HomeMy WebLinkAboutUpdate 05-25-02
~l
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Rogue River
National
Forest
Ashland Ranger District
645 Washington St.
Ashland, OR 97520-1402
Date: Ma 2~,_2QQ7_._
~r~jilj [1 11..1.. ~ m
! I MAV 2 9 2rm i U I
WI II . !,-,
L..-,-.,..,--. ".___...J
CITY OF A.Sl-iL/\i\JD I
Greetings!
I want to update you about the progress of the Ashland Watershed Protection Project, and invite
you to a fie1dtrip to review work completed so far.
As a background reminder, the Record of Decision for the Ashland Watershed Protection Project
was signed May 25th, 2001. Two appeals were received on the decision and the resolution of
those appeals is explained in one of the enclosures to this letter.
Implementation of the project decision began in November 2001, and we have completed fire
hazard reduction on a portion of the planned acres in the lower elevations of the Ashland
Watershed, the area of highest priority. The work completed to date used the method of cut and
handpile for burning after the fire season, and using a slash buster machine that chips brush and
small matelial and returns it to the site. There are more acres yet to treat manually, but we want
to conduct a monitoring visit to review the work done to date as we assess proceeding with the
next work. A second enclosure to this letter summarizes some of the monitoring that has been
documented so far.
I wanted to invite people who've expressed interest in the project to join us for an on-site look at
the hazard reduction work so far. If you'd like, please join us on June 8th at 8:00 am at the
parking lot near Lithia Park that serves as an ice skating rink in the wintertime. This will likely
be an all day event, returning to the parking lot about 3pm. Wear sturdy footgear for walking
into the project units, and bring what you need for lunch and water. We'll need to carpool
among those who have high clearance vehicles.
If you can't join the fieldtrip, but have questions about the project, please give me a call at
482-3333.
. ~
I t, .....\ \~'
" . . \ ----
l.j0,-JQ,,---L~," /'
Linda Duffy (
DISTRICT RANGER
e
Caring for the Land and Serving People
""-
Printed on Recycled Paper '-,
..."...---'
linited States
Department of
Agricultl!!~~~~~~ _
Forest
Service
Rogue River
National
Forest
Ashland Ranger District
645 Washington St.
Ashland, OR 97520-1402
File Code: 1950
Date: May 17, 2002
To: Administrative Record
Ashland Watershed Protection Project Record of Decision
From: Linda L. Duffy, Ashland District Ranger
This memo serves as a status update and correction to Record of Decision for the Ashland Watershed Protection Project,
signed May 25, 2001, authorizing fire hazard reduction treatments on 1,549 acres located on the Ashland Ranger District
of the Rogue River National Forest. Notification of this decision was published June 1, 2001 in Medford's Mail Tribune
newspaper, initiating a 45-day administrative review (appeal) period pursuant to 36 CFR 215.
Two appeals to the Decision were received by the Regional Forester's Appeal Deciding Officer prior to the close of the
appeal period, The administrative review process provides an opportunity for the Responsible Official and the appellant to
informally resolve appeals at the local level prior to the Appeal Deciding Officer processing an appeal. Informal disposition
of the July 9, 2001 appeal was attempted on July 20, 2001, but was unsuccessful. The Regional Office was then notified
to proceed on reviewing that appeal. On November 6, 2001, the Regional Forester as the Appeal Deciding Officer issued
a letter to notify the appellant that they were supporting Linda Duffy's decision and denying the appellants request for
relief, Supporting rationale for the Appeal Deciding Officer's decision: 'The EIS addresses the site specific direct, indirect,
and cumulative environmental consequences of the proposed action, consistent with applicable laws, regulations, policies,
and existing direction, It is clear how the effects are estimated,..1 find the decision maker was well informed about the
issues raised in your appeal. I find no deficiencies in the analysis of consequences,"
In regard to the second appeal, an agreement was reached on August 22,2001 between the appellant and Linda Duffy
that resulted in the appellant withdrawing their appeal. This agreement resulted in minor changes to the May 25, 2001
Record of decision,
The agreed upon changes involve withdrawing an estimated 14.8 acres of mechanical treatment in Hazard Zone 2 areas
(Table 1) associated with units 4, 8,12, and 14. Within Unit 14, there will be no mechanical treatment within areas where
root disease is occurring as required by the Record of Decision, The withdrawal of mechanical treatment from Hazard
Zone 2 areas combined with no mechanical treatment in root disease pockets resulted in withdrawing all of Unit 14 from
mechanical treatment. Additionally, Hazard Zone 2 areas in units 10, 11, and 40 will be field reviewed by the Forest
Geologist prior to mechanical treatments moving forward, Based on Geologist review, all or portions of the Hazard Zone 2
areas within these units could be excluded from mechanical treatment. Manual treatments and follow-up maintenance
underburning will continue as planned within Hazard Zone 2 areas withdrawn from mechanical treatments. These
changes will result in lessening the environmental effects as disclosed in the ROD and FEIS. The reduction in acres of
mechanical treatment will have insignificant effects on the overall effectiveness of fire hazard reduction work,
Additionally, the following minor corrections have been made since the issuance of the ROD:
o Table R-1 of the Record of Decision inadvertently excluded manual treatment from the listing of treatments for
Unit Z; manual treatment has been added to the listing (Table R-1 - Corrected);
o Map R-1 was corrected to reflect the accurate mapping of Unit B as a result of excluding a Hazard Zone 1 area
discovered during unit layout activities (Map R-1 - Corrected);
Table R-1 and Map R-1 of the ROD have been corrected to reflect the changes as described in this letter (see
attachments),
Attachments (5)
Ashland Watershed Protection Project - ROD Correction Memo
"...,...,. -., ...-. --.._,
....
-
-0
(I)
-
u
(I)
L-
L-
o
U
-
co
(I)
>
;;
m
r:::
L-
(I)
~
<(
-0
(I)
!E
-0
o
:E
,...
I
c:
(I)
::is
CO
t-
l:;
s:::
W
"0
s:::
o
~
en
~
s:::
w
1ii
:OJ
'c
c.>
<(
-
"2
=>
>
-
s:::
W
"0
s:::
o
g
en
~
s:::
w
'ii
:OJ
'c
~~
I-
c.>
<(
-
'c
=>
-ciei)
OJ';::'
ill/!
<fl>-
1'-- <D
.8 .8
'" N
~ ill ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ 00 ro ro 00 ro ~ ~
E E E E 2 .8 E ~ E ~ B < S ~ B ~ B ~ E ~ B
m v rn v ~ ~ M Z V Z ~ Z v Z v Z ~ Z ~ Z ~
f---
..... "
",.c
~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- -
.....
~ ><
~a:
I-
...... :::: I"-
.8 .8 .8
'" 1'-- M
<( <( <(
zzz
.... .... co
.9.8<(<(B
M'" Z Z <0
aJl-(()COCOCOI-I-I-COaJl-l-[()
:::>z:::>:::>:::>:::>zzz:::>:::>zz:::>
I I :r:
000
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--- ---
LL I- LL
<fl Z <fl
I I
00
~~~~~~~1i1i~
LL LL I-
<fl Cf) Z
-cUi'
OJ';::'
.ellS
0",
<fl>-
~~
~ ~
+---1--- 1--
M M ~ ~ ...... ~ ~ M M ~ ~ M ~ M M M M M M M M ~ M M M ~ M M M M M M M ~
E B .8 .8 .8 .8 E B .8 S .8 B .8 B S .8 .8 .8 B .8 .8 B B B .8 S B B B .8 .8 B .8 .8
~ ~ M ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ _ ~ ~ _ _ _ _ M
11~
.=:;;
co
Cl.
:r:
rommro m COaJrororocoxroOOCO(()(()
~~~~ro~ro~~~Q~~~~~~~~
IIII~I~IIIIIIIrIIII
~J J JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJ
ZZcoZCOZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZCOZZ
2~:::>2:::>2222~~~~~~~~~2~~~~~:::>~~
co CO
CL. Cl.
:r :r:
~~
I-
co CO
Cl. Cl.
I I
~~~ff~g:---1Z-
II:r::r:I:r:~
~- ::C
~ ~
IIIIIIIII IrIrIIIIIrIIIIrIIIII~~
000000000 0000000000000000000000
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
mwwwwww~w~wwwwmwoo~~wWWWWWWWWW000WWW
~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ N ~ ~ rn
M M
'" M
~S4~frl~
J9W
ILJ
._-~
0> 1'--
~r!::g~c;;~r--~~
co ~
W LL C) I
W U_ LL '..'l 01:r:II
-==J~~S2---1
~ OJ
~2~Z~OCl.orr<flI-:::>>~X>N~
-DC;;
"'~
.clil
OOJ
Ul>-
r-- coco cO CO
.8<(.8.8<(.8<1:.8
MZLDlnZL(')Zl()
CClCOCOro
.8 .8 .8 .9
l{) tf) U') l()
<0
~;;~~~
co
<>:2<(<(<>:
z<ozzz
oJ .
"'-6
OJ '"
.=::;:
'" '"
~~~~
co co co
,g .9 .8
.... .... ....
cocorooocot--..t-
<X: .8 .8 .B .9 .E .s .8
Z""=TV.q~U')C"')M
c
~ ~
mCO ~~
~otS roD
t- Q) E .~ Q)
(ij == ~ 15..-0
E.g~ ~ ~
~:]g-gO:'=
II II::lZ ~
~~~~~
:;;:I:::JZ~
'"
=
co
0..
:r:
~ .~
g-~O~:3
UoU"-.D
-8 ~ I ~ ~~
.cI~~~3
~ .~ .~ .~ .~ ~
......ro..c:roro3:
ii~~~~~
~=fi~=fi=fi~
~~~~~~
0>
~ ~
)(
~
8 1"
~ -~r
(.)tJ)(1):I-__
:n~~m<DEc
.....LLLL01
Q. <l) >- a:l ro
~~g~~
E ::3 ro ...... 0
~~~Y47
..... u...u. x.....
t-=IU'J (,) '-.) Z
.... 1'--
.9 .8
M M
.... ....
.8 .8
M M
I- CO I- I- I- CO I- CO CO <( CO <>: co CO CO co CO <>: CO I- I- I- CO CO <>: <>: CO CO CO <( CO co CO CO CO co CO CO CO co CO
z:::>ZzZ::JZ:::>::JZ:::>Z:::>:::>:::>:::>:::>Z::JzzZ::J:::>zZ::J::J:::>Z:::>::J:::>:::>:::>:::>:::>::J::J::J:::>
1ii..
~a:
I-
:r:
o
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-CUi'"
-Ei
Ul>-
LL LL
<fl (f)
~~~~~~
LLLLLLLLlLLLLLL.1....l.LLLLL.
<fl<flCf)<flCf)Cf)<fl<fl<fl<flCf)
("")~~~MMM~ml()l{)~l{)l{)l()~l{)~MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM~MMMMMM
.8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 B .8 B .8 .8 .9 B .8 .9 .9 2 .9 .9 .8 .8 .8 B .9 .8 B .8 .8 .8 .8
~ ~ M M ~ ~ ~ cry M M M M M M M M M cry ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ _ _ _ _ M _ ~ _ _ _ _
1;i...:
",t;
.=:;;
CO CO
0.. Cl.
:r: :r:
.....J".....J"CO
COzzCl.CO
:::> ~ ~ I ::J
...J ...1 ....J
Z :r::r: Z Z
~ ~::;; ~ ~
CO CO
roD-COn.. OJ
Cl.ICL:r: Cl.
I.....J"I.....J" I
CO CO CO -Iz: -IZ CO _fCO
~::J~Z~Z~~Z~
iii~~~~~-~i
~~::;;~~~::;;::;;~~
----
CO
Cl. CO
I :::>
J...1
CO Z Z
::J::;;::;;
CO
CL
I
-,CO
Z Cl.
~ I
-'
:r: Z
::;;::;;
co CO
::J ::J
JJ
Z Z
::;; ::;;
c:oro COlDro
a.. a.. C) CD a.... 0.. a..
II::J::JIII
-1-JJJ....iJJ
ZZZZZZZ
::;;::;;::;;:::;;:::;;::;;:::;;
co CO CO
0.. Cl. Cl.
III
J..J...1
Z Z Z
:::;;:::;;:::;;
CO
CL
I
co OJ-.J-COCO coco CO CD
a... o..Za...a... a... a... a.. a...
II~IIIIII
2lixiiiii;1
:::;; :::;; :::;; :::;; :::;; :::;; :::;; :::;; :::;;
:r: I I :r: :r: I :r: I:r:
00 OUOO 0 00
I~~:r:II:r:I~~~~I~I~~III:r:III:r:II
OOOOOOOOOOOOUOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WWWWW~~~wwwwwwwwwwroWWWWOOWOOW
I
U
:CI:r::C:C:CILL:c:r:::r::r:::r::r:
OOOOOOOOOOUUOO
L.L LL LL LL LL LL LL- LL LL- LL LL- u: u.- LL
WWOOWW(/)Cf)OOU)WWU)(f)(f)
--
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ro ~ M M ~ ~ ~ m ~ v m ~ ID ~ 00 ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ffi
m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ g M
~C"')~~L{)ID
1'-- CO co
N C"'J ....;;t 1.O 00 0') 0
C") (""') C"') C'? C"') M ..q-
...........,
<(~coffi08
..........,
~~\~~\~:~:"/~ (>r/ ( (/-(~\\\)}\>(~) /llK(,)) (~~ ,]A~" "-
-l\~-::~ /~~~\\ \\\~\ l ~-'~ l/f\!<,,-,:::- ~~" :~~-
~~ .(r;3~~~~~~~~ ~ 't ~ (~.~~ _ "J\~)lJr--~~ -,,~
~;! ~I (\iV)'J~ I !/, j ~ ,\ f\t, ~?llt' IV
~\ ( \ (Ii ~ ~~ \/,~> -Ie ~~~ ~ ~\ '"' ,\\ '1l: ~ j.JY~~~-~ ': i\ {
JIffj" 1r '.y>'-~. C) !Iu \\~ \ ~ t\~~\~S:-,-;-~ld~ I m
Sr~~~'J~~~~ ~~ .~;~~ li~
~~~_I~~~~_~~~~ ~] ~~.~~~~ s C) ~~ ~SJ~// !)~ll\\ ~
/ II · ~~'1 ~ ~ v;; '~7"'1: l~p) (j~ ~~~I ~~ t~
\V (f~~~ '" if'-~ ~ \ ~'/~'I -l.. ~- \ ~l :~
~: ~I~ /~jw)J)! ~/ ')~~75(~/ - /~~\ ,h;\
\\\ t) ~\ .tl '" '\ ?///~)))~ '((~'''~It,-~ ..~ _ W~~\
\\ v"(<l)~)V~n\S)) %~~ ~,,~~~ ;JR~'?~~,J~~,J/;,
o ~\ \<\ .\ t-X I) W~ ~ ~~/ 4~~ ~ '\~ J
~ II flfJ [( I/~:)~~ ,::::~ir0~Jrrrij0~~~~j{c-~ \) 'll~
___V)).I~. ~.....~.-. ':l,.r~~c~i((( ~~. \\\\~&-~' \rrr~': ~~~~~
~Yi7~{~~~~~);;0 ~~~ \ ~~ 1>tiJ)(~~O :'t,~)\C~~
)1)V!!ff;~/:P"/::~~rr~ ~,~: :1 ,\ ~~\ .~ .J"~)'l~\\\~~\S;~?l(
~~ ~...~~~1j ~~~~\ ~ I0\1$ ~W M~pj~.S)::C~ l~~
!Y))J I ) I ~. --, (I;j v'~~' ~11f1; ~~V b w~ )-)l~
4Y-/ 1 G. '-! ~ JI/( \ \'t: '~' ~V/, I l'\ \ ~ rl~! Id L;;)j~~~~ ~
/) I\H)1fY-~):'J j\ ('~~~ ~~ ~ ~J lj/ '\ ~~ ~-)1(ci;' \ d
)j))l/;c0~~ '"- ~1 .\ \~J ~ / "'~:\\) ~~\"...,,~ ~ :'~.~
?/;~ 1 /Y;-/i .~,\,~\ / :~) 1 ~~~\ )t\\
A::,~~:~:'~gn'~~~~~'~tt ''-~~\~k\>i~ \;, 'I\}~~) flffil ~~) ~]\ \V/\ \~
Alternative 6 (Modified) (la~~1.~ ~8~1 ~ 11/ ));"'V ~~
(Corrected) ~ ~ ,~~ ~ (/ v---'<~~
;., p" leot A,.. \.;;;0 C~ I,':.., Ii>,"r ~ ~'\~~ [ ,. fJ~
l__J MechanicalTreatment Methods ~~. V C?(' \
[zj,,! Uolt O"'go,"oo ~7~~t4P: '..:;. ~t I ~ ~ ,'~~ / 'I A
ij~\' ~\\~~ ..)1 / N Obn 1bn
~)! ,\\l) ~.~V;.+' ~,'.UL',~,!
~~;;<;;'~
' ~1~A~
~
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Pacific
Northwest
Region
P.O. Box 3623
Portland, OR 97208-3623
333 S.W. First Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
File Code: 1570-1
01-06-0029-15
Date: November 6, 2001
Eric Navickas
711 Faith Avenue
Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Appellant:
This constitutes my decision, pursuant to 36 CFR 215, on your appeal (01-06-0029-15) of
Linda L Duffy's Record of Decision (ROD), for the Ashland Watershed Protection Project,
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
I have reviewed the appeal record for the project. The record includes the EIS, the ROD, and the
Appendices. The Appeal Reviewing Officer (ARD) focused the review on the documentation
developed by the District Ranger (DR) and the soil issues raised in your appeal. A copy of the
recommendation is enclosed. The appeal record addresses the relevant, site-specific issues raised
in your appeal.
A review of the decision documentation indicates that substantial consideration was given to the
relevant, site-specific soil issues raised in your appeal. There was early and continuous
discussion between the Forest Service (FS) and the public regarding the issues. The EIS
documents that the FS considered and addressed all the issues and concerns relevant to the site-
specific soil impacts of the proposed action. There is no indication that the commercial units
should be eliminated from the proposed action. I find the District Ranger's ROD is consistent
with the requirements of the Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan
as amended.
The EIS addresses the site-specific direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental consequences
of the proposed action, consistent with applicable laws, regulations, policies, and existing
direction. It is clear how the effects are estimated for direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.
The discussion of environmental consequences relevant to cumulative impacts is adequate when
considering the magnitude and intensity of the proposed actions. The record demonstrates that
the selected alternative will meet the purpose and need for the action.
s
Caring for the Land and Serving People
""-
Printed on Recycled Paper ..,
Appellants
2
I find the decision-maker was well informed about the issues raised in your appeal. I find no
deficiencies in the analysis of consequences. The EIS addresses the cause and effect
rclationships and discloses how the information was used in predicting environmental
consequences,
Based on the decision documentation and the ARO's recommendation, I support the DR's
decision and deny your requested relief.
This decision constitutes the final administrative determination by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and is not subject to further administrative review.
Sincerely,
Is/9{ancy (jray6ea[(for)
LlNDA GOODMAN
Deputy Regional Forester
Appeal Deciding Officer
Enclosure (ADO)
..,......__.'_._.n........._
er~i~
\~j
~
l.nited States
Department of
Agriculture
Pacific
Northwest
Region
P.O. Box 3623
Portland, OR 97208-3623
333 S.W. First Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
Forest
Service
File Code: 1570-1
Route To:
Date: November 6,2001
Subject: Ashland Watershed Protection EIS
(Appeal # 01-06-0029-15)
To: Regional Forester
On May 25,2001, Lind L. Dufty signed a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Ashland Watershed
Protection EIS. On July 9, 2001, Eric Navickas filed an appeal.
1 conducted my review in accordance with 36 CFR 215. My review was to ensure that the
analysis and decision are in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policy, and orders.
The appeal record, including the appellant's objections and requested relief, have been
thoroughly reviewed.
The appeal asserts there is a need to withdraw all commercial units in the project area. The
appellant asserts the commercial removal of trees will severely impact sensitive soils in the area.
My recommendation is based upon the following evaluation.
Clarity of the Decision and Rationale
I have examined the stated purpose and need for the project and find it is consistent with
National policy, agency objectives, and the Forest Plan. The selected alternative will
accomplish the stated purpose and need.
I find the Responsible Official's logic is adequately described by the ROD. The selected
alternative responds to both public and agency comments. The project description and
implementation requirements described in the ROD, EIS, and supporting documentation are
clear.
I believe the District Ranger (DR) made a reasoned and informed decision, and I agree with the
decision as described by the ROD. The decision documentation clearly demonstrates and
supports the purpose and need for and the benefits and environmental consequences of the
alternatives, including the selected alternative,
Caring for the Land and Serving People
~
Printed on Recycled Paper "',
Ecgional Forester
2
The decision documentation is consistent with the Rogue River NF LRMP, as amended. The
project proposal is consistent with Agency policy and direction. The decision documentation
indicates that the DR carried out an extensive process for providing public participation
opportunities and responding to comments.
Requested Changes and Objections of the Appellant
The appellant's requested relief in general is that the decision be reversed relevant to
commercial units within the project area, After reviewing the appellant's assertions and
supporting rationale, granting the requested relief is not warranted.
Based on my review, J recommend you affirm the DR's decision.
Is/Lisa E. Freedman
LISA E. FREEDMAN
Appeal Reviewing Officer
Acting Director, Natural Resources
...,......