into this management proposal concurrent to this planning effort. Congress reviewed the Lookout Mountain Area for incorporation into the 2 Wilderness Study Areas National Wilderness system Senate repott #98-465 states 'This area is presently managed as a 'Special a Deschutes Canyon - Steelhead Falls Management Area' for dispersed recreation and backcountry values The area is not presently in the The 10,000-acre Deschutes Canyon-Steelhead Falls timber base The Committee expects the Forest Wilderness Study Area (WSA) was Congressionally Service to examine the feasibility of continuing this designated in the Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984 use in the current National Forest Plan and determine Within the WSA. powerlines. private lands, range the land allocation in the Forest Plan ' This has been allotments and improvements. roads, a pumping done and the decisions described above, and by station and old homestead sites occur In the Draft the Alternative I map It is further described by the PlanlElS a 5,200-acre area was recommended for rationale below wilderness This area centered on the Deschutes River and Squaw Creek canyons It had a minimum I do not intend to reopen the 4-wheel drive road of the above nonconforming features from the Independent Mine to the summit of Lookout Mountain This road was closed and rehabilitation While public comment received generally supported work conducted in 1982 The location and grade the wilderness designation of this area. serious

ROD - 31 Ochoco National Forest Plan Corrected Pagc. Oclober 6. 1989 question also surfaced on the manageability of the The direction and objectives for the management of area as wilderness. Questions were raised in respect the Squaw Creek unit (MA-G8) are given in Chapter to the confinements of Squaw Creek canyon’s ability 4 of the Grassland Plan. In my judgement implementa- to withstand concentrated recreational use and still tion of the wilderness proposal in the Draft Plan/EIS retain the natural features that occur there. Access had not been thoroughly analyzed and would have for range management activities and power line resulted in an unmanageable situation because of maintenance, access to private land inholdings for size of area and nature of the terrain, that was not in power line maintenance, and the limited size of the the best interest of the resources involved The proposed area were other nagging questions management direction for MA-G8, combined with Meetings were held with a few of the key individuals the river classification for the Deschutes River canyon interested in the area, and contacts with other agency and Squaw Creek, are decisions which best protect representatives were made in an attempt to seek the resources identified, retain options, and is in solutions to the apparent potential problems with alignment with interests of all user groups concerned wilderness designation and management for this I am therefore recommending no wilderness designa- area tion for the Deschutes Canyon-Steelhead Falls WSA No actions will be taken that conflict with existing In this process the Forest Service attempted to identify options until Congress either accepts or rejects this what were perceived as the important resources recommendation within the area in order to determine if wilderness designation was the best course of action, or if there b North Fork Crooked River were better means to protect those resources The resources identified were The North Fork Crooked River WSA is described in the BLM ‘Wilderness Environmental Impact Statement Natural springs. e.g Alder Springs - for Oregon’ (draft 1985, pp 265-275, and Supplement - Geologic formations to the DEE, pp. 373-379). There are National Forest - Solitude in the kanyons - Metolious deer winter range lands, 1,125 acres, involved in the 10,745-acre WSA - Squaw Creek fisheries The BLM’s preferred alternative is ‘no wildernessnfor - Squaw Creek riparian area this area The Forest Service will retain the wilderness option on its 1,125 acres until the wilderness study My conclusion was, the tentative proposal in the is complete If the final decision is no wilderness, the Draft Plan/EIS for wilderness did not provide a land allocations for the National Forest system would manageable situation, and in fact would work to the be as shown in Table 18, pg ROD-29. detriment of protection and management of the above resources. SCENIC OR VISUAL RESOURCES In place of wilderness in the Final, I have identified a 7,840-acre management area (MA-G8) centered on DECISIONS Squaw Creek, the management of which would emphasize the above resources and semiprimitive 1. The canyon slopes viewable from Lake Billy Chinook nonmotorized recreation. Existing road access is Reservoir on the National Grassland have been planned to be restricted on a seasonal basis and identified as a scenic resource (MA-G13). some roads will be permanently closed (see Travel Plan). In order to make a logical management area, 2 A visual corridor averaging 1,200 feet (average and to encompass the resources identified in public 600 feet each side) in width along 260 miles of Forest consultation, the boundary of MA-G8 takes in portions road has been allocated. Of this, 23,960 acres are of Squaw Creek canyon not included in the original ‘partial retention’ and 9,300 acres are ‘retention” inventoried roadless area or WSA. In addition, I have (MA-F26). made an eligibility and suitability determination for Squaw Creek and am recommending the lower 3 A separate site-specific plan for the management portion, approximately seven miles, of Squaw Creek of the Highway 26 corridor has been developed and for an addition to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. appended to the Forest Plan (MA-F25).

The Deschutes River Canyon part of the WSA, 4. A visual corridor averaging 1,200 feet (average involving approximately 650 acres of National Grass- 600 feet each side) in width has been allocated in land, was classified as a Scenic River under the conjunction wlth the Round Mtn National Recreation Oregon Rivers Act of 1988. Trail (MA-F27).

Oohoco Naonal Forest Plan ROD - 32 Corrected Page, October 6, 1989 5. Segments of the Summit Historic Trail have been OLD GROWTH FOREST allocated on the basis of visual management objec- tives (partial retention, retention and preservation, DECISIONS MA-FiJ 1. The Forest has allocated 72 stands containing 6. Foreground viewing areas around developed 21,970 acres of old growth (MA-F6) to be managed recreation sites have been assigned visual manage- on a 'dedicated basis' for its ecological and habitat ment objectives (MA-F13) values Of this amount, 20,700 acres are determined to be 'suitable' and 1,270 acres 'capable.' 7. Certain scenic or concentrated recreational use 2. The distribution, forest types, and acreage of areas have been allocated for recreational purposes, individual stands are listed in Table 19 (see also and protection of the recreation setting, features, or Mangement Area map). attractions prescribed (MA-FI 6, 17, 19). 3. In addition to the above allocations, habitat for old 8. All Forest management areas (allocations) have growth dependent species may, in some cases, be been assigned a visual management objective (see provided by management areas which are planned Plans, Chapters 4, Standards and Guidelines) for extended rotations or no scheduled treatment. Includes: MA-F1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11, RATIONALE 12,15,16,17,18,19,23,24,25,26,27.

The predominant character of the Ochoco Forest is 4. Based on our best data at this time the decisions open ponderosa pine interspersed with parklike in the Forest Plan appear to affect the quantity of openings. On north slopes dense stands of mixed available old growth over time as is indicated in conifers occur. The Grassland setting is one of Table 20. semidesert shrub, grassland and canyon environ- ments The large pine and dense forest which give 5. Seven hundred forty acres in areas dispersed the Ochoco its characteristic setting are also commer- across the National Grassland have been identified cially valuable and will be dedicated as 'old growth juniper habitat,' to remain in an undisturbed condition. It is my intent to maintain the Forest setting and visual character of the Ochoco National Forest to 6 One thousand acres of 'connective habitat' have the extent practical over time. The visual settings been identified within the Riparian zones (see Decisions, Riparian Area Management, p. where people recreate and visit are important to the ROD-25) which is designed to provide travel ways for old impressions and experiences they gain. Primary growth dependent species between suitable habitat roads and Highway 26 are areas of the National areas. Forest with the greatest amount of public use. The intent in these places is to identify particularly sensitive RATIONALE and visually important areas where forest manage- ment will be modified to meet visual management I have elected to dedicate 21,970 acres of old growth objectives. Where feasible, uneven-aged manage- stands on the National Forest and 740 acres of juniper ment, and selective removal of trees or groups of on the Grassland (22,710 acres) for the purpose of trees, will be practiced to enhance viewing. Assign- preservation over the course of this planning period. ment of Forest-widevisual objectives by management To the extent feasible these areas have been located area emphasizes my commitment to forest manage- in a manner to minimize conflicts with other resource ment in a manner that protects and retains visual objectives, and to meet the habitat requirements character and diversity over time on the Ochoco identified for indicator species (see old growth National Forest management area map in the FEIS).

ROD - 33 Ochoco National Forest Plan Amendment 3, November 9,1990 TABLE 19 ALLOCATED OLD GROWTH ON NATIONAL FOREST PLUS UNALLOCATED 300-ACRE STANDS IN WILDERNESS AND RNA'S

DISTRICT STAND # PP MC SUITABLE CAPABLE

~~~~ Big Summit 1 250 250 2 380 380 i/ 3 300 300 4 300 300 5 360 360 6 320 320 7 300 300 8 300 300 9 300 300 10 240 240 11 400 400 12 290 290 13 300 300 14 300 300 15 300 300 16 50 50 ?/ 17 300 300 31 18 300 300 rOTALS 18 STANDS 2,160AC 3,130 5,290 OA

'aulina R D 1 380 380 2 31 0 31 0 3 31 0 31 0 4 300 300 5 300 300 6 300 300 7 310 310 8 300 300 9 320 320 10 340 340 11 320 240 80 12 320 200 120 13 300 180 120 14 300 300 15 330 330 16 320 320 17 330 270 60 M 18 300 300 -0TALS 18 STANDS 1,930 AC 3,760 AC 5,310AC 380 AC

'nnevdle 1 300 300 2 290 290 3 300 300 4 280 280 5 300 300 6 260 260 7 290 290 8 440 440 9 300 300 10 300 300 11 300 300 12 300 300 '/ 13 300 300 'OTALS 13 STANDS 1,040AC 2,920 AC 3,660AC 300 AC

ROD - 34 DISTRICT STAND # PP MC SUITABLE CAPABLE

3NOW MTN 1 300 300 2 300 300 3 300 300 4 300 300 5 160 1w 6 300 300 7 31 0 31 0 8 300 300 9 300 300 10 300 3w 12 300 300 13 300 300 14 300 300 15 300 180 120 16 300 300 17 260 90 170 18 300 300 19 300 300 5/ 21 300 300 I/ 22 300 300 31 23 300 300 24 470 470 25 430 430 rOTALS 23 STANDS 5,530 AC 1,500 AC. 6,440 AC 590 AC

FOREST rOTALS 72 STANDS 10,660 AC 11,310 AC 20,700 AC 1,270 AC.

*TOTALPPlOG (10.8601 + MCIOG (11,310) = 21.970ACRES

TOTALSUITABLE (20.7W) +CAPABLE (1,270)= 21,970 ACRES

11 in N F Cr Rlver WSA 21 In Bridge Creek Wildernerr 31 In OchoEO Divlde RNA 41 in Black Canyon Wildem850 51 In Mill Creek Wildemes 61 In Silver Creek RNA 71 in Dry Creek RNA 81 In SUnger Creek RNA

NOTE These acres do not coincide With kose 5hoWn bl Management Area acres in Chapter 4 d the Forest Plan, which 1s 18.570 BO for MA isOld Growth 18.570 does not induds 3Wacre~ofoldgr~wihlnkeNFCrmkedRiverWiidernerr~dyAreaoroldgrowUlassignedtoeachofUlewildem~seaandRNAsohavnabovewhichsddsupto2,4Wscres~,4M + 18,570 = 21.970)

ROD - 35 Ochoco National Forest Plan Amendment 3, November 9,1990 This figure does not include the old growth which, For the National Grassland, I have decided to in addition, occurs in wildernesses and unroaded identify some areas of juniper to remain undis- areas As shown by Table 20, the total amount of turbed The distribution and size of these areas old growth in the first decade for the Forest is are based on habitat requirements of the common estimated to be 93,800 acres An estimated 55,100 flicker Juniper habitat is not a rarity in Central acres of the total will still remain by the fifth decade In my judgement this should adequately provide Oregon, but because of the extensive use of for the wildlife habitat needs of dependent species. prescribed fire, clearing, and firewood cutting on It also preserves representative old growth forest the Grassland, it would appear prudent to identify types for their own purpose some juniper stands to remain undisturbed over time Grazing would continue in these areas, but I have not elected to provide old growth by the existing juniper woodlands identified would be extending rotations in selected stands because of preserved. the uncertainties and irreplaceable nature of old growth forest Management direction in some of the allocations (e g MA-F15,16,17,18,23,24) calls I have considered the question of "island biology" for extended rotations and time will show, if in or "isolation of populations" raised by allocating fact, such places provide effective habitat for old widely dispersed areas of old growth. To address growth dependent species

TABLE 20 OLD GROWTH ALLOCATED AND EXISTING ON THE FOREST AND GRASSLAND

DECADE

UNIT OF 1 SI 2nd 3rd 4th 5th I MEASURE I Dedicated Old Growth I/ I Acres I 22,390 I 22,390 I 22,390 I 22,390 I 22,390 I Dedicated Old Growth in I Wilderness 21 I Acres I 2,400 I 2.400 I 2,400 I 2,400 I 2.400 I Allocated to Old Growth Management Area 3/ Acres Forest 19,250 19,250 19,250 19,250 19,250 Grassland 740 740 740 740 740

Unallocated But Preserved I Old Growih 41 I Acres 1 20,500 I 20,500 I 20,500 120,500 I Unallocated Old Growth without Programmed Harvest 51 I Acres I 17,100 I 17,100 I 17,100 17.100 I 17,100 I I Total Existing Old Growth 61 I Acres I 93,800 I 83,900 I 74,200 I 64,500 I 55,100 I

11 Dedlcafed old growth /Ethe Bum of old growth blocks On the Forest identified to meet the management requirement for the pllealed W00dpeskel 1 based On me300 acre block per 12,000 acres)

21 Those dedicated old growth acres that fall Within wilderness andlor WildemeEE study areas

31 Old Growth Management Areas F6 and G5 (includes Capable acres)

41 Wlldernerr, Wilderness Study Areas F1 F2 F3, F4

51 Exlrllng Old Growth In Unioaded Management Areas wlfhaut programmed hawerl F5 FB, F10 FIlA G5

61 Tatel Emrtlng Old Growth from 1987 1888 inventory Thts doer not mclvde the 1 270 capable acres eilocafed for old gmMh fol d

ROD - 36 the question, if in fact time proves It to be relevant, TABLE 21 I have introduced the concept of 'connective SNAG LEVEL BY MANAGEMENT AREA habitat' into the Plan through riparian corridors and extensive blocks of existing old growth in Snag Level Management Area unroaded areas and wilderness. l%)

~~ ~~ MA-F1 Black Canyon Wilderness 100 FUELWOOD SUPPLY WA-F2 Bridge Creek Wilderness 100 MA-F3 Mill Creek Wilderness 100 W-F4 North Fork Crooked River 100 DECISIONS Wilderness Study Area M-F5 Research Natural Areas 100 Standards and guidelines for fuelwood availability MA-F6 Old Growth 100 are included in the Forest and Grassland Plans. MA-F7 Summlt Historic Trail 80 MA-FB Rock Creeklcononwcod Creek 100 MA-Fg Rock CreeVCononwood Creek 40 RATIONALE Unroaded-Helicopter MA-F10 Silver Creek Area 100 It is my decision, that in order to prevent loss of MA-F11 Lookout Mountain Recreation 100 MA-F12 Eagle Roosting Areas 80 wildlife habitat, only down trees, or standing dead MA-F13 Developed Recreation - juniper and lodgepole pine will be cut. Standing, MA-F14 Dispersed Recreation - signed wildlife trees or snags along roadsides or MA-F15 Riparian 100 within old sale areas will not be cut. To avoid MA-FIG Bandd Springs Recreation 100 conflicts with other uses on the Forest or Grassland, MA-F17 Stein's Pillar Recreation 100 MA-FIB Hammer Creek Wildlife/ 100 we will continue to designate areas open to Recreation firewood gathering and require permits as may be MA-FI9 Deep Creek Recreation 100 necessary. Firewood cutting will not be allowed in MA-F20 Winter Range 60 dedicated old growth areas, as it would defeat MA-F21 General Forest Winter Range 40 the purpose for which these areas are established. MA-F22 General Forest 40 The Forest and Grassland will continue to meet a MA-F23 North Fork Crooked River 80 Recreation Corridor share of the fuelwood supply for the local communi- MA-F24 North Fork Crooked River 100 ties, but within requirements necessary to meet Scenic Corridor other resource oblectives as outlined above. MA-F25 Highway 26 Visual Corridor 100 MA-F26 Visual Management Corridors 80 MA-F27 Round Mountain National 100 SNAG DEPENDENT WILDLIFE Recreation Trail MA-WB Facilities - DECISIONS

1. The Forest will be managed to provide snag Under my decision for snag levels, the number of habitat at levels appropriate to the resource snags on the Forest are projected to increase objectives for the management areas involved over time. Snags will be increased in ponderosa (see Table 21) pine forest that presently has less than desirable levels: in mixed conifer areas with currentty high 2. Snag habitat may be provided either through levels, the number of snags will decrease In no identifiable patches or evenly distributed snags case are snag objectives for areas, other than (see Standards and Guidelines, Chapters 4, Plans). where public safety is a concern, set below 40 percent. In my ludgement, the varied objectives 3 The overall Forest snag level of 47 percent is from 40-100 percent as shown by management planned to increase over time as shown below: area will assure adequate snag habitat occurring across the Forest at any one time. Decade 1 2 3 4 5 Level 47% 49% 51% 55% 54% WINTER SPORTS

RATIONALE 1. The Ochoco Divide accessed by Highway 26 will continue to be emphasized for opportunities Past salvage harvest and firewood gathering have for winter sports recreation. A 1,580-acre area made the Forest snag deficient in some areas (MA-F16) at Bandit Springs (north of Highway 26) and forest types will be managed exclusively for cross-country

ROD - 37 Ochoco National Forest Plan Corrected Page, October 6, 1989

- (Plans, Chapters 4, Standards and Guidelines; skiing, and nonmotorized snow play activities. see also Alternative I map). The area to the south of the highway will be open for snowmobile use. The sled hill use south of Maintains and continues the management of Highway 26 at the juncture of FS Road 2630 (Crystal developed recreation facilffies, including 10 fee Springs Road) will continue as an established use campgrounds, 13 non-fee campgrounds, 7 dis- area persed sites with facilities, 4 developed picnic areas, and 4 boat ramps; provides schedules for 2. The Bandit Springs winter sports area (MA-FI 6) development of additional recreation facilities will have a visual quality objective of retention (Plans, Chapters 4, Standards and Guidelines).

3. Lookout Mountain (MA-F1 1) will remain open to Provides schedules for recreation trail and trailhead motorized over-the-snow use Established snow- development, including those for winter sports. mobile routes and play areas in the Lookout Mountain saddle through to the Round Mountain1 Makes the decision that the cooperative agreement Walton Lake area (MA-F22) will continue for the management of the Cove Palisades State Park, which is due for renewal in 1990, be amended 4 Backcountry skiing will be available in the Round to include language in regard to a Forest Selvice Mtn (MA-F22) and Lookout Mtn areas (MA-F11) and State partnership for the management of the Trails may be designated on Lookout Mtn to area. separate, at places, snowmobile and cross-country skiing use A 74-mile Summit Historic Trail, involving a 1,200-f00t corridor with visual management oblec- 5. Restrictions such as over-the-snow motorized tives assigned by trail segments, is designated. use on designated routes only and area closures, This trail is also intended to selve as part or all of may be imposed in big game winter range and the East-West Interstate trail across the Ochoco eagle roosting areas (MA-FI2, 20, 21) Essentially, N.F the remaining general forest (MA-F22) will be open to snowmobile use unless otherwise designat- For Round Mountain, I have considered the need ed. for a 'special management area' for recreation as proposed by Oregon Natural Resource Council RATIONALE (ONRC). At this time I do not see that the uses occurring there demand such an allocation. The Winter sports activities are established uses on mountain top electronic site, road(s), skiing and the Forest In my judgement, the above decisions snowmobiling, and national recreation trail (see allow the continuation of these activities, and Winter Sports, pg ROD-37) all take place as part minimize the potential for conflict between motor- of the multiple uses in General Forest (MA-F22) ized and nonmotorized winter sport activities. The and are addressed in the standards and guidelines, decisions also support and provide a basis for as well as other multiple use coordination decisions the continuing enhancement of winter sports within the Plan. However, I will take the need for a activities on the Forest and minimize potential recreation management area on Round Mtn. under conflicts with big game utilization of winter habitat. advisement and propose to consider It through further planning (see also 'Changes ....General Recreation,' pg. ROD-44). OTHER MULTIPLE USE DECISIONS Research Natural Areas Recreation Identifies and recommends establishment of five Recognizes established dispersed recreation sites new research natural areas (RNA's), and continua- on the Grassland and National Forest, and provides tion of the one RNA already established on the direction and objectives for their management Forest (see Table 22, p ROD-39)

Ochoco National Forest Plan ROD - 38 Corrected Page, January 5, 1990 TABLE 22 Incorporates rivers legislatively designated in the PROPOSED RNA'S 1988 Oregon River Act, and sets the stage for further planning required under the Wild and I RNAName I NForNG' I ToIslNForNGAcreo I Scenic Rivers Act Island NG 38 Dry Mountain NF 1,187 Silver Creek NF 844 Grassland Haystack NG 58 Crooked River - Recre- 720 acres Sllnaer Creek NF 453 ational Deschutes - Scenic 650 acres

Anadromous Fish Forest North Fork Crooked Approximately two percent of the National Forest River (two segments) and Grassland are identified for riparian area Recreational I ,830 acres management (see Riparian, pg ROD-25). Stream- Scenic 830 acres side management areas are increased in width to 400 feet on some anadromous fish streams to ORV Use provide additional protection for riparian areas, and to serve as "connective habitat." Anadromous Off-road vehicle use has been addressed under fish streams are identified as "sensitive" and transportation system (pg ROD-26) Only trails equivalent harvest areas (EHA's) were established historically established for ORV use are being that reflect their sensitivity in the conduct of designated at this time Any others will be accom- cumulative effects analyses (see also p. ROD 54) plished in the plan implementation phase through site-specific analysis and further planning. Restric- tion guidelines by management areas have been I will make it a point that the Columbia River outlined in the Travel Plan and Appendix D, and Intertribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) be contacted are summarized herein early in the scoping phase of analysis for any projects located in anadromous fish drainages on COMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER AGENCY GOALS the Forest or Grassland In addition, when the AND PLANS Inter-regional agreements with the Forest Service and CRITFC, which are presently being studied The goals of other agencies, which could be are finalized, this Plan will be amended within affected by National Forest system management, such time as is practical to incorporate those were considered early in the planning process policies. and used to develop alternat~esin the DElS and FEIS Public agencies expressed their view during Eagle Roosting Areas the comment period on how well the Draft Plan met their objectives. (See FEIS, Appendix I for a Six eagle roosting areas, 570 acres, have been list of the public agencies comments on the DElS allocated An additional two roosting areas fall and Proposed Plan; and Appendix A for a list of within old growth units These areas were identified agency's contacted early in the planning process) through contract study and are part of an eagle recovery plan under the Federal Endangered Alternative I has been carefully coordinated with Species Act goals and objectives of the State of Oregon and other agencies, particularly the Bureau of Land Wild and Scenic Rivers Management and IndianTribes The Plan integrates the recreation and visual resource opportunities Determines that 7 5 miles of lower Squaw Creek and needs identified by the State and meets the on the National Grassland, 1,370acres, is eligible wildlife habitat management objectives and places and suitable for possible inclusion in the National emphasis on economic stability in respect to timber Wild and Scenic River System as a scenic river yield and industry associated jobs and income

ROD - 39 IV. Changes From Draft Preferred Forest Draft and Rationale # Mgmt Emphasis Areas Acres % PLAN STRUCTURES AND TimberIRange 1 491,257 58% ALLOCATIONS Wildide 2 190,686 22% Old Growth 1 26,337 3% Visual 3 51,773 6% Draft Wilderness 4 38,529 4% WildIScenic Riv 2 1,930

Reasons For Change Grassland Final National Grassland management and direction # Mgmt was overshadowed by the National Forest. The Emphasis Areas Acres % public requested they be separated into two plans. RangeIForage 1 55,440 53% Wildlife 3 35.870 32% Additions and changes in management areas Old Growth 1 740

Ochaco National Forest Plan ROD - 40 Corrected Page, October 6, 1989

~~ FOREST MANAGEMENT AND FORPLAN Uneven-aged timber management applied MODELING to ponderosa pine on general forest (20-inch target size).

Forest Management Uneven-aged timber management applied to ponderosa pine in special areas with Forest Drafl 30" DBH target size: Lookout Mountain, Stein's Pillar, Deep Creek, North Fork Even-aged Silvicultural System Crooked River General Forest rotation dia. 14-16 Uneven-aged timber management (group Rotation age 90-100 selection) applied to mixed conifer in some Departure (by vol first decade). areas

ASQ Extended rotation ages and new thinning All Spp All Spp PP Decade Cu FI. Ed Ft Bd Ft cycles for ponderosa pine in general forest.

20 6 123 87 Extended rotation and stricter decade 197 118 a2 harvest limitations for certain areas. 17 8 99 56 169 93 52 16 1 89 55 Changes in the percent thermal cover required by allocation.

Forest Final More reliance on mixed conifer to produce thermal cover vs. ponderosa pine. Even- and Uneven-agedSilv System (uneven-aged systems applied to approx 100,000 acres pon- b Acres and Timber Yield Tables derosa pine). Diameter for even-aged ponderosa pine=l8', mixed conifers=l6', uneven-aged=20"; Acres - Condition classes (I e. the amount Rotation age for ponderosa pine=130 years, of pine sawlogs, saplings, etc.) have been mixed conifer=90 years, sustained yield, even-flow updated from the 1983 information used in (by cu ft vol.), declining volume in ponderosa pine the Draft. This was done to more accurately after first decade. assess timber harvest scheduling and resultant associated outputs and effects

ASQ Ail Spp All Spp PP Timber Yield Tables - Yield tables were Decade Cu.Ft. Ed Ft Ed Ft updated to reflect the growth that has occurred in the last five years in order to 1 19 0 1150 82 0 more accurately determine outputs and 2 190 3 190 effects. 4 190 5 19 0 Summary of Changes Forplan Modeling Incorporation of uneven-aged management in The changes from "draft' to "final" have resulted in ponderosa pine where stand structure, condition, differences in FORPLAN modeling. The changes and management objectives allow. in allocations and related management guidelines Larger tree at rotation for general forest ponderosa have resulted in the development of new yield pine 18-20" vs 14'--16 (wood quality). streams for timber and other resources, silvicultural systems, rotation ages, and decade harvest Sustained even-flow in cu.ft.vol vs. departure (on limitations total volume basis).

a New Prescriptions and Yield Streams Maintains relatively high volume of ponderosa Applied in FORPLAN Model pine first decade, but less than in the Draft Plan

ROD - 41 Large target diameters (27"-30+") for recreation, Reasons for Change wildlife and visual emphasis management areas Oregon Wild and Scenic Rivers legislation Lower FORPLAN model yield tables, acres, prescriptions Squaw Creek evaluation conducted based on and assumptions changed to reflect updated public comment and legislative hearings related information (see above) to above Act

Reasons For Change WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS

Response to public comment for uneven-aged management, growing larger trees, maintaining Forest Draft historic harvest levels in ponderosa pine, sustained yield even-flow vs. departure, improved and Proposed recommending 5,200 acres (2,500 FS, updated information and scheduling over time. 2,700 BLM) in the Deschutes Canyon-Steelhead Falls Wilderness Study Area for wilderness classifi- cation. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Forest Final Changes in schedules, outputs, allocations, effects, assumptions and new information results in No additional wilderness proposed. different economic effects and outputs in the Final A 7,840-acre Squaw Creek management area emphasizing semiprimitive, nonmotorized recre- Incorporation of additional resources into the ation, protection of natural features, and vehicle economic analysis overlooked in the Draft (mineral access management incorporates core of previous- leases, anadromous fisheries) ly recommended wilderness: the majority of the remainder of the draft proposed wilderness was included in the Deschutes Scenic River Corridor WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS classified by the Oregon Wild Rivers Act in 1988 A 7 5 mile segment of Squaw Creek has been Forest Draft determined to be eligible and suitable for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System as a scenic river Segments of North Fork Crooked River, Crooked River, and Deschutes River eligibility studies Summary of Changes completed and management units developed to preserve options for river classification. From 5,200 acres recommended for wilderness which was centered on Squaw Creek and the Deschutes River Canyon, to a 7,840-acre manage- Forest Final ment unit centered on Squaw Creek: classification of the Deschutes River and canyon portion under Segments of North Fork Crooked, Crooked, and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, recommendation Deschutes Rivers classified under the Oregon that a 7 5 mile segment of Squaw Creek be Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Lower Squaw Creek designated as a scenic river. eligibility determination completed Reasons For Change

Summary of Changes Because of small size and topography which would concentrate use, the manageability and Rivers Designated by Congress clasification under the Wilderness Act was ques- tioned The Deschutes River canyon portion was Lower Squaw Creek evaluated and determined classified and protected under Wild and Scenic eligible for Wild River designation Rivers Act

ROD - 42 The public expressed interest for classification of LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN Lower Squaw Creek under Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Draft

ROADLESS AREAS 2,950 acres to be managed for semiprimitive nonmotorized recreation, 11,323 acres allocated See Tables 16-18, pg ROD-29 to general forest and scheduled timber harvest, the remainder to old growth areas. The top of the Summary of Changes mountain is closed to snowmobiling.

Green Mountain proposal for semiprimitive motor- Final ized recreation (the area remaining roadless) was dropped for reasons of no apparent public interest A 15,660-acre Lookout Mtn. area treated as one or support. Soil erodibility and slopes found not management area within which there is a 7,550-acre to be suitable for that use. mountain top unit, and two old growth areas. The Rock Creek/Cottonwood Creek area to be man- 8,110 acres remaining are to be managed in a aged as unroaded was decreased. A portion of manner that emphasizes recreational and wildlife the area which was determined to be economical habitat values and maintains the character of the for timber management was allocated to general Forest over time Additional site-specific project forest and unroaded helicopter. Steeper areas planning is required Road access corridors (Brush were reserved for roadless area management, or Creek and independent mine roads) are incorporat- helicopter logging, to protect watershed, anadro- ed into the management unit No scheduled timber mous fisheries, recreation, and wildlife values. harvest. The entire area is open to snowmobiles during specific periods Silver Creek area to remain roadless was adjusted to a more manageable boundaly along canyon Summary of Changes rim

Lookout Mountain area to remain unroaded was Treatment of entire Lookout Mountain and access increased from 2,950 acres to 15,660 acres. The corridors as a management area. entire roadless area, plus road corridor, is treated as a separate management unit. Planning for No entry planned in the first decade prior to stand treatments for recreation and wildlife will completion of site-specific planning begin in first decade, and no entry will be scheduled until project planning is completed and approved An increase in unroaded mountain top manage- 21 ment area from 2,950 to 7,550 acres. A portion of the Deschutes River Canyon-Steelhead Falls Wilderness Study Area, and an additional The lower part of the mountain also managed area outside the WSA in Squaw Creek, are with recreation and wildlife emphasis combined to form a 7,840-acre management area emphasizing semiprimitive, nonmotorized recre- No scheduled or chargeable timber harvest ational opportunities and wildlife habitat manage- ment. The 5,200-acre draft wilderness proposal is Open to snowmobiling during specified periods. dropped 2/ Reasons For Change Reasons For Change

Response to public comments Effort to address Public comment. Address resource values lnvolved the resource values involved in a more specific in a more specificlresponsive manner manner Implementation concerns.

2/ Discussed separately See Wilderness. pg ROD-42 for Deschutes Canyon-Steelhead Fails Wilderness Study Area WSA) and this page for Lookout Mountain

ROD - 43 VISUAL or SCENIC RESOURCES -Trails, the Final. The width of the viewing corridor used Roads, Recreational Developments in calculations was changed from xXi40' to 1200'.

Tables 23 and 24 detail the extent of change in Entire Summit Historic Trail corridor was assigned visual resource management allocations between a visual management objective relative to cultural the Draft and Alternative I. Table 23 shows the aspects of the particular trail segment. changes in visual resource allocations between the Draft and Alternative I and Table 24 the acres Round Mountain National RecreationTrail manage- of visual quality objective by allocation for Alterna- ment corridor reduced in width from >2640' to tive I. 1200'.

TABLE 23 Added 560 acres of viewing area from Lake Billy CHANGES IN VISUAL RESOURCE ALLOCATION ACRES Chinook reservoir on the National Grassland

No middle ground viewing areas allocated as I I Draft Final * management areas. Presetvation 0 170 Retention 15,211 36,540 All Forest management areas assigned a visual Partial Retention 31.238 27,720 qualty objective

(See other management areas which have visual management objectives )

Reasons For Change I ACRES Parlial To incorporate visual management considerations Forest Roads I Retention I Retention Total in important foreground viewing areas in a more balanced manner. New information. State of Visual Management 16,150 23,960 Oregon oral communication Emphasis on main- Corridors taining character of the Forest. Round Mountain 1,000 Trail Highway 26 6,850 Deep Creek 770 GENERAL RECREATION Bandlt Springs 1,580 Recreation Area Dispersed Recre- 2,060 1,970 Draft ation Sites Developed Recrs 1,810 No allocation of dispersed recreation site manage- ation Sites ment. Discussed in general Summit Historic 5,770 I/ 3.790 9,560 Trail Lake Billy Chinook I 560 Bandit Springs winter recreation sports area Vlew I identified.

Total Acres 36,550 27,750 Restrictedall motorized use from Lookout Mountain summit. Summary of Changes No recognition of special features or recreational Immediate/foreground viewing area around recre- attractions (other than roadless areas, developed ational developments (campgrounds) allocated recreation, and wildernesses). and assigned a visual management objective General discussion of significant historic trails. The acres with visual management objectives Interpretation of Summit Trail for public enloyment; increased from 46,449 in the Draft to 64,300 in management of Round Mountain Trail discussed.

Ochoco National Forest Plan ROD - 44 Corrected Page, October 6, 1989 Recreational attractions and developments on the Lookout Mtn. continuing to remain open to National Grassland generally discussed. Expansion snowmobiles. at Haystack Reservoir noted

Reasons For Change Flnal Improved and more complete information and New horse camps designated public comment. National emphasis - recreation strategy. Allocation of 665 sites (@3.1 acres/site) across the Forest and Grassland for dispersed recreation - based on Coda-ASite and other inventories on WILDLIFE file with specific management direction.

Bandit Springs recreation management unit (1,580 OLD GROWTH acres) allocated; deals with all-season recreational activities instead of only winter Draft

Lookout Mountain open to snowmobile use in 26,400 acres allocated; approximately 58% 'suit- winter able; 42% 'capable' on National Forest only.

Allocation of additional areas emphasizing recre- Final ational features or attractions and dispersed recreational opportunities, Stein's Pillar (1,070 21,970 acres old growth allocated; approximately acres), Hammer Creek (2,560 acres), Deep Creek 94% 'suitable,' 6% 'capable.' (770 acres), Lookout Mtn. (15,660 acres), and recognition of Round Mtn for possible further 1,000 acres of riparian area is recognized as planning. connective habitat between some old growth areas. The connective habitat is allocated in Identifies and allocates the Summit Trail National Riparian MA-FIB. Historic Route, with three different levels of management intensity per various segments. (See 740 acres of old growth juniper allocated on the Visual/Scenic Resources, p. ROD-44) Grassland Recognition of MA's wrth extended rotation contribution to old growth habltat, as well Management areas identified (allocations) for as other allocations such as wildernesses and Haystack Reselvoir, Rimrock Springs Wildlife unroaded areas. Viewing area, and Cove Palisades State Park.

WINTER RANGE (For additional information relating to recreation see Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Roadless Draft Areas, Travel Plan, Summit Trail, Visual, and Lookout Mtn. which are addressed separately 76,000 acres of big game winter range to meet herein.) Oregon Depaltment of Fish and Wildlife manage- ment objectives.

Summary of Changes Flnal

Increased recognition of importance of dispersed 99,570 acres of big game winter range (deer & recreational activities and sites on the Forest and elk) allocated, but redistributedspatially across Grassland. the Forest and Grassland.

Incorporationof existing recreational attractions, Identified 107,360 acres big game winter range developments, cultural resources and special that was not necessary to meet ODFW big game features overlooked or for which information wasn't management objectives and therefore, not allocat- available in the Draft. ed as winter range, but recognized as a separate

ROD - 45 Ochoco National Forest Plan Amendment 3. November 9,1990

~- management situation called 'general forestiwinter Final range.' Eight bald eagle winter roosts are identified. (Two Added 22,700 acres to area identified as antelope are not shown on map because they are included winter range on the Grassland. within old growth areas which have more restrictiie management prescriptions.) Site specific manage- ment plans for each eagle roost area will be SUMMER RANGE developed in fiscal year 1989 and 1990.

Draft HAMMER CREEK 154,100 acres were allocated to big game summer range with specified amounts and quality of thermal Draft cover for optimum big game habitat. No special management designated in Hammei Final Creek except for an old growth area.

No areas specifically allocated for big game Final summer range. Big game habitat requirements are considered throughout the general forest A 2,560-acre management area is allocated for area. wildlife and recreation emphasis. It surrounds an old growth stand and includes a variety of habitat Recognition that (thinning) bug-proofing of pon- types. derosa pine stands, if done, would reduce big game habitat effectivenessdue to the inability of those stands to provide cover. ROAD DENSITY Adjustments in cover guidelines to better reflect Draft natural vegetation capabilities. Open road density averaged four miles per section in timberlrange emphasis areas, and two miles SNAGS per section in big game emphasis areas. Draft Final Specific snag management levels were set by management area, which averaged out to an Open road density averages three miles per section overall forest average of 55% of the potential in General Forest and one mile per section population level for snag dependent species. seasonally in winter range.

Final MODELING ASSUMPTIONS FOR HABITAT Specific snag management levels by management EFFECTIVENESS area average 47% of the potential population level in the first decade, and reach 54% by the fifth Draft decade. Assumed potential four elkisquare mile in pon- derosa pine types; 1O/sq mile in mixed conifer; EAGLE ROOSTS average sidsq mile.

Draft Final

Management direction provided to preserve the Assumed potential six elk/sq mile in ponderosa integrity of actual and potential bald eagle winter pine types; 15/sq mile in mixed conifer; average roost sites, but none were specifically identified. nine/sq mile.

Ochoco National Forest Plan ROD - 46 Corrected Page, October 6, 1989 Summary of Changes GRAZING MANAGEMENT

Reduction of total area allocated to old growth, Drafl but increase in quality ("suitable" vs. 'capable') of that dedicated. Application of concept of "connec- Forage utilization standards were broken out by tive habitat." Increased recognition of importance of old growth occurring within other management slope class and meadows for each management areas (e.g. MA-F1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, area. They generally were the same, except for 23, 24). those in the Riparian Management Area which were more restrictive. Allocation of old growth juniper on the National Grassland. Allotment improvements were considered in respect to water developments required across Improved spatial distribution of winter range Forest to improve utilization and distribution. allocations. Final Additional acres of antelope winter range area identified and allocated on the Grassland. Forage utilization standards developed by the Allocation of general forestiwinter range in addition Region for eastside Forests are used. There is to winter range, resulting in improved maintenance one set of standards for riparian areas and another of habitat effectiveness across the Forest. set for all other management areas not excluded from grazing. The standards are based on vegeta- Elimination of big game summer range allocation tion type, range condition and Forest and Range and consideration of some big game habitat Environmental Study (FRES) strategies. requirements across general forest. A system for prioritizing range allotment planning Snag management level increased on certain wildlife and recreation management areas created needs, and a program estimate for riparian since the Draft, but with a minor overall drop in improvements is established on an allotment-by- potential population level due Io big game summer allotment basis for the Forest and Grassland. range allocation change.

Specific identification and management direction Reasons for Change for bald eagle winter roosts as part of a recovery plan under the Endangered Species Act. Public comments. Provides a means to more effectively address the allotment-specific nature of Allocation of a Hammer Creek Management Area concerns relating to grazing management, and to with an emphasis on wildlife habitat management. tier allotment management planning to the Forest and Grassland Plans. Modeling assumptions for habitat effectiveness changed based on new information from ODFW.

More realistic cover requirements relating to forest TRAVEUTRANSPORTATION PLANNING types involved. Drafl Emphasis on maintaining habitat with quality and quantity of cover and road density comprising the All areas on the ForestiGrassland open unless basis for rating habitat effectiveness. otherwise designated, as determined by other management objectives. The ORV opportunities and closures were outlined on DElS p.156 and a Reasons For Change Travel Plan map published. Public comments. Consultation with State Depan- ment of Fish and Wildlife. Improved information Allocated area to semiprimitive motorized recre- and intent to improve implementability. ation.

ROD ~ 47 See road densities under wildlife, pg ROD-46. Analysis and scheduling of need for treatment is based on a recently updated (1987) stream Final condition inventory This inventory aids in setting priorities 3/ when range allotment plans are to be Travel access routes and areas designated with updated. Riparian corridors on approximately 40 respect to management unit objectives. Travel miles (1,000 acres) of high value streams have plan map published in FEE Refers specific been expanded to offer additional protection to designation of ORV trails to project level implemen- these streams and to enhance "connective" wildlife tation, identifies closure order requirements habitat. (See also Grazing Management, p ROD-47) No areas allocated for exclusive ORV use Summary of Changes Summary of Changes Provides a simplified and more direct approach - More specificity on area closure and designating riparian area management planning and analysis of routes or roads within management areas priorities will be tied to stream condition and resource values Refers ORV/OHV trail designation to project level implementation. Allotment management planning will have more detailed direction and objectives. Additional emphasis on ORV management and Control Provides a system for prioritizing range allotment planning needs on the Forest Increased emphasis on improved road manage- ment with resultant reduction in open road density. Introduces the concept and value of connective habitat.

Reasons for Change Reasons for Change

Public comment Coordination and attainment of Clarity in communicating planning details. Respon- other Forest management objectives, e g improve- sive to public, agency and internal comment. ment of elk habitat effectiveness, reduction of Provides specific information on objectives and visual and on-site impacts, and other management impacts affecting allotment management and area objectives planning

RIPARIAN UTILITY CORRIDORS Draft Dran Two allocations or prescriptions "Acceptable" and "Excellent " The latter was assigned to all anadro- Utility corridors are addressed in general terms in mous fish streams and other to high value fish the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines streams Streams identified for improvement to either "Acceptable" or "Excellent" are listed in Final Forest Plan Appendix A12 and A15 Existing utility corridors (rights-of-way) are desig- Final nated as a management area, 460 acres, in the Grassland Plan Incorporates Federal Power All streams will be managed under one prescription guidelines and requirements (western Regional - "Excellent.' Corridor Study, 1986)

3/ Prioritization is a guide. riparian improvement projects will also take advantage of funding or liming opportunities outside thls schedule if they occur

ROD - 48 LAND ADJUSTMENTS The economic analysis does not include revenues from oil and gas leasing. Drafl The issue of providing a mining mineral inventory The land adjustment plan shows four categories was deferred for resolution outside the Forest of land Plan.

"Consolidate ownership of Cove Palisades State Approximately 80% of the Forest and Grassland Park area" is listed as a land adjustment priority were leased for oil and gas.

Final No leasing would be allowed on administrative sites A fifth category is added. areas where Congress has directed the Forest Service to acquire non- Leases would be issued with some restrictive Federal lands for a designated purpose The stipulations old growth areas. Deschutes Scenic River and the North Fork in Crooked River Scenic Corridor fall into this category Approval for mining operations will be given when concerns are mitigated in a responsible and The land adjustment maps are more detailed and responsive manner. based on recent analysis. Lands are placed in adjustment categories according to management area and priority Final

The issue of ownership patterns for Cove Palisades The Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform State Park is deferred and opportunities for Act of 1987 changes the way oil and gas leasing recreation management "partnerships"explored. will be administered. Regulations governing leasing procedures are expected to be finalized in late 1989 NATIONAL FOREST OWNERSHIP The economic analysis has been revised to include Drafl oil and gas leasing revenues, and mineral produc- tion figures have been updated National Forest ownership totaled 955,100 acres 843,721 acres of National Forest, and 111,379 A mineral potential map and mineral inventory acres of National Grassland. were prepared Final Forest and Grassland area available for leasing is similar, but only approximately 10% of the Forest National Forest ownership totals 956,150 acres and Grassland are under lease, due to changes 844,640 acres of National Forest, and 11 1,510 acres of National Grassland, due to land exchanges in oil prices which have occurred since the Draft was prepared Leases will be issued with a "no surface occupancy" MINERALS AND ENERGY stipulation on administrative sites.

Drafl Leases will be issued with a "no surface occupancy" stipulation in old growth areas Oil and gas leasing activity planning was based on the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 and the Mineral Under the mining laws, claimants are entitled to Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947 access and develop their mining claims Operating plans will include reasonable and operationally Table IV-6, "Average Annual Outputs by Decade,' feasible requirements for timely and effective does not include outputs for minerals activities. coordination with other resources.

ROD - 49 V. ALTERNATIVES and services as defined in unit plans and the 1979 Timber Resource Plan The alternative does not comply with all provisions of the National Alternatives Analyzed and Resultant Forest Management Act (NFMA), and could not Disposition in the Final be implemented or used In future management of the Forest without Congressional and/or Secretary In the DEB, including the supplement, 12 alterna- of Agriculture action to change the law (see tives were analyzed and presented in detail In Supplement to the DEIS). addition, eight benchmark alternatives were developed and utilized in the analysis process Alternative A - NO ACTION (CD BNCH in Table The benchmarks served as analysis reference 25) ' points to define bounds for comparison purposes only They were not developed with the intent of This is the 'no action' alternative required by the being implemented In the FEIS, six alternatives National EnvironmentalPolicy Act It would continue are analyzed in detail, the above remainder are the present course of action established in plans treated as "considered, but eliminated from further and policies formulated and approved prior to detailed study" (Table 25). The basis for elimination passage of the NFMA and that have been made of the alternatives was lack of public interest or consistent with present laws and regulations support and relevance to the NEPA process in Relatively high levels of timber production, com- final analyses and document preparation bined with visual quality objectives, and moderate levels of fish and wildlife, are emphasized in this A comparison of the acreage allocations (empha- alternative. In the Draft this alternative was repre- sis) by resource and decade outputs related to sented by the OCCurrent Direction Benchmark with issues are presented for the six FElS alternatives, NFMA' including Alternative I in Tables 26 and 27. A brief description of the final alternatives follows Alternative E-Modified - FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRY PREFERRED Summary Description of Final Alterna- tives This is the alternative supported by the forest products industry Alternative B-Modified evolved Alternative NC - NO CHANGE: from Alternative B, and B-plus post-Draft discus- sions Alternative B-Modifiedwas developed by The "No Change" alternative has been developed industry by amalgamating selected aspects of as a no-action alternative representing current Alternative I with Draft B management plans. It provides for a level of goods

TABLE 25 DISPOSITION OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE FINAL

I/AlterOaUve B Modified reprerents evolution and change 01 Alteinatlve B PIYEproposed by timber industry Alternallve B Modified IS a new industry altematlve It Is dlHereN than B Dlur m the draft the lailer of WhlCh was much the same as Ailernatlve B

21 Preferied Alternative I

3, Current Direclion Benchmark with National Forest Management Act (NFMA) IS now Alternative A 8n fhls FElS

ROD - 50 The intent is to provide a high level of timber is the same as Draft Alt. E. Timber harvests are output with some considerations for other re- scheduled so that first decade volumes remain sources close to current levels, and then decline over the next 10 to 50 years. The departure is designed to Alternative C-Modified - ENVIRONMENTALLY maintain local economic condltions for the short PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE term All resources are managed or maintained ai least at moderate levels. Alternative C-Modrfied emphasizes resources associated with amenity values For example, Alternative I - FOREST SERVICE FINAL: riparian areas, scenic corridors, retention of roadless areas, recreation and forest management This alternative represents a new alternative designed to provide big game habitat Old growth evolved from E-Departure, the Draft Preferred and snags would also be provided at high levels. Alternative, in response to new information, recent Timber and range resources would be managed legislation, and public comment. It is the agency’s at comparatively low levels. This is generally the preferred final. This alternative seeks to mantain alternative supported by the consewation commu- a reasonably high level of commodity outputs on nity. a sustained, nondeclining flow. In a complimentary and equitable manner It has also attempted to Alternative E-Departure - DRAFT PREFERRED: provide wildlife habitat and recreation resources, as well as presewing the character or setting of Alternative E-Departure was the Draft preferred the Forest and Grassland over time. Alternative I alternative. It emphasizes a combination of timber differs from the Draft preferred E-Departure as production, roadless recreation, and big game described on pp. ROD 40-49. habitat Timber is scheduled as a departure from nondecliningyield. In other respects, this alternative

TABLE 26 RESOURCE EMPHASIS ACREAGES BY ALTERNATIVE

ROD - 51 Ochoco National Forest Plan Amendment 3, November 9,1990 Emphasis I BMod I C-Mod I I Preferred I Big Game Summer Range 0 154,100 0 61,830 378,775

TmberNildhfe 171,490 0 107.360 0 0

TimberlRange 603,010 555,020 556,290 649,170 0

Wild & Scenic Rivers 5,400 4,030 5,400 4,030 4,030

VI s ua Is 34,410 46,160 41,670 83,450 101.110

Facilities 1,000 460 1,000 460 460

TABLE 27 INDICATORS OF RESPONSIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVES TO ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES

Unit of Resource Output or Item Measure I NC Allowable Sale Quantity WQ) 1st Decade MMCF NIA 5th Decade MMCF NIA 1st Decade MMBF NIA

Average Annual Salvage MMBF

Uneven-Age Mgmt M Acres 0

PNV Million 5 380

Estimated County Receipts M $15 Un- known

Estimated Change in Jobs # Un- known

Livestock Use I/ M AUM'sNr 1st Decade 775 5th Decade 77 5

Riparian Areas in Excellent Condition 1st Decade M Acres 5th Decade M Acres

Miles of Primary Road Open and Maintained -End of Planning Period #Miles 4.774

Miles of Roads Closed #Miles 1st Decade 913 890 1556 694 1520 5th Decade 1,734 2,123 2.082 2,185 1,734 3,224

~~ Deer Population 5th Decade 17,210 22,600 22,600 22,600 22,600 known

ROD ~ 52 ~ ~ Unit Resource Output or Item of &MOD Measure NC ~ ~ I - Elk Population # 1st Decade 3210 3,170 3,m 3,370 3,740 5th Decade Un- 1,700 2,780 2,620 2,690 3,700 known

Acres Allocated-Unroaded MAcres I 291 107 273 I 384 31.2 1 41 0 21

Scenic Resources Preselvatlon M Acres 39 5 43.3 I 420 +-- Retention M Acres 60 7 70 7 96 8 Partial Retention M Acres 28 1 59.4 Allocated 31 M Acres 344 46 2 101 1

Old Growth (Allocated) 41 M Acres 32,860 18,740 26,340 20,310 36,970 45,030

Fuelwood Supply M Cords 1st Decade 150 14.0 I 120 Snag Habitat for Cavlty % of Nesters Potential 1st Decade Un- 43 46 47 known 5th Decade Un- 33 55 54 known

~ ~ Area Allocated To Recre- Acres 28,630 7G-j- 58,120 31,950 ation Emphasis 51 I I 48,710 Anadromous Steelhead 1st Decade 26 51h Decade 126

Total Miles of ATV Trails #Miles 1st Decade 95 95 95 5th Decade None 190 0O I 190 0O I 190 Round Mountain Recreation Acres I NIA I 1,000 0 I 1,ooo 0 Emphasis 61 oi

11 Forage PrCdudon potentials may not be 8chlBYBd and are St the mlnlmum, directly depended UWn me ImplementatioO d me propeed lmprmemenk in be Rml decade H Is reasonable 10 epctlhstsome OISll allor"k may experience UP to B 10% redudon In AUMs during me Rnt decade b allow me asmmpllshmentd dpmian managementobldves

ZIT& acreage for lands allocated to management ares with Unleaded recreation emphsls (DB. Fa, F10, Ftl. G8)

W TOMacreage for lands allocated to managsment amas with visual WYICB smphaele (05, DB, 07,513. F25. Fa. Fm

UTolal acreage forlands allocated to management amas with old gmwlh emph-16 (04. FB, G5)

S/ToLal acreage for lands allocated to management ares wilh recrealion empharlo p,DlO.011. R, FB, F10. Fl1. F13. F14, FlB, F17, Fle, GB. 011. Gl2, Gl4)

61 Acres on Wund Mountain With rereation emphsls (applies to Wund Mountain National kcrealion TrslI)

ROD - 53 Ochoco National Forest Plan Amendment 3, November 9, 1990 STATE OF OREGON ALTERNATIVE 9. Increase the amount of uneven-aged manage ment. This alternative was developed by the State of 10. Add RNAs. Oregon Governor's Federal Land Planning Team utilizing Forest Service data, and with a public FOREST SERVICE RATIONALE AND FINDINGS review process separate from that conducted by RELATING TO STATE RECOMMENDATIONS the Forest Service. The alternative is a result of ABOVE: collaboration between the Forest Service, State agencies, the Governor's staff, and the public. 1. Riparian Management

The analysis of the State's alternative has riot been My proposal for riparian area management has documented in a detailed comparison with other had substantial changes between the Draft and alternatives in the FEE because of the late date it Final. It is essentially in agreement with the State, was received. However, the State of Oregon and and is in line with recommendations from CRITFC. Forest Service collaboration involved the former in The only point where we disagree appears to be the final decisions relating to the selection of a the level of protection for streams within the John plan for the Forest and Grassland. Day Basin. The State feels that the anadromous fish runs in this basin warrant extra protection. There were significant differences between the There is no disagreement on this point. The State State's alternative and the DElS preferred Alternative further proposes no scheduled harvest from riparian E-Departure.These differences were greatly reduced areas along major perennial streams and no through the changes I have made between the scheduled harvest along the lower half of the riparian Draft and Final (pp. ROD 40-49). I now find that the areas on minor perennial streams. I believe the State's alternative is similar to the Forest Service anadromous fishery in the Trout Creek watershed Alternative I. We are together in respect to major (Deschutes Basin) is equally as important and and important issues, for example: the level of should be included in this discussion. ASQ, roadless area allocations, disposition of the Deschutes Canyon-Steelhead Falls Wilderness Table 25 indicates the amount of protection afforded Study Area, big game winter range allocations, by the Forest Service Alternative Iwhich is, in addition grazing management, snag levels, allocations to the standards and guidelines, applied to maintain emphasizing recreation, management and planning the ecological potential of these fisheries. for ORV use. and the decisions on snowmobile use on Lookout Mountain. At this time, I believe adoption of the State's proposal for the Ochoco National Forest for more stringent There was, however, some clarification between protection in the John Day Basin through non- the State's recommendations and Alternative I scheduling of harvest for riparian areas would restilt needed which I will list here and then address, lor in insignificant change to the conditions attainable the record, below. for the Ochoco National Forest under the proposed Forest and Grassland Plans. Here is why. As shown STATE RECOMMENDATIONS: by Table 28, the level of protection which is being provided for anadromous fisheries is substantial. 1. Apply more stringent riparian management Half of the stream miles with spawning are allocated requirements on anadromous fish streams. to no tlmber harvest arid another nine miles to a 2. Further reduce road densities. double-wide 400 foot corridor. This translates into 3. Limit numbers of dispersed sites and reduce over 70 percent of the riparian areas which support their visual quality objective. the spawning of anadromous fish having a special 4. Reduce visual management requirements on emphasis above that proposed for nonanadronious certairi Forest roads and apply tineven~aged riparian areas. The remaining streams are protected management instead. by a 200 foot corridor, standards and guidelines, 5. Add the pine marten and the northern three-toed reducpd timber harvest levels, and more stringent woodpecker as indicator species. requirements relating to cumulative effects (see 6. Reach a sustained even-flow for ponderosa pine Table 12). Therefore, I believe that Alternative I will volume within a decade. result in attaining the desired future condition for 7. Provide a stable timber supply for Harney County. these streams. With intensive monitoring, any 8. Use both CF and BF measurements for planning probleins will be detected and changes can then and management. be made.

ROD - 54 2. Road Densities agreement, pertain to elimination of partial retention middleground as an allocation and the reduction in The State is of the opinion that open road densities average corridor width to 1,200 feet. The reduction in winter range should not exceed one mile per in road corridor to a more realistic width has allowed section in the winter and 2.5 miles in summer, and us to manage more miles of travel corridors with a that densities in general forest (MA-F22) and general visual objective and with less loss in timber volume forest winter range (MAF-21) should be 2.5 miles than was possible under the draft preferred alterna- per section. The only difference between the State's tive approach. proposal and mine is the recommendation of 2.5 miles per square mile compared to three miles per However, we have two apparent differences which square mile. I find reducing the road density to 2.5 involve the specific corridors to be protected and miles per square mile would have little to no effect the role of uneven-aged management in visual on predicted elk numbers and a 0 to 5 percent corridor management, especially on Highway 26. change in habitat effectiveness. However, the First, the State's proposal differs from that of the change to the 2.5 mile guideline would significantly Forest Service in that they recommend no visual increase road management costs. Since we achieve management objective for roads 12, 16, 42, 4155, State big game population objectives with the road 4370, 45, 58, and 5840, involving approximately densities in Alternative I, and the State and the 5,200 acres. Instead they propose using uneven- Forest Service are in agreement that we both desire aged management wherever feasible and extensive to manage roads effectively to meet wildlife and slash clean-up. I believe that reducing the visual recreation objectives, I conclude our differences on management objective to less than partial retention this point are really insignificant. With monitoring would result in unacceptable consequences to the and further studies (e.g.. Starky Experiment Station), visual character along important routes and would improved knowledge concerning open roads will create inconsistency across the Forest in how visual allow future opportunity for any needed adjustments. quality travel objectives are being applied. 3. Dispersed Recreation Sites The other difference is a proposal for uneven-aged Nine hundred and fifty dispersed recreation sites management as the primary method of management were identified by the Forest Service, and 1,970 for Highway 26. It is my position that uneven-aged acres (MA-F14) allocated for this use. The visual management is only one of the silvicultural systems quality objective for these sites was decided to be available to meet visual quality objectives; others retention. The State supports this approach, but may also be appropriate to meet objectives depend- they recommend a visual objective of partial ent on conditions. My decision is that the silvicultural retention. The change to partial retention in my system which best meets objectives for a given opinion, would not significantly increase the ASQ situation will be applied. on the Forest. Further, the State was concerned that the allocation be limited to the originally identified The Highway 26 corridor is presently managed sites and that the implementation of the Plans not under an existing visual corridor management plan set the stage for a proliferation of new sites, thereby which will be revised to bring it into compliance increasing the application of retention standards with the Forest Plan. This includes incorporation and hence a potential reduction in ASQ across the and utilization of uneven-aged management along Forest. It is my intention that the Forest and Highway 26 where it is appropriate. Grassland Plans be initially implemented with the acreage allocated as in MA-F14 and MA-G14. 5. Additional Indicator Species Suggested Dispersed recreation sites may likely be identified or dropped in future project level planning. With A question regarding indicator species arose-- appropriate project analysis and documentation, concern was expressed about the preservation of the dispersed recreation sites identified and their pine marten habitat in old growth lodgepole pine management will likely be modified over time. on eastern Oregon forests. The Ochoco National Forest has approximately 10,000 acres of widely 4. Visual Management scattered lodgepole pine stands, most of which occur below the elevational limits for habitat for Between the Draft and Final, my staff re-evaluated pine marten. In short, this particular Forest does visual management objectives for road corridors not have the natural habitat to support a viable and viewing areas surrounding recreation sites. population of pine marten. The same situation The resultant changes, with which the State is in exists for the northern three-toed woodpecker.

ROD ~ 55 6. Ponderosa Pine Harvest Level Over Time provide a stable flow of ponderosa pine from the Snow Mountain and Burns Ranger Districts in The State proposed that ponderosa pine volume decades two through five. Table 30 shows that the be leveled within the first decade versus Alternative projected volume from the Snow Mountain District E-Departure I have chosen to do this over a two is in agreement with the State’s proposal Also, decade period, while attempting to minimize the volume from decade two on can be manipulated drop and fluctuation and decline between decades with no effect on the first decade schedule The two and five (Table 29). Ochoco National Forest volume, combined with a preliminary estimate from the Malheur National Ponderosa pine volumes proposed for Alternative I Forest, shows only minor deviations from the State are more stable over time than that of in the draft recommendation until the fifth decade (third decade preferred (seeTable 29). This is the result of changes for pine volume). I am, however, directing the Malheur from draft to final I have made involving return to and Ochoco National Forests to continue to sustained yield vs departure, the addition of coordinate and monitor this issue with the intent of uneven-aged management, changes in rotation assuring the stability of a timber supply, within the diameters and extended rotations for some manage- extent practicable, in the Harney County area ment areas, and the model constraints placed on maximum first decade pine volume. It should be 8. Timber Volume Measurement noted that although pine volume is estimated to vary through time as showed by Table 29, combined The State advocated use of both cubic foot and species volume in Alternative I is on a sustained-yield board foot targets for ASQ. This is simply not basis practical at this time There is considerable variation from stand to stand within the FORPLAN model It is my belief that given the structure of the local classes, and it would be difficult to plan sales by economy and the uncertainty of the future that this making the board foot/cubic foot ratio of each stand approach better serves local economy needs and is more realistic given the complexities of controlling a major decision factor in the selection of areas for species mix, sale scheduling, and changing market harvest conditions The gradual two decade decrease in ponderosa pine also allows more flexibility in working The Regional and National direction (1920 Itr 9/13/88 with neighboring National Forests in order to and FS handbook 1922.15) is to use the actual maintain a more stable timber supply for the Burns cubic feet volume scheduled for harvest in the first area decade to determine the board feet scheduled for harvest Both CF and BF will be tracked in monitoring 7. Harney County Timber Supply The Forest Service expects to make the transition from the use of board feet to the use of cubic feet Concern was expressed over future timber supply sometime within the first decade. in Harney County. Attention was brought to the importance of the Malheur and Ochoco National 9. Uneven-aged Management Forests coordination to insure a relatively stable timber supply. It was asked that I analyze ASQ The State believes that the Forest should conduct levels to try to more evenly schedule the ponderosa uneven-aged management on more than 100,000 pine volume over time: including decline in the first acres of ponderosa pine in the General Forest decade to a sustainable level As with the ponderosa (MA-F22) in addition to riparian, visual areas, et al pine issue above, I have given considerable thought Again, I am in agreement in principal, but stand to this question. The same measures used to level conditions such as mistletoe and stand structure Forest-widepine volume apply to the Snow Mountain may limit the practicality of this For now, the Plan District pine volume scheduling Additional con- will include management using uneven-aged straints were modeled at the District level to help management on 100,000 acres of ponderosa pine address this concern and ponderosa pinelmixed stands. As part of the implementation and monitoring we will look for The State asked for 34 MMBF in the first decade additional opportunities to use uneven-aged man- from the Snow Mountain District with declining agement and where it will meet management volume in decade two and beyond; and, that we, objectives and where stand conditions are conducive in conjunction with the Malheur National Forest, it can be applied

ROD - 56

I Deschutes System 6 I John Day System 68l9 I 36 ~ I I Total 87 I 42 -1

1 NoTimher Harvest I1 I Four Hundred Foot Corridor I Tatel (NO Hamest B 400 Remaining wl2W Cmldoi Protection I cori I d 0 rl I I P S P S P s P s

John Day Baslo 31 5 20 7 12 0 78 435 28 5 24 5 75 Tiom (Deschuler) 10 3 50 12 60 15 13 0 45

TOM 326 210 17 so ")5 300 37.5 120

TABLE 29 ESTIMATED PONDEROSA PINE VOLUME (MMBF)

ALTERNATIVE DECADE

I DEB -Alternative E-Departure I 87 I 82 I 55 I State's Proposal I Alternative I

TABLE 30 PROJECTED TIMBER SUPPLY VOLUMES 1/ (MMBF)

Ochoso N F Mslhevr N F Snow Mountain RD Burns RD

11 Includes volume p~tenllallyavailable fiom lhe OChoCO and Malheui Nalional Forests m the Bum area Imed on wailable Informahon at lhli dale. Malhevr N F volume^ subject to change bared on Outcome 01 their final plan)

ROD - 57 10. Additional RNA's Suggested do not have established market values Economist's inability to express these values satisfactorily in The State pointed out they want to meet establish- monetary terms may be reflected in the PNV of this ment of the natural areas identified in the Oregon alternative, which is 395 million dollars (based on a Natural Heritage Plan We therefore are in agreement 50-year period) as compared to Alternative on the five RNA's proposed in Alternative I The 8-Modified at 455 million dollars, which emphasizes State further recommended that the Forest should commodity resources work with the Oregon Natural Heritage Advisory Council to investigate the possibility of incorporating two potential additions they have identified I have TABLE 31 directed the Forest to work with the PNW Experiment COMPARISON OF PNV BY ALTERNATIVE Station ecology section and with the Council to determine the significance of these and any other (Millions of Dollars) potential additions The Forest will recommend their incorporation into the Plan by amendment if I ALTERNATIVE I PNV I they should so warrant I-Preferred E-DEP VI. REQUIRED COMPARISONS OF 6-MOD ALTER NATIVES C-MOD 395 NC 380 PRESENT NET VALUE (PNV) OF ALTER- NATIVES I did not select Alternative C-Modified or B-Modified The former fails to fully recognize demands imposed The preferred Final, Alternative I, has the highest by local communities, and the economic realities of PNV (Table 31). While Alternative I does not offer our society. Another way of expressing this that the greatest timber volumes of the alternatives IS Alternative C-Modified does not provide a balance considered, the amount of timber it provides does between environmental considerationsand econom- not exceed the point where discounted benefits ic realities; there are benefits associated with equal or exceed discounted costs (marginal rate of Alternative C-Modified, but implementation could return is positive), this, in addition to a high amount be done only with very high costs and radical change of nonmonetary benefits, provides for a relatively to established local, social and economic settings high level of economic efficiency Alternative (see Table 27) The corollary to this is Alternative B-Modified, while providing higher levels of timber 6-Modified, which while possibly providing the availability, is actually less economically efficient In greatest economic benefits in the short term, has short, it exceeds the point where the discounted potentially undesirable environmental and socio- benefits are rising faster than the discounted costs. economic effects over time. It reduces options and Another way of saying this, is that the value of the increases risk for environmental impacts and extra timber in this alternative is lower and the socio-economic change that could be irreversible costs to get it are higher. Alternative C-Modified fails to capture economic opportunities and relies I believe Alternative I reflects recognition for the heavily on nonmonetary benefits (see FElS Appendix landscape and resource diversity of the Forest and 6) Grassland through the allocations or management areas identified While the output of commodity ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE AL- resources from Alternative I is considerably greater TERNATIVE AND NONSELECTION RA- than the "environmentally preferable" Alternative TIONALE C-Modified, the specificity and detail in allocations, and subsequent mitigation through application of The "environmentally preferable" alternative is standards and guidelines (seeMitigation, p ROD-62) defined by the Council of Environmental Quality assures a high level of environmental protection (CEQ) regulations as the alternative causing the and retention of future options least adverse impact to the biological and physical environment. This is Alternative C-Modified which In my judgement, Alternative I provides appropriate emphasizes aesthetic values, wildlife, wilderness, environmental safeguards at a minimum direct dispersed and unroaded recreation on the Forest. economic cost This alternative incorporates the These are nonmonetary resources which generally perspective that the Forest Service is the trustee of

ROD - 58 the environment for succeeding generations An different from those shown in Chapter 4 of the objective of Alternative I is to provide for the proper Forest Plan, depending on final budgets, new and continued development of resources in a information derived from updated inventories and manner that maintains economic stability, yet retains monitoring, and any future amendments or revisions local natural heritages, such as wildlife habitat, of the Forest Plan outdoor recreation opportunities, water quality, scenic qualities and open range. The Forest Plan supersedes or incorporates all previous land and resource management plans VI1 IMPLEMENTATION SCHED- prepared for the Ochoco National Forest and - Crooked River National Grassland as described by ULES Table 1, p. ROD4. Upon implementation of the Plans, management activities will be made to comply SCHEDULES AND IMPLEMENTATION with them. Appropriations or budgets may alter the schedule of activities In addition, all permits, The Forest Plan will be implemented through contracts, and other instruments for the use and identification, selection, and scheduling of projects occupancy of National Forest System Lands and to meet the management goals and objectives resource uses must be in conformance with the provided by the Plan (see Plan Appendix A) Forest Plan. Such documents will be revised where needed as soon as practicable, Subject to valid The schedule of proposed and possible projects existing rights This updating will generally be done for the first decade is contained in the appendices within three years of the Forest and Grassland Plans Project schedules will be available for review at the Ranger District All timber sales offered for sale after issuance of Offices and Supervisor's Office Schedules of the Forest Plan will be in compliance with direction possible projects will routinely change as projects contained in the Plan. Timber sales now under are implemented or are removed from the listings contract will be administered under provisions of for other reasons, and as new projects take their the existing contracts Changes to existing timber place. Adjustments to the schedule may be made sale contracts may be proposed on a case-by-case based on results of monitoring, budgets, and basis where overriding resource considerations are unforeseen events present. (See also, Consistency, p ROD-3)

The Forest Plan provides direction in the form of AMENDMENT AND REVISION PROCESS goals and objectives, standards and guidelines, monitoring requirements, and probable scheduling This Forest Plan may be changed either by an of management practices It does not cover projects amendment or a revision Such changes may come on specific sites except in a broad manner. Each about as a result of the monitoring process or proposed project will be subject to site-specific project analysis (Figure 1, p ROD-61). An amend- analysis anc(documentation in compliance with ment may become necessary as a result of different NEPA. Considerations revealedthrough this process situations They can include, for example: may result in a decision not to proceed with the proposed project, even though the project may be - Recommendations of the Interdisciplinary permissible under the Forest Plan Team based on their review of monitoring results The Plan's scheduled projects are translated into multiyear program budget proposals The schedule - The determination that an existing or proposed is used for requesting and allocating the funds permit, contract, cooperative agreement, or needed to carry out the planned management other instrument authorizing occupancy and direction The Forest's current year tentative annual use is not consistent with the Forest Plan, but program of work will be derived from this process should be approved, based on project level Upon approval of a final budget for the Forest, the analysis annual work program will be updated and carried out - Adjustment of management area boundaries or prescriptions The Forest work program will implement the management direction of the Forest Plan Outputs - Changes necessitated by resolution of adminis- and activities in individual years may be significantly trative appeals

ROD - 59 - Changes needed to improve monitoring plans - A statement of the appeal rights. or information and assumptions used in the Plan With respect to revision, the NFMA requires revision - Changes to correct minor errors or omissions, of the Forest Plan at least every 15 years. However, including clarification of text and tables it may be revised sooner if physical conditions or demands on the land and resources have changed - Changes made necessary by altered physical, sufficiently to affect overall goals or uses for the social, or economic conditions entire Forest If a revision becomes necessary, the procedures described in 36 CFR 219 12 will be Based on an analysis of the objectives, guidelines, followed. The Chief, however, must approve the and other aspects of the Forest Plan, the Forest scheduling of such revision Supervisor shall determine whether a proposed amendment would result in a significant change to the Plan. Ifthechange is determinedto be significant, VIII. MONITORING AND MITIGA- the Forest Supervisor shall follow the same proce- TION dure as that required for development and approval of a plan. If the change is determined not to be MONITORING AND EVALUATION significant, the Forest Supervisor may implement the amendment after appropriate public notice and The Monitoring and Evaluation Program is the compliance with the NEPA (Figure 1) The procedure management control system for the Forest and is described by 36 CFR 219.10(e) and (9, 36 CFR Grassland Plans. It will be used to provide information 219.12(k), FSM 1922.51-52 and FSH 1909.12 on the progress and results of implementation. One of the results of monitoring will be an assess- The Regional Forester will approve significant ment of the need for amending or revising the amendments, and the Forest Supervisor "non- Plan The monitoring and evaluation are discussed significant" amendments. The determination of in more detail in Chapters 5 of the Plans significance must be documented in a decision notice and would be appealable under 36 CFR Monitoring is intended to help keep the Forest Plan 217. A mailing list will be maintained to provide dynamic and responsive to changes Monitoring notification and invitation to comment on proposed and evaluation each have a distinctly different amendments. purpose and scope Monitoring consists of gathering data, observations and information During evalua- The amendment documentation will include at a tion, the data and information are analyzed and minimum: interpreted This process provides the information necessary to determine if conditions are within the - A statement of why we are amending the bounds and intent of the Plan direction. Forest Forest Plan (some possible reasons are Plan monitoring does not replace or substitute mentioned above) other Forest monitoring activities. Many activities are currently being monitored on the National - The actual amendment showing exactly how Grassland and Forest to comply with administrative it will look and legal responsibilities (FSM - 141OAdmin Review Procedures) Rationale for the amendment Monitoring and evaluation will provide information - A statement of significance related to FSM to determine if 1922 51 (This is the NFMA significance and relates to changes to the Forest Plan) Management prescriptions are producing the predicted or desired environmental effects - A statement regarding NEPA compliance (40 Laws, regulations, and policies are being CFR 1500-1508, FSM 1950, and FSH 1909 15) followed, including Regional Guide and Plan regarding effects on the environment and Standards and Guidelines how the effects disclosed in the Plan EIS may The Forest and Grassland Plan is responsive change as a result of the amendment to the issues, concerns, and opportunities

ROD - 60 FIGURE 1 AMENDMENT PROCESS AND DYNAMIC NATURE OF PLAN

Evaluate Project or Proposal I

I Consistent Nbt Consistent

VI I V Complete Project Change Analysis and NEPA <------Reevaluate document to be consistent project proposal or need

+ Change I Forest Plan I

I I TI TI Significant (NFMA) Not Significant - RF has authority I 1 (NFMA) I I 1 -FS has,authority 1

I v Complete Project Analysis and NEPA document 1 V Implement

ROD-61 - Costs of implementing the Plan are as project- projects are Yiered' to other planning level ed. measures above (see p. ROD-I). - Predicted outputs are being produced. - There are new issues and concerns not adequately addressed by the Plan. IX. APPEAL RIGHTS

Results of the evaluation will lead to decisions of This decision may be appealed in accordance with the following types. the provisions of 36 CFR 217 by filing a wrMen notice of appeal within 90 days after the publish - Continue practice, no change necessary. date of the Notice of Availability in the Federal - Refer the problem to the appropriate Forest Register on September 15, 1989. The appeal must officer for corrective action be filed with - Modify the management practice through Plan amendments - Modify land allocations through Plan amend- F. Dale Robertson, Chief ments. USDA Forest Service - Revise output schedules. P 0. Box 96090 - Revise unit output costs. Washington, D.C. 20090-6090 - Revise the Plan Reviewing Officer

A copy must simultaneously be sent to: MITIGATION

Mitigation measures are intended to minimize or James F. Torrence, Regional Forester eliminate potential conflicts or adverse effects of Pacific Northwest Region implementation. Mitigation measures have been USDA Forest Sewice developed through interdisciplinary efforts and 319 S W. Pine incorporated into the Plans at different levels in P.O. Box 3623 several different ways Portland, OR 97208-3623 Reviewing Officer - The standards and guidelines and manage- ment area prescriptions in Chapter 4 of the Plan are a fundamental and integral part of The notice of appeal must include sufficient narrative these measures, and as such they are a basic evidence and argument to show why this decision and essential part of the Plan. should be changed or reversed (36 CFR 217 9). Requests to stay approval of the Forest Plan under - The allocations (Tables 5 and 6, pp ROD 36 CFR 21 7 will not be granted 16-17) play an important role in mitigation by the separation of incompatible uses, impacts, Decisions on site-specific projects are not made in and conflicts. this document. The schedule of proposed and possible projects for the first decade is contained - National Forest Management Act (NFMA) in the appendices of the Forest Plan. Final decisions requirements were incorporated into the on these proposed projects will be made after pianning process and are reflected in the site-specific analysis and documentation in compli- allocations and standards and guidelines (EIS ance with NEPA. Appendix B, and SEIS, Pt II) If you would like more information on the Forest - "General Water Quality Best Management Plan or environmental statement, contact the Forest Practices' (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Supelvisor in Prineville. I encourage anyone who is Northwest Region, November 1988. 86p) are concerned about the Plan(s), or decisions herein, incorporated by reference under requirements to check first with the Forest Supervisor in Prineville, of Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. Oregon, (503)447-6247, before submitting an appeal, to see f concerns or misunderstandings - Mitigation measures are developed at the might be resolved. site-specific project level of planning, and

Ochoco National Forest Plan ROD - 62 Corrected Page, October 6, 1989 e U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1991691-108140,702 REGION NO $0